RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:05 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:48 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 8227
I don't know if you saw this little bit in the news??? Apparently everyone knew about it but me. :|

That Reinhold Niebuhr is James Comey on twitter

I don't know if you'd like to read what James Comey has been tweeting for the last few years??? All the way back to 2009.

Here's the link to Reinhold Niebuhr >> https://twitter.com/reinholdniebuhr?lang=en

Here's the link to the new James Comey‏Verified account>> https://twitter.com/Comey



This is at the Reinhold Niebuhr feed:

Reinhold Niebuhr‏ @ReinholdNiebuhr Nov 6
"Ain't no thang"

Retweeted James Comey‏Verified account @Comey

"Here’s my new handle. Glad to be part of the Twitterverse. Grateful to Reinhold for the cover these last few years."

-----

Reinhold Niebuhr‏ @ReinholdNiebuhr Oct 30
- Me

Retweeted James Comey‏Verified account @Comey

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Reinhold Niebuhr

-----

This tweet on May 8th is interesting, it was the day before the AX:

"Been noodling this for a while but not sure it's a thing: Assless Chappie?"


This was one of his tweets from the day of the AX:

"I Just Purchased What Color Is Your Parachute? 2017: A Practical Manual for Job-Hunters and Ca... "

-----

This day of the AX tweet was interesting as well:

Reinhold Niebuhr Retweeted Joshua Holland
"New phone. Who dis?"

Joshua Holland Retweeted Nieman Lab
cc: James Comey@ReinholdNiebuhr

Nieman LabVerified account@NiemanLab

Here's how easy it is to securely leak information to some of America's top news organizations
Image
One quick download and a codename: If I can use SecureDrop, you can do it too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:44 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13493
Yes, saw that when it came out.

Lol every religion nerd in America saw that when it came out :)

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:47 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13493
Lol one of my favorite accounts on all of Twitter is KimKiekegaardashian

https://twitter.com/KimKierkegaard

LOL!

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:06 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 8283
Location: Sunny South Florida
Interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr

In 1952, Niebuhr published The Irony of American History, in which he interpreted the meaning of the United States' past. Niebuhr questioned whether a humane, "ironical" interpretation of American history was credible on its own merits, or only in the context of a Christian view of history. Niebuhr's concept of irony referred to situations in which "the consequences of an act are diametrically opposed to the original intention", and "the fundamental cause of the disparity lies in the actor himself, and his original purpose." His reading of American history based on this notion, though from the Christian perspective, is so rooted in historical events that readers who do not share his religious views can be led to the same conclusion. Niebuhr's great foe was idealism. American idealism, he believed, comes in two forms: the idealism of the antiwar non-interventionists, who are embarrassed by power; and the idealism of pro-war imperialists, who disguise power as virtue. He said the non-interventionists, without mentioning Harry Emerson Fosdick by name, seek to preserve the purity of their souls, either by denouncing military actions or by demanding that every action taken be unequivocally virtuous. They exaggerate the sins committed by their own country, excuse the malevolence of its enemies and, as later polemicists have put it, inevitably blame America first. Niebuhr argued this approach was a pious way to refuse to face real problems.

[snip][end]

Very much my own point of view.

But no, I'm not tweeting under his name.

Also I note: [back to the Wiki]

The historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in the late twentieth century described the legacy of Niebuhr as being contested between American liberals and conservatives, both of whom wanted to claim him.[71] Martin Luther King Jr. gave credit to Niebuhr's influence. Foreign-policy conservatives point to Niebuhr's support of the containment doctrine during the Cold War as an instance of moral realism; progressives cite his later opposition to the Vietnam War.

[snip]

In more recent years, Niebuhr has enjoyed something of a renaissance in contemporary thought, although usually not in liberal Protestant theological circles. Both major-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election cited Niebuhr as an influence: Senator John McCain, in his book Hard Call, "celebrated Niebuhr as a paragon of clarity about the costs of a good war".[73] President Barack Obama said that Niebuhr was his "favorite philosopher"[74] and "favorite theologian".[75] Slate magazine columnist Fred Kaplan characterized Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech a "faithful reflection" of Niebuhr.

