From Fox News: "Evangelical leader Pat Robertson told FOX News Radio Thursday morning that he and other evangelicals would not support McCain, citing his temper. Robertson referenced a Wall Street Journal article describing him as a ‘capped live volcano,’ adding: ‘You never know when he’s going to explode … If you’ve got a guy who’s the commander in chief with his hand on the red button, I just don’t know, I wouldn’t like to be in WW III, and I just have a feeling he wants to show how macho he is and we might just get ourselves in something we don’t want.’"
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/02/robertson_says_2.html
Epicurus might have been indifferent to politics, but World War III is another matter.
Obama is grown-up and has extraordinary self-knowledge. He has gone though his black pride rebellion, has tried drugs, has admitted it and has discussed his adolescence in two books. He is confident, easy in his skin and is not touchy, defensive or secretive. A man who is relaxed about admitting mistakes and is comfortable about negotiating with those he disagrees with, rather than banging the table and losing his temper, is exactly the sort of person who should lead a modern democracy and have his finger on the nuclear trigger.
Obama is more likely to induce ataraxia than most prominent national politicians. Epicureans should rejoice that such a man emerges at a crucial moment in history.
It’s amazing that there are people out there who actually seem to be vested in the nasty language and swiftboat mentality of the Clinton/Bush years, hopefully soon ending for good. They seem content about two wars that cannot be “won”, endless corruption, maladministration in the Federal government, vote fiddling in the constituencies, ideologically based decisions about health, education, the environment, family planning and so on and so on. What the young and the young at heart want is a government that shows an interest in the whole country, not part of it, and tries to do something (if it can) about healthcare and struggling middle class workers. Meanwhile the self-absorbed baby-boomers worry about what? Themselves. If this is christianity, give me Epicureanism any day.
I agree that the baby-boomers have left a dreadful legacy, but no worse than some others in history. The problem is that they think they are so wonderful and they are not. The sooner they butt out and retire and let us have a good government the better. The idea of another Clinton or Bush in the White House would make me leave the country.
” two that cannot be “wonâ€, endless corruption, maladministration in the Federal government, vote fiddling in the constituencies, ideologically based decisions about…..if this is Christianity….
Suzy, I very much doubt that the Founder of what is labelled Chirstianity would recognise it either.
Does it advance our road to reform to lambast an age cohort? It seems to me to impede our ability to analyze what is needed to effect political and economic reforms. To speak of “baby boomers” is to hand the framing of our public discourse over to the destroyers. How? Because while such a buzz-phrase may be convenient shorthand it yields only small information about who does what and at the same time it divides people by something they couldn’t help (birth) and leaves out the core issue: what people and organizations DO.
Worse, it is extremely dangerous because it deflects attention from the organizations and executives who wield real power. Name them, their lobbyists, what they own, how they influence lawmakers. I don’t care when they were born, I want to shine the light on the specific sociopaths, not an entire demographic cohort which lets the powerful off the analytical hook.
For example, why not substitute the name the men and women who run Blackwater or CACI, name the CEO’s of the vested interests — the financial institutions, health insurance business, education lobbies, military contractors, religious thugs, verbal and physical. Every time we’re tempted to say “baby boomer” name the person, the organization, the damage, the power.
As long as they’re perceived as a large age-group rather than specific people and organizations, real analysis is thrown-off by a term which divides large numbers of us from each other. That’s the last thing reformers need as we push the peas of change up the side of Vesuvius. Control of the political vocabulary which shapes public discourse is the Holy Grail of the vested interests.
For example, who hired the likes of the dirty-mouthed cable ranters? Who writes their checks? That information, rather than their birth dates, would help us think more clearly, it seems to me. From what generation were the Swift Boaters? I don’t know and it matters not, what counts are the lies, who paid for them, and individual accountability.
Other examples. The telecoms and the financial institutions which thrive on corrupt dealings are the real danger, who owns them? who runs them? As long as we keep repeating “baby boomer” the individuals and corporate powers slide away, unnamed and unaccountable.
Finally, human beings ought not to be judged by when they happen to be born. I consider Epicurus, Thales of Miletus, the Gracchi brothers, and Thomas Aquinas closer “friends” than many people walking the Earth now. Of course, they’re not CEO’s or centers of political power, are they? More’s the pity, say I.
And now — off to see a new human being, not even 12 hours old and for whom we work to make things better.
You are probably right, but the younger generation doesn’t discriminate particularly. The reason it wants change and is rooting for Obama is because it’s generally fed up with the whole way the country has been run, and wants the next generation to take over and try to do better. Who’s right or wrong, who is on the side of the angels etc is secondary to getting a new start..