![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipAll my major tasks at Borderlands and Student Partnerships Worldwide are now more or less complete, so now I can dedicate myself to publishing and writing again. Which means (drum roll).. the formal foundation of the Mimesis Publishing Cooperative. It is proposed that this is a non-trading cooperative with shares, mainly because that (the government guarenteed rules) the best way to avoid the various hefty fees. We have already had interest from Akademos (delightful name) for cooperative ventures.
Anyway, the Formation Meeting is noon, Saturday July 3 at the Borderlands Cooperative, Augustine Centre, 2 Minona Street Hawthorn.
Had dinner with Jenne and Katie last night, two fellow political and para-religious activists. Jenne (a reform Jew) took over from me as president of the Aboriginal Affairs Policy Committee when I went to East Timor and has been active on indigenous issues for years. Katie (a liberal Quaker), who has recently become a mother, spent her political energies on refugee support, and founded the low-key "Liberals for Refugees" about two or so years ago. It was like the beginning of a joke: "So, this Jew, a Quaker and a Unitarian are having dinner....". All jokes aside however, it was great to see them. We haven't moved in similar circles since my return to Australia and I used to see both of them almost every week.
Speaking of such matters, the Melbourne Unitarian Church held a peace concert last weekend. On my request, the collection of a few hundred dollars was directed to the Tabessi War Widows and Veterans Association in East Timor. It will make quite some difference there. Following the concert, caseopaya and I wandered in and joined the World Environment Day Tasmanian Forests' rally. Whilst the turnout was impressive, I felt that the "carnivale" atmosphere typically present at such gatherings was absent.
The campaign for legal equality for same-sex relationships is bound to get nasty. Catbiscuit has alerted me that the Federal Minister believes that keeping it in the closet is the best option. Meanwhile the Onion (courtesy of Darkstar) is full of its standard goodness: Gay Couple Feel Pressured to Marry.
Meanwhile, back on a serious note: A petition calling Mark Latham to support same-sex relationships. Sign it, cut and paste it. Email it far and wide. Stick it in your journal. http://www.gopetition.com/online/4457.html
The attempt rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan is fairly typical. After all, it is in the vested interests of mass media editors to do so; he was their man. So let us not forget that he converted the United States from the world's biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation, that he was a war monger who had a complete and utter disregard for international law, and pathologically sick sense of humour which included "jokes" about the nuclear annihilation of an entire nation.
All that said, it must also be mentioned that Reagan was actually a left-winger until "converted" by some thuggish behaviour towards him by members of the American Communist Party in the 1940s. I am reminded of Peguy's statement: "the social revolution will be moral or it will not be". On that note, Hamish McDonald (who, I must confess I have had the opportunity to meet in East Timor), provides the right reports on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square:
Blood on the Tanks and "We will never fire on the people"
Anyway, the Formation Meeting is noon, Saturday July 3 at the Borderlands Cooperative, Augustine Centre, 2 Minona Street Hawthorn.
Had dinner with Jenne and Katie last night, two fellow political and para-religious activists. Jenne (a reform Jew) took over from me as president of the Aboriginal Affairs Policy Committee when I went to East Timor and has been active on indigenous issues for years. Katie (a liberal Quaker), who has recently become a mother, spent her political energies on refugee support, and founded the low-key "Liberals for Refugees" about two or so years ago. It was like the beginning of a joke: "So, this Jew, a Quaker and a Unitarian are having dinner....". All jokes aside however, it was great to see them. We haven't moved in similar circles since my return to Australia and I used to see both of them almost every week.
Speaking of such matters, the Melbourne Unitarian Church held a peace concert last weekend. On my request, the collection of a few hundred dollars was directed to the Tabessi War Widows and Veterans Association in East Timor. It will make quite some difference there. Following the concert, caseopaya and I wandered in and joined the World Environment Day Tasmanian Forests' rally. Whilst the turnout was impressive, I felt that the "carnivale" atmosphere typically present at such gatherings was absent.
The campaign for legal equality for same-sex relationships is bound to get nasty. Catbiscuit has alerted me that the Federal Minister believes that keeping it in the closet is the best option. Meanwhile the Onion (courtesy of Darkstar) is full of its standard goodness: Gay Couple Feel Pressured to Marry.
