I am an individual, amateur blogger. I am not the same as some other people on the internet with the name “peteybee”.
theme of this site
US politics, with emphasis on: domestically, economic justice, and the undesirable stability of the two-party system. internationally: the direct and indirect participation of the US in foreign conflicts, the spread of totalitarian tendencies, and the pattern of feeding the “baddest actors” in proxy conflicts.
The use of language and propaganda/advertising angles on the main theme subjects. Some of the philosophy that surrounds the theme subjects. Throw some tunes in now and then to lighten it up a bit. It isn’t worth it to be all serious all the time.
point of view
Critical. I have a national allegiance to the US, in the sense that I care about the US, I want to live here for good, and I want the US to prosper. However I am not willing to support my country when it acts in ways which are clearly (1) self-destructive, or (2) destructive to individuals, groups, or nations, in an unjust way. I define justice in a roughly Rawlsian way, although I should admit that I have only superficial knowledge of his philosophy. One very simple principle that runs through my interpretation of what justice is, is that the rules applied by person X to person Y, or by country X to country Y, must also count in reverse — if Y applies the same rule to X. [footnote 1]. As such, I am sympathetic to open-minded examination of the views of those who are commonly perceived as our “opponents”, in cases when this principle of reciprocity / universality is not followed.
At the same time I recognize that there are multiple sets of rules with different purposes. One set of rules is for determining right and wrong. Another set of rules is for the purpose of maintaining some order, without making judgments about right and wrong. I try to maintain an awareness of the distinction between the two sets of rules — a whole lot of confusion goes away if we make this logical division. For example, the principle of reciprocity / universality in the previous paragraph is essential for the integrity of the first set of rules (for justice), but can be left out of the second set of rules (for order), without inhibiting their function. Although I strongly suspect that there would be pretty big benefits for the two sets of rules to converge — that is, if the rules for order were also just.
The futility of movements protesting the war in Iraq, realizing that the Democratic party differs little from the Republican party when it comes to the theme topics, and the realizing what it really means when we say that states must make decisions in a tradition of thinking that is marketed as “cold blooded realpolitik”. First, it means the decisions are deeply amoral, to a degree that takes some time to properly internalize. Second, and this is less obvious, is that in order to retain the ability to process decisions in a cold-blooded way, the processing mechanism must take measures to retain its power. This means that one can justify the priority of short-term political considerations that actually undermine long-term well being. For example in the selection and training of decision-making staff. A deeply dysfunctional situation which is a recipe for disaster.
philosophy on propaganda/advertising techniques
If you can’t beat’em, join’em. 😉
 – The “veil of ignorance” concept is actually more sophistacated and general than the concept of “universality / reciprocity”, but I think universality / reciprocity is simpler and easier to understand, so is better rhetoric. Maybe.
 6-7 years of staring at the obvious should do it.