Thursday, December 29, 2005
Monday, December 26, 2005
More Thoughts on Fascism
I came across this quote in Robert O. Paxton's THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM:
"Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing to carry out [their] anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful propaganda images. Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dissolved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners' purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfaction of employers."
Fundamental to the establishment of the inalienable rights of all human beings as defined in the Declaration of Independence which marked the beginning of these United States is the separation of powers as defined in our Constitution. In fact, our very real freedom and liberty (when it does exist at the individual level) stems directly from the separation of power in this nation raised to the nth power: between church and state, between branches of government, between political parties, between employees and employers (when unions exist, protecting the rights of workers), between public school and parents in the minds of our children, ad infinitum.
The biggest danger (like in HUGE) from the Straussian Neocons is that by using a centralized loyalty to the Neocon leadership within the framework of the Christian Right (it's all about establishing an elite to rule for the benefit of the masses lest we succumb to some idealogy--ain't that a hoot!), the Neocons eliminate de facto separation of power.
The secularist is bought off with the concept that the pursuit of self-interest ultimately brings the greatest collective good ... with the benchmark for the pursuit of self-interest defined as a mix of personal wealth and power. And as FEMA's Mike Brown and Defense's Don Rumsfeld have shown, loyalty trumps competence in the Neocon scheme of awards.
The religious true-believer is bought off with the Biblical story of Job. God rewards those who stay the course.
The trouble I have with the Left is that they believe that if they get THEIR hands on the controls of the distribution of wealth and power, THEY will create Nirvana for the masses.
At least under Capitalism (not Monopolism), you have the creative tension between the interests of the working class vs. the interests of the owners, expressed in the distribution of profit. One benefit of Capitalism is this creative tension ... at least until we have a 1984 world, or become a banana republic, or descend entirely into fascism.
The very real problem with the atheistic Communist state, is it's failure to sustain the essential characteristic it defines in human history, the dialectic of thesis and antithesis. It is the struggle between what "is" and what we can imagine "ought to be" that defines in our choosing "what we will in turn create for our future" this essential characteristic of being human. We can choose.
Eliminate choice, and we no longer are human beings. Without the separation of power, there is no choice.
"Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing to carry out [their] anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful propaganda images. Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dissolved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners' purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfaction of employers."
Fundamental to the establishment of the inalienable rights of all human beings as defined in the Declaration of Independence which marked the beginning of these United States is the separation of powers as defined in our Constitution. In fact, our very real freedom and liberty (when it does exist at the individual level) stems directly from the separation of power in this nation raised to the nth power: between church and state, between branches of government, between political parties, between employees and employers (when unions exist, protecting the rights of workers), between public school and parents in the minds of our children, ad infinitum.
The biggest danger (like in HUGE) from the Straussian Neocons is that by using a centralized loyalty to the Neocon leadership within the framework of the Christian Right (it's all about establishing an elite to rule for the benefit of the masses lest we succumb to some idealogy--ain't that a hoot!), the Neocons eliminate de facto separation of power.
The secularist is bought off with the concept that the pursuit of self-interest ultimately brings the greatest collective good ... with the benchmark for the pursuit of self-interest defined as a mix of personal wealth and power. And as FEMA's Mike Brown and Defense's Don Rumsfeld have shown, loyalty trumps competence in the Neocon scheme of awards.
The religious true-believer is bought off with the Biblical story of Job. God rewards those who stay the course.
The trouble I have with the Left is that they believe that if they get THEIR hands on the controls of the distribution of wealth and power, THEY will create Nirvana for the masses.
At least under Capitalism (not Monopolism), you have the creative tension between the interests of the working class vs. the interests of the owners, expressed in the distribution of profit. One benefit of Capitalism is this creative tension ... at least until we have a 1984 world, or become a banana republic, or descend entirely into fascism.
The very real problem with the atheistic Communist state, is it's failure to sustain the essential characteristic it defines in human history, the dialectic of thesis and antithesis. It is the struggle between what "is" and what we can imagine "ought to be" that defines in our choosing "what we will in turn create for our future" this essential characteristic of being human. We can choose.
Eliminate choice, and we no longer are human beings. Without the separation of power, there is no choice.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Thoughts in the aftermath of the strike by Local 100 of the TWU against the MTA
"The MTA is corrupt." This seems to be the consensus opinion of the pundits.
"New York Governor Pataki has appointed political cronies and shills to the governing board of the MTA." This statement (paraphrased here) is repeated by a wide spectrum of politcal analysts.
Yet the strike was "illegal".
But it was legal for Mayor Bloomberg, a rich white man, (I'm a poor white man) to attempt to give away hundreds of millions of dollars of MTA property value to a wealthy cohort--value that had been created in large part by the efforts of the workers aka members Local 100 of the TWU.
Reminding us of the Civil Rights movement, Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has raised the issue of social justice as a higher calling than the letter of the law, particularly when the Taylor Law is so obviously unjust in allowing public governing bodies to delay settlements, sometimes for years, and then not have to make up all of the back pay.
