Friday Frivolity

My intention is to offer a more lighthearted topic for discussion every Friday as a respite from the contentious and weighty issues of the work week.

Today we will begin with some of my favorite "B-Movies." Please offer some of your favorites and a brief desciption.

"Southern Comfort" (action/drama) -- An inept National Guard unit on maneuvers in Cajun country makes the fatal mistake of picking a fight on "enemy turf." While perhaps a little clumsy as an allegory of Vietnam, this is a highly entertaining and well acted picture. Starring Keith Carradine and Powers Booth.

"(When You Comin' Back) Red Ryder" -- (drama) A psychotic drug smuggler crashes a border town diner and subjects his hostages to emotional torture for kicks. Starring Marjoe Gortner and Hal Linden.

"Eating Raoul" -- (comedy) A middle class couple in need of financing to realize its dream of opening a restaurant, stumbles upon a novel method involving S&M prostitution, murder and cannibalism.

Let's assume that, regardless of how anyone answers the query in the prior post, the U.S. government will continue to project its powers in a manner directed at the internal governance of foreign nations. Recognizing that the obvious preference for representive governments that emphasize individual rights and self-determination and are also supportive of our interests will likely not be attainable in all cases, do you believe that we should:

1. Make "democratic" institutions and "representative government" the primary goal of our exercise of power, even in those instances where this might result in governments opposed to our interests?

2. Make the establishment and/or preservation of governments "friendly" to our interests the primary goal, even in those instances where this might require a degree of oppression of substantial segments of a nation's population?

Foreign Policy vis à vis the Muslim world

Which best describes your position:

1. The United States and the West have wrongly oppressed the Islamic nations and peoples. We should recognize the righteousness of many of the goals of radical Islam and accede to its demands by relinquishing entirely our influence in their "homelands" including our cultural, economic and military imperialism. Specifically, the elimination of the State of Israel is a just goal and we should not impede Islamic efforts to reclaim the land unjustly occupied by the Jews. Neither use of force nor imperialistic diplomacy is justifiable and we should simply allow the Islamic world to organize and conduct itself as the local balances of power and influence dictate without our intervention.

2. We have some valid interests in the region and some moral basis for exerting influence there but we must be much more accomodating to Islamic goals. A closer look would reveal many common interests and the basis for a negotiated political solution that will satisfy both us and the vast majority of Islamic people, end the power of the radical elements of Islam and allow for peace to prevail. The Islamic world will peacefully accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state if it simply agrees to withdraw to its 1948 borders.

3. It is unrealistic to believe even a semblance of order and security can be achieved in the forseeable future unless we maintain or even increase our influence and we must use some degree of military force as part of a broad strategy based on the premises that the conflicts will persist and we must "manage" the conflicts through the targeted use of force to prevent the staunchest of our enemies from consolidating and growing their power. Preservation of Israel is a goal but a secondary one and should not drive our policy.

4. Grand scale war is inevitable and the belief in either negotiated peace or successful "management" of low-intensity conflict is but wishful thinking. We must prepare to fight and win what will be a long and costly war that will be on a "World War" scale. We must defend Israel and assure its existence.

Thanks everyone

I just want to thank everyone who has posted so far. I started this just yesterday simply because I have searched in vain for an open forum where people intelligently and civilly discuss the issues of the day.

Day One exceeded my most optimistic hopes. That we actually have a reasonable debate ongoing about abortion where everyone is expresing their opinions and beliefs without disparaging the character or intelligence of those who disagree is remarkable in my experience.

THIS IS NOT AN ABORTION BLOG. I just picked that as a test run figuring if I could attract people able to discuss that with open and fair minds, I might be able to get something worthwhile going. THIS IS NOT A POLITICS BLOG either-- although I care deeply about politics and enjoy debating the issues.

This is intended to be an open forum for discussing a range of things I and others find interesting-- politics, law, philosophy, religion, literature, art, music, sports, entertainment, whatever....

Feel free to suggest things as topics for new posts or to let discusions morph into something else rather than a strict adherence to my opener would allow. I want this to be a fun forum and not impose rules or my ego (which is monstrous) on it.

All I ask is that we refrain from profanity and try to respect one another. We can strongly disagree and even "attack" other's ideas without "attacking" each other.

Thanks again and please feel free to direct here any friends (or enemies) you know whom you think would enjoy and contribute to this blog.

MOE

Abortion

Which best describes your position:

1. A women has a constitutional right to abort unwanted pregnancies and the government should have no power to regulate this medical/moral decision. This should be the "law of the land" decreed by the United states Supreme Court.

2. An unborn baby has a constitutional right to life and a pregnant woman should have no power to end its life. This should be the "law of the land" decreed by the United states Supreme Court.

3. The constitution must be construed as providing rights to both pregnant women and the unborn and a constitutional balance must be found by the judicial branch when there is a conflict between these less than absolute rights. Striking this balance is the province of the United States Supreme Court.

4. In its essence abortion raises political questions that should be answered through representative government (a) at the state level; or (b) at the federal level by Congress.

Welcome

Welcome. I launch this enterprise by posing a question.

If one goes hunting with Bobby Knight and Dick Cheney, what is the best strategy for survival?