[snip][end]

I can see why Comey is using Niebuhr as his alter ego.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 6673
Location: miles from nowhere
Interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr

In 1952, Niebuhr published The Irony of American History, in which he interpreted the meaning of the United States' past. Niebuhr questioned whether a humane, "ironical" interpretation of American history was credible on its own merits, or only in the context of a Christian view of history. Niebuhr's concept of irony referred to situations in which "the consequences of an act are diametrically opposed to the original intention", and "the fundamental cause of the disparity lies in the actor himself, and his original purpose." His reading of American history based on this notion, though from the Christian perspective, is so rooted in historical events that readers who do not share his religious views can be led to the same conclusion. Niebuhr's great foe was idealism. American idealism, he believed, comes in two forms: the idealism of the antiwar non-interventionists, who are embarrassed by power; and the idealism of pro-war imperialists, who disguise power as virtue. He said the non-interventionists, without mentioning Harry Emerson Fosdick by name, seek to preserve the purity of their souls, either by denouncing military actions or by demanding that every action taken be unequivocally virtuous. They exaggerate the sins committed by their own country, excuse the malevolence of its enemies and, as later polemicists have put it, inevitably blame America first. Niebuhr argued this approach was a pious way to refuse to face real problems.

[snip][end]

Very much my own point of view.

But no, I'm not tweeting under his name.

Also I note: [back to the Wiki]

The historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in the late twentieth century described the legacy of Niebuhr as being contested between American liberals and conservatives, both of whom wanted to claim him.[71] Martin Luther King Jr. gave credit to Niebuhr's influence. Foreign-policy conservatives point to Niebuhr's support of the containment doctrine during the Cold War as an instance of moral realism; progressives cite his later opposition to the Vietnam War.

[snip]

In more recent years, Niebuhr has enjoyed something of a renaissance in contemporary thought, although usually not in liberal Protestant theological circles. Both major-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election cited Niebuhr as an influence: Senator John McCain, in his book Hard Call, "celebrated Niebuhr as a paragon of clarity about the costs of a good war".[73] President Barack Obama said that Niebuhr was his "favorite philosopher"[74] and "favorite theologian".[75] Slate magazine columnist Fred Kaplan characterized Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech a "faithful reflection" of Niebuhr.

[snip][end]

I can see why Comey is using Niebuhr as his alter ego.

Interesting. One wonders what the founders would have made of him. of course the problem these days is war/intervention is not what it used to be.

I suggest Rosa Brooks' "How Everything Became War and The Military Became Everything: Tales From The Pentagon." She worked for an Undersecretary in the Defense Department and brings into sharp focus issues such as how we attempt to put war into a box, how war has changed, how war is the norm in terms of day-to-day and how peace is the aberration. Other issues raised are the disconnect between the military and society as a whole, the rigidity of the military in its thinking and so on. She also makes some radical proposals regarding the organization of the military and its relationship to government.

Foreign entanglements of Washington's time are far different today. Washington et al could little predict the massive speed changes in transportation and communication nor the massive changes in weaponry as well as development of materials that provided use for weapons such as ammonium nitrate. No, war is natural and on-going. The arc does not bend toward justice. Man prefers conflict in the name of security and other societies do not "share our values" as our values are no more universal than anyone else's. Is a worldwide or at least international government or institutions the answer? Perhaps. If they can be developed and adhered to. I won't hold my breath.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:08 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13331

I suggest Rosa Brooks' "How Everything Became War and The Military Became Everything: Tales From The Pentagon." She worked for an Undersecretary in the Defense Department and brings into sharp focus issues such as how we attempt to put war into a box, how war has changed, how war is the norm in terms of day-to-day and how peace is the aberration. Other issues raised are the disconnect between the military and society as a whole, the rigidity of the military in its thinking and so on. She also makes some radical proposals regarding the organization of the military and its relationship to government.