Some definitions with links:
MTA - Metropolitan Transportation Authority
TWU- Transportation Workers Union - Local 100 - National
Office of the Mayor of New York City
Office of the Governor of New York
"New York Governor Pataki has appointed political cronies and shills to the governing board of the MTA." This statement (paraphrased here) is repeated by a wide spectrum of politcal analysts.
Yet the strike was "illegal".
But it was legal for Mayor Bloomberg, a rich white man, (I'm a poor white man) to attempt to give away hundreds of millions of dollars of MTA property value to a wealthy cohort--value that had been created in large part by the efforts of the workers aka members Local 100 of the TWU.
Reminding us of the Civil Rights movement, Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has raised the issue of social justice as a higher calling than the letter of the law, particularly when the Taylor Law is so obviously unjust in allowing public governing bodies to delay settlements, sometimes for years, and then not have to make up all of the back pay.
Some definitions with links:
MTA - Metropolitan Transportation Authority
TWU- Transportation Workers Union - Local 100 - National
Office of the Mayor of New York City
Office of the Governor of New York
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Postcard sent to Mayor Bloomberg
December 22, 2005
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
If you hadn’t tried to “legally” transfer hundreds of millions of dollars of MTA property value to wealthy cohort(s) … maybe this little ol’ farm boy from Northern Minnesota wouldn’t think you are full of manure regarding what you call an “illegal” strike. The wealth you tried to give away was created by the efforts of the working men and women of the TWU.
What is it about rich white men anyway? Do you really think wealth is a measure of some god’s favorable attitude toward you?
Sincerely yours,
Hilding G. Lindquist
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
If you hadn’t tried to “legally” transfer hundreds of millions of dollars of MTA property value to wealthy cohort(s) … maybe this little ol’ farm boy from Northern Minnesota wouldn’t think you are full of manure regarding what you call an “illegal” strike. The wealth you tried to give away was created by the efforts of the working men and women of the TWU.
What is it about rich white men anyway? Do you really think wealth is a measure of some god’s favorable attitude toward you?
Sincerely yours,
Hilding G. Lindquist
An impeachable offense?
President Bush (#43) admits he violated the Fouth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and ordered the NSA to spy on citizens of the United States without any judicial oversight let alone a warrant.
Have you been watching his gyrations and those of his supporters in justifying this action?
Bush, on his own, replaced judicial oversight and instituted warrantless searches of the "papers and effects" of citizens with limited Congressional oversight ... and we now learn that at least one Senator (U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, Dem-W.VA) raised the issue of their probity with the Executive Branch.
If this is not clear, what is clearer than this?
Have you been watching his gyrations and those of his supporters in justifying this action?
Bush, on his own, replaced judicial oversight and instituted warrantless searches of the "papers and effects" of citizens with limited Congressional oversight ... and we now learn that at least one Senator (U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, Dem-W.VA) raised the issue of their probity with the Executive Branch.
The Constitution for the United States of America
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.If this is not clear, what is clearer than this?
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
The MTA Strike vs. the War in Iraq: a struggle for the attention of New Yorkers
Wednesday, December 14, I went to Carmen at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City, aka The Met—seldom confused in conversation with the other Met, the Metropolitan Museum.
The MTA strike hadn't started yet and the city was alive and aglow with the holiday season festivities. The War in Iraq did not intrude on our consciousness, let alone our activities. The war was not making a difference in the lives of the revelers, as far as I could tell. Whatever disturbance was occurring, was occurring out of sight and out of mind.
Not so with the strike against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) by the Transport Workers Union (TWU), now that it has started. "My god," say the Republican politicians, "the strike is disrupting our lives. We're not safe. People can't get to work. The stores are empty. This is an illegal strike. Fine the union. This is happening to us. It has to end. Now!"
If Iraq weren't so tragic, the irony would be laughable.
Some background to the strike: First, I unabashedly support the unions. The last minute change to the pension contribution, the excess funds accumulated by the MTA, and Mayor Bloomberg's willingness to give hundreds of millions of dollars in MTA property value to wealthy associates create a climate of distrust on the part of the workers who do the work that creates the wealth. There is no good-faith bargaining on the part of the MTA if they hide behind the "no-strike" law to bring the workers to heel.
Then like Bush #43 on 9/11, Bloomberg invokes the decrease in crime in the city in his comments about the need for the union to return to work, as if people don't want to work.
What we need is a living wage ... enough to support a family with children.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
What is it that President Bush doesn’t understand?
In CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776,
the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America:
The Constitution for the United States of America
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The Gettysburg Address:
… government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.President Bush's order to spy on citizens of these United States of America is a clear violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and is in direct opposition to the principles that have made our nation great.
Let's not forget that a big--like in HUGE--reason we were blindsided on 9/11 was the administration's--led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld--preoccupation with a Stars Wars defense.
You know, it does get a wee bit scarey when this little ol' farm boy from Northern Minnesota can spot the manure pile from a distance, and those standing in the middle of it, can't even detect the odor.
Friday, December 16, 2005
How quickly times flies ...
