Amadeus is a political researcher and consultant residing in Oregon. This week, in his blog dharma vision, he tackled the issue of Politics and Hatred.“Lately, I have begun to again study the notion of hatred.” he writes. “It really is a hard thing to understand. We often hold such deep feelings about issues that they could sow seeds of hatred within us. I know mine sometimes do and although I have become a little better at recognizing it, I still have a long way to go.”
Note: Tom's since updated what he wrote based on what I had originally written wbelow, and I present the updated stuff here:
Mumon of Notes in Samsara writes about Bush's miscues in Japan, where he is slashing back at domestic critics of his war, bumfuzzling his hosts. [In one stop on the island nation, Bush insisted he wasn't there speaking for the US government, while at another stop, he thanked the prime minister for sending troops to Iraq.] "Nixon [could handle diplomacy]; he was venal but talented." observes Mumon. "George W. Bush, miserable failure that he is, is venal but not talented."
Having said all that, and I didn't actually mean a criticism of what Tom wrote so much as an explanation of what I wrote, much of below still holds, I think:
I, for one, have always looked at blogs blogging things politically not as about hatred, but about recording what's happened, recording feelings, and attempting to see how an expressed idea, as expressed at various "places" in cyberspace propagates. Which is not to say my interest is purely clinical, but
- If you don't understand the relationship betweeen Google, George W. Bush, and "miserable failure," I suppose you might mistake associating "George W. Bush" with "miserable failure" as hatred, when it's only innocent Google bombing, that is to propagate a relationship that's already been around for a while. For reasons.
- I would think it's not particularly disputable at this point that yes, George W. Bush is one of the more venal presidents we've had, and indeed, Nixon was more competent.
- I believe it was Soen Nakagawa that said that, in effect, tabloids could be read as sutras if viewed appropriately. I read neither sutras literally nor my own writing as holy writ.
- Finally, we are all responsible for George W. Bush. And Saddam Hussein. And the Dalai Lama. And the guy down the street. And the guy starving. There are places in cyberspace that pretend this responsibility does not exist. I think it's axiomatic that it's a good thing - a helpful thing- to put cyberspace in a state that recognizes this responsibility.
Does Michelle Malkin hate? Powerline? Kos? Some on Kos undoubtedly do. Maybe Ehrenburg did.
Maybe it was just business.
These are indeed trying times, and that means, I think, we should mindfully try to find what works and get skillful at it.