Sunday, October 11, 2009

To begin my blogging with the beginning of my blogging - I shall embark on a discourse about civil issues, in a civil way. As Merriam Webster defines "civil": ". . . of or relating to the state or its citizenry . . . adequate in courtesy and politeness . . . of, relating to, or based on civil law . . . relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings . . . of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs . . . .





Posted by at
Labels:

5 comments:

  1. John in CincinnatiOctober 12, 2009 at 5:06 AM

    When I saw the phrase "civil discourse" I remembered hearing Gandhi was once asked what he though about the idea of Western Civilization. Sounds like a wonderful idea, Susan. You might find of interest "Public Agenda for Public Engagers" (http://bit.ly/13NpWW). Public Agenda, a non-partisan public interest organization was founded by social scientist and author Daniel Yankelovich and former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in 1975. Yankelovich was an early supporter, if not initiator, of changing the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Susan TruittOctober 13, 2009 at 8:52 PM

    Thanks, John - I will definitely check it out. You have written some wonderful things about conversation, too. Perhaps we can collaborate on some articles!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Susan TruittOctober 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM

    From: Wiktionary: Civil discourse (plural civil discourses)

    1. An engagement in conversation intended to enhance understanding. Done well, it can drive to insight that is actionable in the context of furthering individual dignity and improving society.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Susan TruittDecember 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM

    Obamanable

    Disappointment hardly begins to describe the ragged feelings of many after Obama’s announcement that he will be sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Our economy is in freefall, yet Obama has committed to spend trillions of dollars in a war that cannot be won, a war that he vowed to end when he was courting votes. The trillions of dollars that will be spent in this fruitless effort would be much better spent in assistance and training for the millions of unemployed people in the United States who face a stark future, or creating jobs, or providing health insurance for the millions of Americans who have none, or improving the education system so that there is actually a level playing field regarding resources and opportunities for all children.

    Obama, how could you? How could you condemn tens of thousands of brave and courageous troops to death by Afghanistan? How could you essentially inflict death upon tens of thousands of innocent Afghan citizens, who will die as the result of “collateral damage” in that country? How could you go against the clear mandate that was handed to you in your Presidential Landslide victory, when the country elected you, in large part, because you vowed to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did someone perform the equivalent of a lobotomy on your backbone? And to think that many of us actually defended you when you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and were lambasted by people who claimed that you did not deserve it.

    Apparently, you did not deserve it. Further, you did not deserve to win the Presidency if this is the heinous, spineless, way that you will proceed with business as usual in the country’s capital.

    It is an utter Obamanation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Susan TruittDecember 5, 2009 at 6:02 AM

    See, Why We Fight: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682#

    And Eisenhower's warning against the military industrial complex: http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

    And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

    And the war profiteering scene about Cheney's company, Halliburton, from Fahrenheit 9/11 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TxqoMOp36c

    What part of this does Obama not understand?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)