delusional? 3145

Susie and the Kernel

As I was leaving the office last evening
I stopped to talk with my friend from Africa.
As usual we discussed politics and world affairs.
We spoke about Egypt, Oman and the current unrest
in those regions as well as here at home in Wisconsin.
The discussion took a turbulent turn when my friend
launched into a vitriolic attack against (in his words)
glen effing beck. He said this man is dangerous.

So this morning I got up thinking first about democracy
and then freedom. It came to a focal point when I heard
a news item where Suzie was saying that the Kernel is
delusional because he said he was NOT attacking/hurting
his people...that is my loose understanding of what
was said.

Notwithstanding, I wanted to get some clarity on the use
of force and the nature of freedom. My friend was trying to
convince me that democracy was coming to the troubled regions
of the world and that the protests and uprisings that we are
seeing were all good. I was not convinced. I told him that
it seemed that people needed 'benevolent dictators'.

Can popular uprisings to overthrow despotic and tyranical
leaders be considered democratic in any sense?

In his recent state of the union address the President said:
"We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us.
Reforming our schools, changing the way we use energy,
reducing our deficit -- none of this will be easy.
All of it will take time. And it will be harder
because we will argue about everything."

IS THIS REALLY THE NATURE OF (OUR) DEMOCRACY?

he went on to say:
"some countries don't have this problem. If the central government
wants a railroad, they build a railroad, no matter how many homes
get bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper,
it doesn't get written. And yet, as contentious and frustrating
and messy as our democracy can sometimes be,
I know there isn't a person here who would trade
places with any other nation on Earth." (Applause.)

so far so good, as long as I understand contention and contentoiusness as:
disagreement
dialogue
debate
discussion
discourse (civil)

defense of an idea, opinion or beleif is usually verbal in our democracy ...maybe we should limit our 'defense policy' to verbal exchanges (LOL)

the president also said:
"We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything is possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.
That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight."

This is the part that could move us beyond freedom to force, only if
we are not steadfastly committed to "finding common ground".

Now back to Suzie (Susan Rice) and the kernel (sp) Khadafi.
Who gets to decide if your opinions, ideas and beleifs are delusional?

...and if your mental state becomes an issue should we now move
beyond freedom to force?

and what about glen effing beck? is he also delusional?

this is a slippery slope...I will stick with the president:
CIVIL discourse ALWAYS... to find 'common ground'.