Meanwhile, back on a serious note: A petition calling Mark Latham to support same-sex relationships. Sign it, cut and paste it. Email it far and wide. Stick it in your journal. http://www.gopetition.com/online/4457.html
The attempt rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan is fairly typical. After all, it is in the vested interests of mass media editors to do so; he was their man. So let us not forget that he converted the United States from the world's biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation, that he was a war monger who had a complete and utter disregard for international law, and pathologically sick sense of humour which included "jokes" about the nuclear annihilation of an entire nation.
All that said, it must also be mentioned that Reagan was actually a left-winger until "converted" by some thuggish behaviour towards him by members of the American Communist Party in the 1940s. I am reminded of Peguy's statement: "the social revolution will be moral or it will not be". On that note, Hamish McDonald (who, I must confess I have had the opportunity to meet in East Timor), provides the right reports on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square:
Blood on the Tanks and "We will never fire on the people"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Correction
Date: 2004-06-09 08:56 pm (UTC)Exactly why is actor a silly profession for anything? Particularly politics. After all, audience holding skills are important.
And, perhaps someone who is willing to play opposite a monkey doesn't take himself too seriously. Not such a bad thing in a President, really.
That sort of stuff seems just a form of snobbery nd an excuse not to engage tougher issues.
It's a modern intelligentsia version at sneering at the early Labor politicians because they were workers.
Re: Correction
Date: 2004-06-09 09:10 pm (UTC)And probably did a better job than some of their modern day counterparts (either Labor or Liberal)!
I guess all politicians are actors of sorts, just one's that try and keep the people interested in what they do, rather than entertained (though there is that element to)
Maybe I'm just to jaded and cynical
Re: Correction
Date: 2004-06-12 04:26 pm (UTC)And a certain healthy scepticism is important.
Socrates!
Date: 2004-06-09 09:12 pm (UTC)Although I am reminded of the Socratic viewpoint on the matter. He would approach the issue with his normal child-like simplicity: "Who would you go to fix a pair a pair of shoes?" "A shoemaker, O Socrates", "And who would you go to to purchase a fish?" "A fishmonger, O Socrates", "And who would you go to to steer a ship?" "A sailor, O Socrates".
"And who you would go with to govern the State?"
At that point invariably people fell quiet.
His own answer was somewhat contradictory. On one hand he suggested that because the state was interested in the good, therefore you should choose the most good people. On the other hand (in his Apologia) he claimed that an honest person would have a very short life in public office.
That said, although I do mock Reagan for a lot of reasons, there is no doubt about his knowledge of political affairs. Even during his acting career he was very much involved. What I do claim - and this is a criticism I have of a lot of politicians - is that their loyalties were to their institutions (the Republican Party, the United States etc), rather than to the principles of justice and freedom.
And that to me seems to be the greatest danger in the world.
Re: Socrates!
Date: 2004-06-09 11:10 pm (UTC)Re: Socrates!
Date: 2004-06-12 04:32 pm (UTC)The President of the United States is required to be loyal to the US. It's in his oath of office. If he's not, he should resign.
Institutions are what makes societies work. They are what all social progress is built on.
The trick is to get them to operate in particular ways.
Similarly, in representative politics, 'good men must combine or else fall, lonely failures in pointless struggle' or words to that effect.
This does not empty public life of moral choices. But it is part of the unavoidable web of constraints.
Re: Socrates!
Date: 2004-06-12 05:22 pm (UTC)I agree with you entirely with your comments on institutions, the unity of the good and moral choices, although I must also confess a great deal of sympathy for the anarchist and "early Marx" wish (a la some Enlightenment philosophers) that people act with a "natural good".
But with regard to the US, there are specific and general loyalties. One can be loyal to the institution and advance the particular interests of that institution (i.e., the US nation-state) or the general principles on which it was founded (i.e.., the Declaration of Independence).
I doubt that I'll ever have problems with the following words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Re: Socrates!
Date: 2004-06-12 07:13 pm (UTC)Not as a reliable rule they don't. Hence the paradox of politics -- we need the state to protect us from social predators, but the state itself is the most dangerous of social predators.
general and specific
Yes, there are principles and they continue to affect American policy (you can't really understand the full import of the American visceral rejection of the ICC without them).
But principles are there to serve real people. The interests of the people of the US have real claims on the Presidency. It is not an either- or, it is a matter of marriage and trade-offs.