Foreign entanglements of Washington's time are far different today. Washington et al could little predict the massive speed changes in transportation and communication nor the massive changes in weaponry as well as development of materials that provided use for weapons such as ammonium nitrate. No, war is natural and on-going. The arc does not bend toward justice. Man prefers conflict in the name of security and other societies do not "share our values" as our values are no more universal than anyone else's. Is a worldwide or at least international government or institutions the answer? Perhaps. If they can be developed and adhered to. I won't hold my breath.


I pretty much agree with Rosa Brooks on everything...except the title of the book. IMHO, in this country, war and the military are not everything. Jobs and the economy are everything...after that, war and the military are everything else.

Obviously it can't all be about the military...but not so obviously it also can't all be about jobs. The latter is how we ended up with Donald in the Oval Office.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 6673
Location: miles from nowhere

I pretty much agree with Rosa Brooks on everything...except the title of the book. IMHO, in this country, war and the military are not everything. Jobs and the economy are everything...after that, war and the military are everything else.

Obviously it can't all be about the military...but not so obviously it also can't all be about jobs. The latter is how we ended up with Donald in the Oval Office.
And yet how many jobs are tied to the military? How much does the military impact the economy?

I also think that I did not explain enough. The military now engages in what some on the left and right derogatorily refer to as nation-building. They build infrastructure in places where they have been placed during conflict. They deal with outbreaks of disease. Because they have to as COIN demands it in hearts and minds. The weaponization of social sciences demands it. Yet that does not explain or help delineate where war ends and non-war begins because the lines and distinctions have blurred and basically disappeared. The military hires contractors to do tasks the military used to do and yet those contractors are not subject to military law.

The problem lies imo in the belief that we prefer peace to war and that war is the aberration. We do not believe in peace. We believe in hegemony with ourselves at the top because after all if someone else were at the top it would be "horrible." But how is what we have not horrible? Yes, yes, democracies do not fight with each other at least militarily but. they most certainly do economically. however our neighboring democracies are not the problem as you know.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13493

The historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in the late twentieth century described the legacy of Niebuhr as being contested between American liberals and conservatives, both of whom wanted to claim him.[71] Martin Luther King Jr. gave credit to Niebuhr's influence. Foreign-policy conservatives point to Niebuhr's support of the containment doctrine during the Cold War as an instance of moral realism; progressives cite his later opposition to the Vietnam War.

[snip]

In more recent years, Niebuhr has enjoyed something of a renaissance in contemporary thought, although usually not in liberal Protestant theological circles. Both major-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election cited Niebuhr as an influence: Senator John McCain, in his book Hard Call, "celebrated Niebuhr as a paragon of clarity about the costs of a good war".[73] President Barack Obama said that Niebuhr was his "favorite philosopher"[74] and "favorite theologian".[75] Slate magazine columnist Fred Kaplan characterized Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech a "faithful reflection" of Niebuhr.

[snip][end]

I can see why Comey is using Niebuhr as his alter ego.


Ha, the way I see it, the right is trying to claim Niebuhr these days about like they are trying to claim MLK.

Some of them do like the Protestant neo-Orthodoxy/Barth, but then neo-Orthodoxy interestingly enough gave us feminist theology, at least the way one of the OG's, Rosemary Radford Ruether did it (she's still around.)

I wish I could find an online archive of Christianity and Crisis, the mag he founded and edited during the WW2 era. Printed on newsprint, it looked and felt like The Nation. In a sense, Christianity Today is the conservative answer to it. Christianity Today in the Trump era looks to me to be going through a serious identity crisis, at least their Facebook presence does. But a personal note - Christianity and Crisis was one of my tickets out of rightwing Evangelicalism.

I did find an obit for the mag, laid to rest in 1993. :(

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/04/us/in ... issue.html

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 15052
Location: The blue parts of the map
The US believes in peace once a year at the UN. The rest of the time, war is good business, and it is essential to have one going somewhere at all times.

_________________
True patriots are appalled.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], gounion, marindem, RoyPDX, ted and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group