How quickly time flies when you're old and having fun.
The war in Iraq has a kind of surreal experience for those of us in the United States who are making no real sacrifice in waging it. Yet our President calls on us to persevere, to stay the course until victory is achieved.
Does that mean "continue shopping as usual"?
Whatever ... Bush #43 has a strange way of rallying the nation to the barricades. His call to arms seems to be, "Stay where you are and trust me. Unless, of course, you qualify for enlistment in the Armed Services. Then it's "Come on down, the price is right (cuz you're poor and we'll pay you to fight)".
Then over in Iraq itself, when I learn more about the constitution now in effect, I simply shake my head in bewilderment. Are our leaders delusional?
The following words end the lead editorial, "Iraq's Most Important Election", in the NY Times for Wednesday, December 13:
"A more diverse representation of Shiite political views and a smaller role for the sinister party militias, which are now an important element of the Iraqi Army and police forces, would be welcome developments. That could also make Sunni Arab neighborhoods feel less threatened. Democracy entitles the majority to rule, but not at the expense of everyone else."
Let me repeat that, "Democracy entitles the majority to rule, but not at the expense of everyone else."
Are they kidding us? What kind of sophomoric pabulum are "these people" (are they neocon Zionists in liberal smocks?) trying to feed us?
You don't even have to be a majority in the US ... just have the majority of the votes counted, and the opposition is in trouble. And we are supposedly a "mature" democracy! Think DeLay in Texas ... and the Democrats before the Republicans.
Who is dealing with the reality on the ground over there?
If these are our "intelligentsia" on the "liberal" side ... we are in such deep doo-doo that we might as well start learning Chinese.
Somehow the neocons have forgotten that it is the separation and resulting balance of real political power basically outside our military that makes our nation so strong democratically. It is the VERY real sense that the tables can and do turn in one's own lifetime that keeps the semblance of fairness in government we have. Whenever one power center starts believing it has a lock on political power, corruption spreads faster than an oil slick on a pool of water.
In a patriarchal society people do not give up power and control without a fight. (It may be the same in all societies.) In a democracy we decree that the battle is in the ballot. And what happens then? Look at Florida in 2000. Look at Ohio in 2004. Think "easily manipulated electronic voting machines" ... and we are supposedly a mature democracy, for chrissake.
As long as reason is pulled along by testosterone ... and the males engage in pissing contests ... pissing into the wind always has a predictable outcome.
The war in Iraq has a kind of surreal experience for those of us in the United States who are making no real sacrifice in waging it. Yet our President calls on us to persevere, to stay the course until victory is achieved.
Does that mean "continue shopping as usual"?
Whatever ... Bush #43 has a strange way of rallying the nation to the barricades. His call to arms seems to be, "Stay where you are and trust me. Unless, of course, you qualify for enlistment in the Armed Services. Then it's "Come on down, the price is right (cuz you're poor and we'll pay you to fight)".
Then over in Iraq itself, when I learn more about the constitution now in effect, I simply shake my head in bewilderment. Are our leaders delusional?
The following words end the lead editorial, "Iraq's Most Important Election", in the NY Times for Wednesday, December 13:
"A more diverse representation of Shiite political views and a smaller role for the sinister party militias, which are now an important element of the Iraqi Army and police forces, would be welcome developments. That could also make Sunni Arab neighborhoods feel less threatened. Democracy entitles the majority to rule, but not at the expense of everyone else."
Let me repeat that, "Democracy entitles the majority to rule, but not at the expense of everyone else."
Are they kidding us? What kind of sophomoric pabulum are "these people" (are they neocon Zionists in liberal smocks?) trying to feed us?
You don't even have to be a majority in the US ... just have the majority of the votes counted, and the opposition is in trouble. And we are supposedly a "mature" democracy! Think DeLay in Texas ... and the Democrats before the Republicans.
Who is dealing with the reality on the ground over there?
If these are our "intelligentsia" on the "liberal" side ... we are in such deep doo-doo that we might as well start learning Chinese.
Somehow the neocons have forgotten that it is the separation and resulting balance of real political power basically outside our military that makes our nation so strong democratically. It is the VERY real sense that the tables can and do turn in one's own lifetime that keeps the semblance of fairness in government we have. Whenever one power center starts believing it has a lock on political power, corruption spreads faster than an oil slick on a pool of water.
In a patriarchal society people do not give up power and control without a fight. (It may be the same in all societies.) In a democracy we decree that the battle is in the ballot. And what happens then? Look at Florida in 2000. Look at Ohio in 2004. Think "easily manipulated electronic voting machines" ... and we are supposedly a mature democracy, for chrissake.
As long as reason is pulled along by testosterone ... and the males engage in pissing contests ... pissing into the wind always has a predictable outcome.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Cheney Neocons vs the CIA Nincompoops
Underneath the CIA leak story is a monumental battle
of the titans: Cheney Neocons vs the CIA Nincompoops
(aka the underdogs). Quarterbacking the Neocons is
Cheney, a stalwart Neocon Armageddonist with strategic
alliances with powerful people. For the
Nincompoops--now staging a fourth quarter comeback
from what was thought to be certain defeat--is Bush
#41, a global CIA'er and marshalling a roster of what
was thought to have been has-beens.
The personal stuff comes from Cheney and the Neocons
manipulating the kid (aka Bush #43) into doing their
bidding ... and then really, really screwing things up
with the Rumsfled Doctrine: "Stuff happens" ... rather
than following the Colin line: "If you break it, you
own it."
Well, Pappy Bush (#41) ain't gonna take it lying down
... I wouldn't be a bit surprised that he and his
squad are active in the dethroning of Cheney (like in,
"How could Cheney do this to our boy?", asked Babs.
"You go get him, hear. Wring his neck for me.")
This is Greek drama at its best ... the hubris of the
high and mighty ... the titans battling for turf ...
the honor of the annointed scion at stake ...
God, this is the Hatfields and McCoys ... an American
feud ... reality ... live.
Is this gonna make a fantastic Oliver Stone movie or
what?!
(Cheers)
(Fade to black)
(Roll credits)
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Harriet Miers? Why Harriet Miers?
Harriet Miers? Why Harriet Miers?
Maybe it's all part of the unraveling of the Plame-gate aka Scooter-gate conspiracy to sell the Iraqi War.
Bush wants someone on the Supreme Court who actually knows what went on in the White House and that he, Bush, really was in a bubble, and really, really did believe the stuff fed to him by the Cheney-Neocon cabal about WMD in Iraq during the lead-up to the war.
It would all go back to Neocon’s recognizing early on that the Bush-Rove dynamic duo was the perfect political engine to pull the Neocon vehicle to the pinnacle of power.
Rove would do anything to get Bush elected, and Bush would simply accept it as his due … from God, no less. There would be no introspective soul-searching. Bush knew he was chosen by God. Rove was focused on getting Bush elected to the presidency ... twice.
There was nothing strange in this to tip Bush off, to tweak his curiosity, to set off an alarm. This was the way life always turned out for him. Success happened to him personally … no matter what.
Well, Rove has it figured it out. He and Bush have been had by Scooter and Cheney. And Scooter’s involving him, Rove, in the outing of Valerie Plame is now--with Fitzgerald untangling the threads, connecting the dots--threatening to pull the rug out from under the whole shebang.
Having figured out that he was purposely made the fall guy to protect Scooter and Cheney’s butts … or at least to make sure the White House stayed on message … or simply because they were too arrogant to think it through … Rove is now coming clean to the grand jury.
But he has the problem that he didn’t come clean at first.
However, his “indiscretion” in pointing out Valerie Plame to Mathew Cooper by mentioning the wife of Joseph Wilson is small potatoes compared to the conspiracy to lie us into war using Bush #43 earnest cheerleading talents.
Rove, of course, has explained all this to Bush.
Voilà! Bush nominates Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court as a backup plan for pulling his chestnuts out of the Neocon fire.
Make any sense? I think it does.
Maybe it's all part of the unraveling of the Plame-gate aka Scooter-gate conspiracy to sell the Iraqi War.
Bush wants someone on the Supreme Court who actually knows what went on in the White House and that he, Bush, really was in a bubble, and really, really did believe the stuff fed to him by the Cheney-Neocon cabal about WMD in Iraq during the lead-up to the war.
It would all go back to Neocon’s recognizing early on that the Bush-Rove dynamic duo was the perfect political engine to pull the Neocon vehicle to the pinnacle of power.
Rove would do anything to get Bush elected, and Bush would simply accept it as his due … from God, no less. There would be no introspective soul-searching. Bush knew he was chosen by God. Rove was focused on getting Bush elected to the presidency ... twice.
There was nothing strange in this to tip Bush off, to tweak his curiosity, to set off an alarm. This was the way life always turned out for him. Success happened to him personally … no matter what.
Well, Rove has it figured it out. He and Bush have been had by Scooter and Cheney. And Scooter’s involving him, Rove, in the outing of Valerie Plame is now--with Fitzgerald untangling the threads, connecting the dots--threatening to pull the rug out from under the whole shebang.
Having figured out that he was purposely made the fall guy to protect Scooter and Cheney’s butts … or at least to make sure the White House stayed on message … or simply because they were too arrogant to think it through … Rove is now coming clean to the grand jury.
But he has the problem that he didn’t come clean at first.
However, his “indiscretion” in pointing out Valerie Plame to Mathew Cooper by mentioning the wife of Joseph Wilson is small potatoes compared to the conspiracy to lie us into war using Bush #43 earnest cheerleading talents.
Rove, of course, has explained all this to Bush.
Voilà! Bush nominates Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court as a backup plan for pulling his chestnuts out of the Neocon fire.
Make any sense? I think it does.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
There is no undoing of it
Thoughts on our War in Iraq:
It is hard to believe
this is happening
at the behest of my country.
Like the good Germans
who swept the ashes
from their window sills
that had fallen overnight
from the crematoriums
We go about our lives
as if it isn't happening.
To our eternal shame.
It has been done.
It is being done.
It will be done.
There is no undoing of it.
Ever.
It is hard to believe
this is happening
at the behest of my country.
Like the good Germans
who swept the ashes
from their window sills
that had fallen overnight
from the crematoriums
We go about our lives
as if it isn't happening.
To our eternal shame.
It has been done.
It is being done.
It will be done.
There is no undoing of it.
Ever.
In the face of fear, have we lost our reason?
The Neocons following the precepts of Leo Strauss were and are into using the power they have to gain more power. It is their willingness to use power to pursue personal authority and the control of ever growing power that is so frightening.
They are steadily and methodically working their way up to a rationale of rattling our nuclear arsenal to establish imperial dominance. Even the strategy of limits on the use of force in Iraq at the current time fits their overall plan. If the people of Iraq accept our cultural dominence voluntarily, so be it. If not, continue the march to Armageddon.
It is to our everlasting shame as a people that we got sucked into this war and continue wreaking this much death and destruction on another people, without being willing to make any sacrifice other than that of our volunteer military whom we have never properly supported in numbers or resources or anything that would remotely signal our understanding of the price others are paying in our name ... win or lose. We are going about our lives as if nothing is happening in Iraq.
We get excited when tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes devastate areas where people live ... and we respond proportionately, or at least try to do so. Why don't we pay closer attention when a war we are waging devastates an area where people live ... for now coming up on three years?
The rhetoric and policies of the Neocons are clearly imperialistic ... for example, the space shield is a non-starter as a shield, but an immense potential success as a weapons system. Another example is the now repeated call to militarize relief efforts.
At the first warning of terrorism, we hurriedly comply with the commands of the authorities. And again ... and again ... and again ... like white mice in the laboratory. How much of a shock will we withstand to get the cheese?
Is it really true that in the face of fear we have lost our reason?
They are steadily and methodically working their way up to a rationale of rattling our nuclear arsenal to establish imperial dominance. Even the strategy of limits on the use of force in Iraq at the current time fits their overall plan. If the people of Iraq accept our cultural dominence voluntarily, so be it. If not, continue the march to Armageddon.
It is to our everlasting shame as a people that we got sucked into this war and continue wreaking this much death and destruction on another people, without being willing to make any sacrifice other than that of our volunteer military whom we have never properly supported in numbers or resources or anything that would remotely signal our understanding of the price others are paying in our name ... win or lose. We are going about our lives as if nothing is happening in Iraq.
We get excited when tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes devastate areas where people live ... and we respond proportionately, or at least try to do so. Why don't we pay closer attention when a war we are waging devastates an area where people live ... for now coming up on three years?
The rhetoric and policies of the Neocons are clearly imperialistic ... for example, the space shield is a non-starter as a shield, but an immense potential success as a weapons system. Another example is the now repeated call to militarize relief efforts.
At the first warning of terrorism, we hurriedly comply with the commands of the authorities. And again ... and again ... and again ... like white mice in the laboratory. How much of a shock will we withstand to get the cheese?
Is it really true that in the face of fear we have lost our reason?
Friday, September 30, 2005
Madama Butterfly
There are times in my life when I fully understand the joy of living. Last night was one.
I went with a friend to the New York City Opera's performance of Madama Butterfly at the New York State Theater in Lincoln Center on Manhattan.
Shu Ying Li, making her house debut in the title role of Madama Butterfly, was given ovations during the performance and then met with a standing ovation for her bows at the end.
Robert Mack as Goro, Jake Gardner as Sharpless, and Kathryn Friest as Suzuki were superb among an excellent cast.
New York City is beyond one person's encompassing. It's boundaries of experience are beyond any horizon I can imagine, let alone see. It's diversity in all things human is incredibly unplumbable ... unfathomable.
Yet like swimming in the ocean ... all drops of water are connected, and the ripples from my strokes are radiated outward throughout ... even as the ripples of others reach me, no matter the conscious awareness of any given one.
Then there are the times like last night, when the surge of energy is a tidal wave of emotion—of human response—sweeping over me.
And in experiencing being part of this ... knowing that I bring an essential part to the huge wave ... being part of it ... in the close personal involvement with a friend and in the anonymity of the crowd, the audience ... I experience an unbounded joy of human existence.
I went with a friend to the New York City Opera's performance of Madama Butterfly at the New York State Theater in Lincoln Center on Manhattan.
Shu Ying Li, making her house debut in the title role of Madama Butterfly, was given ovations during the performance and then met with a standing ovation for her bows at the end.
Robert Mack as Goro, Jake Gardner as Sharpless, and Kathryn Friest as Suzuki were superb among an excellent cast.
New York City is beyond one person's encompassing. It's boundaries of experience are beyond any horizon I can imagine, let alone see. It's diversity in all things human is incredibly unplumbable ... unfathomable.
Yet like swimming in the ocean ... all drops of water are connected, and the ripples from my strokes are radiated outward throughout ... even as the ripples of others reach me, no matter the conscious awareness of any given one.
Then there are the times like last night, when the surge of energy is a tidal wave of emotion—of human response—sweeping over me.
And in experiencing being part of this ... knowing that I bring an essential part to the huge wave ... being part of it ... in the close personal involvement with a friend and in the anonymity of the crowd, the audience ... I experience an unbounded joy of human existence.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
I am an existentialist, Part IV
I experience my own existence. What I experience is my own existence.
I have no idea whether or not what I experience “is real”. I experience it “as real”.
What this means is that I have no way of proving conclusively that there is any other conscious awareness of existence other than my own, but I experience my existence as though I am not unique in experiencing existence.
I choose to believe that I am not the only conscious awareness of existence in the cosmos. I choose to believe that I can communicate with other “conscious awareness-es”, primarily human ones that share my form of communication. I choose to believe that I may influence those with whom I communicate, as they influence me.
I state “ I choose to believe” because these are all propositions that I have consciously considered and I have consciously decided to believe.
Which raises the question, are there beliefs I hold that I did not choose to believe in? That someone or something else chose for me to believe in and taught to me as "the truth"? And then, what if whether or not I believe in something signals whether or not I belong to a particular group of individuals within which I meet my needs? (Remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?)
This starts getting very complicated very quickly.
What I can tell you from personal experience is that the process of rejecting my childhood faith which is the belief structure of my siblings, and much of my extended family, was traumatic. It has only been through the insights gained in the study of the various facets of existentialism that I have been able to replace my childhood faith with a coherent set of beliefs that allows me to maintain anything close to rational consistency throughout all the varied aspects of my life.
In a nutshell this rational consistency is simply understanding that if I maintain a basis (the means) for satisfying my needs that allows me to pursue the uniquely human experience of applying my imagination to "What might be" and selecting from the infinite range of options, "What ought to be," and then trying to make it, "What is",—then I am able to engage in choice at what I choose to believe is the highest form of human existence, being creative in a community committed to love.
(See “I am an existentialist, Part III” for my definition of love in human terms.)
I have no idea whether or not what I experience “is real”. I experience it “as real”.
What this means is that I have no way of proving conclusively that there is any other conscious awareness of existence other than my own, but I experience my existence as though I am not unique in experiencing existence.
No matter how I approach my existence, I cannot avoid the necessity of choice. Not choosing anything in particular is itself a choice. This is the nature of the individual in the cosmos. I am alone in this responsibility. My conscious awareness in my mind is mine alone. I do not share my personal conscious awareness with any other living creature. What is more, I existed before I became consciously aware of my existence. Existence comes first. I believe it comes first at all levels of life. –from “I am an existentialist”
I choose to believe that I am not the only conscious awareness of existence in the cosmos. I choose to believe that I can communicate with other “conscious awareness-es”, primarily human ones that share my form of communication. I choose to believe that I may influence those with whom I communicate, as they influence me.
I state “ I choose to believe” because these are all propositions that I have consciously considered and I have consciously decided to believe.
Which raises the question, are there beliefs I hold that I did not choose to believe in? That someone or something else chose for me to believe in and taught to me as "the truth"? And then, what if whether or not I believe in something signals whether or not I belong to a particular group of individuals within which I meet my needs? (Remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?)
This starts getting very complicated very quickly.
What I can tell you from personal experience is that the process of rejecting my childhood faith which is the belief structure of my siblings, and much of my extended family, was traumatic. It has only been through the insights gained in the study of the various facets of existentialism that I have been able to replace my childhood faith with a coherent set of beliefs that allows me to maintain anything close to rational consistency throughout all the varied aspects of my life.
In a nutshell this rational consistency is simply understanding that if I maintain a basis (the means) for satisfying my needs that allows me to pursue the uniquely human experience of applying my imagination to "What might be" and selecting from the infinite range of options, "What ought to be," and then trying to make it, "What is",—then I am able to engage in choice at what I choose to believe is the highest form of human existence, being creative in a community committed to love.
(See “I am an existentialist, Part III” for my definition of love in human terms.)
I am an existentialist, Part III
[M]y take on existentialism is that it does not deny the hierarchy of needs but that it understands, as Maslow did, that our resolution of these needs impacts and and is impacted upon by our potential for self-actualization. -from "I am an existentialist, continued"
The choices I make in fulfilling my needs impact my potential for self-actualization. If I take things for myself without sharing, if I treat others as objects for my gratification, if I fail to engage with others as in:
I would add that I believe in nuturing the other person by sharing ... and particularly in sharing the creative experience, the uniquely human experience of applying our imagination to "What might be" and selecting from the infinite range of options, "What ought to be," and then making it, "What is." -from "Am I Christian Existentialist?"
Creating the community where this process thrives for all its members interactively, is what is best for humanity.
It should be understood, that with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a conceptual structure, I am declaring that the hierarchy of needs from physiological to safety to love/belonging to esteem leading to actualization have to be met. The struggle is to do this without blocking the individual’s potential for self-actualization.
Finally, choosing (selecting) “What ought to be” is meaningless if I do not also act to try to make it “What is”. Here we have the admonition of James in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, “Faith without works is dead.”
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. -James 2:26
Monday, September 26, 2005
I am an existentialist, continued
Note: I received the following response to my previous post, "I am an esistentialist":
Thank you for reviewing my article.
I feel that I do not have to defend existentialism ... far more erudite individuals than myself have already done so effectively.
But you raise a few points to which I have to take exception lest someone gets the impression that there is no argument to them.
Having a choice for the existentialist is a concrete situation, probably most graphically demonstrated by those who have used self-immolation as a form of protest.
From wikipedia:
Famous people who have chosen this way to die:
* Romas Kalanta, in protest against the Soviet Union's occupation of his homeland of Lithuania.
* Thích Quảng Ðức, in protest against the oppression of Buddhism by the administration of Vietnamese Prime Minister Ngô Đình Diệm.
* Norman Morrison, an American who self-immolated in protest against the Vietnam War
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Burning_oneself_.28self-immolation.29 )
Granted not everyone has the option of suicide, but that represents a "special case" set of individuals.
And as Mahatma Gandhi taught us, we also have the option of civil disobedience, which can be the simple matter of stopping what we are doing and doing nothing. Cindy Sheehan was arrested today in Washington, DC, for this form of civil disobedience while protesting the War in Iraq.
In the possibility of negation of active participation--either in a specific activity set or in life itself-- existentialism points out that the individual has a choice in the matter of her/his own existence which is not theoretical.
Further, my view of existentialism couples readily with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, agreeing that the best state of individual human existence is at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of needs, self-actualization where I engage in the creative pursuit of fulfilling my imagined "objective" in my own existence.
I have been fortunate to have known no other situation during my entire life of 66+ years than this creative pursuit. And I have never been not able to satisfy my needs.
Of course, as Malow pointed out, if I am struggling to breathe, or to find water to drink, or food to eat, ... and so forth through the hierarchy of needs from physiological to safety to love/belonging to esteem leading to actualization ... I am not going to be otherwise engaged primarily. Self-actualization may have to wait at times. It's just that I have never experienced this other than in a situation where I have known I could satisfy my needs of the moment.
However, even without personal experience of dire unmet need--or quite possibly because of that lack of experience--my take on existentialism is that it does not deny the hierarchy of needs but that it understands, as Maslow did, that our resolution of these needs impacts and is impacted upon by our potential for self-acutalization.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization )
Thanks again for reviewing my article.
Best,
Gus
Hilding "Gus" Lindquist
Interesting article. My personal opinion is that "You have a choice" is a generalization. It varies from issue to issue and many times you don't really have a chance. Existentialism is an interesting theory. However unless it allieviates human suffering and helps solving personal problems, some of the features of such theories are intellectual gymnastics. Philosophers also need to be practical.This is my reply:
Thank you for reviewing my article.
I feel that I do not have to defend existentialism ... far more erudite individuals than myself have already done so effectively.
But you raise a few points to which I have to take exception lest someone gets the impression that there is no argument to them.
Having a choice for the existentialist is a concrete situation, probably most graphically demonstrated by those who have used self-immolation as a form of protest.
From wikipedia:
Famous people who have chosen this way to die:
* Romas Kalanta, in protest against the Soviet Union's occupation of his homeland of Lithuania.
* Thích Quảng Ðức, in protest against the oppression of Buddhism by the administration of Vietnamese Prime Minister Ngô Đình Diệm.
* Norman Morrison, an American who self-immolated in protest against the Vietnam War
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Burning_oneself_.28self-immolation.29 )
Granted not everyone has the option of suicide, but that represents a "special case" set of individuals.
And as Mahatma Gandhi taught us, we also have the option of civil disobedience, which can be the simple matter of stopping what we are doing and doing nothing. Cindy Sheehan was arrested today in Washington, DC, for this form of civil disobedience while protesting the War in Iraq.
In the possibility of negation of active participation--either in a specific activity set or in life itself-- existentialism points out that the individual has a choice in the matter of her/his own existence which is not theoretical.
Further, my view of existentialism couples readily with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, agreeing that the best state of individual human existence is at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of needs, self-actualization where I engage in the creative pursuit of fulfilling my imagined "objective" in my own existence.
I have been fortunate to have known no other situation during my entire life of 66+ years than this creative pursuit. And I have never been not able to satisfy my needs.
Of course, as Malow pointed out, if I am struggling to breathe, or to find water to drink, or food to eat, ... and so forth through the hierarchy of needs from physiological to safety to love/belonging to esteem leading to actualization ... I am not going to be otherwise engaged primarily. Self-actualization may have to wait at times. It's just that I have never experienced this other than in a situation where I have known I could satisfy my needs of the moment.
However, even without personal experience of dire unmet need--or quite possibly because of that lack of experience--my take on existentialism is that it does not deny the hierarchy of needs but that it understands, as Maslow did, that our resolution of these needs impacts and is impacted upon by our potential for self-acutalization.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization )
Thanks again for reviewing my article.
Best,
Gus
Hilding "Gus" Lindquist
Sunday, September 25, 2005
I am an existentialist
The essential character of the human being is the experience of our own existence. I believe that, in a very real sense, if I am not consciously aware of my existence, I am not fully human.
With this conscious awareness I can imagine a set of possibilities from which I can choose to pursue one or more. I cannot pursue all of them simultaneously either in the sense of time and resources, or in the sense of being personally able to pursue them even if I had the time and resources. In fact, some possiblilties such as suicide allow for no other possibility for me--ever, in the case of death.
No matter how I approach my existence, I cannot avoid the necessity of choice. Not choosing anything in particular is itself a choice. This is the nature of the individual in the cosmos. I am alone in this responsibility. My conscious awareness in my mind is mine alone. I do not share my personal conscious awareness with any other living creature. What is more, I existed before I became consciously aware of my existence. Existence comes first. I believe it comes first at all levels of life.
After existence comes conscious awareness for the being that is fully human. Following conscious awareness, the next act is always a matter of choosing from whatever set of possibilities exist at the moment for the human being who is consciously aware of her/his own existence.
From the set of possibilities--things that "might be"--I can choose something "to be". When that thing "to be" relates to the way something "is", then I am making a moral decision about what that thing "ought to be". Whether or not I want the thing to stay the same or change, I am making a moral decision. Choosing to have something stay the same is a choice, because we could choose to try to change it.
I alone am responsible for my choices, no matter how much I would like to foist the blame onto someone or something else.
There are a several caveats to this responsibility. One is for when as children we don't know any better. Then we only know what we know, what we have been taught as truth by those we have no reason to distrust.
Another caveat is for mental illness whether chemically induced by drugs or alcohol, or one of the clinically defined syndrones. There are other forms of diminshed capacity, such as mental retardation, all of which can limit an individual's arena of choice.
But this I believe: My ability to imagine possibility and my confidence in my ability to try to bring about some possiblity of my choosing is the core of the creative life ... the highest form of existence of which I am aware. The tension between "isness" and "oughtness", best described by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is the energy imbued in the human condition, the state of being fully human. I can choose what I ought to be, what I ought to do ... and in so doing participate in a creative evolution ... a butterfly flapping its wings, knowing full well the ripples will extend throughout the cosmos.
But no matter what, no matter how I cloak the process in some form of dogma or doctrine--religious, political, philosophical, whatever--I must choose out of my conscious awareness of my existence.
Finally, I am an atheist because as an existentialist, it is immaterial to me whether God exists or not. What is important for me is to be rationally consistent imagining possibility and trying to bring about what I think ought to be. In an earlier post I reflected on the designation of "Christian Existentialist":
With this conscious awareness I can imagine a set of possibilities from which I can choose to pursue one or more. I cannot pursue all of them simultaneously either in the sense of time and resources, or in the sense of being personally able to pursue them even if I had the time and resources. In fact, some possiblilties such as suicide allow for no other possibility for me--ever, in the case of death.
No matter how I approach my existence, I cannot avoid the necessity of choice. Not choosing anything in particular is itself a choice. This is the nature of the individual in the cosmos. I am alone in this responsibility. My conscious awareness in my mind is mine alone. I do not share my personal conscious awareness with any other living creature. What is more, I existed before I became consciously aware of my existence. Existence comes first. I believe it comes first at all levels of life.
After existence comes conscious awareness for the being that is fully human. Following conscious awareness, the next act is always a matter of choosing from whatever set of possibilities exist at the moment for the human being who is consciously aware of her/his own existence.
From the set of possibilities--things that "might be"--I can choose something "to be". When that thing "to be" relates to the way something "is", then I am making a moral decision about what that thing "ought to be". Whether or not I want the thing to stay the same or change, I am making a moral decision. Choosing to have something stay the same is a choice, because we could choose to try to change it.
I alone am responsible for my choices, no matter how much I would like to foist the blame onto someone or something else.
There are a several caveats to this responsibility. One is for when as children we don't know any better. Then we only know what we know, what we have been taught as truth by those we have no reason to distrust.
Another caveat is for mental illness whether chemically induced by drugs or alcohol, or one of the clinically defined syndrones. There are other forms of diminshed capacity, such as mental retardation, all of which can limit an individual's arena of choice.
But this I believe: My ability to imagine possibility and my confidence in my ability to try to bring about some possiblity of my choosing is the core of the creative life ... the highest form of existence of which I am aware. The tension between "isness" and "oughtness", best described by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is the energy imbued in the human condition, the state of being fully human. I can choose what I ought to be, what I ought to do ... and in so doing participate in a creative evolution ... a butterfly flapping its wings, knowing full well the ripples will extend throughout the cosmos.
But no matter what, no matter how I cloak the process in some form of dogma or doctrine--religious, political, philosophical, whatever--I must choose out of my conscious awareness of my existence.
Finally, I am an atheist because as an existentialist, it is immaterial to me whether God exists or not. What is important for me is to be rationally consistent imagining possibility and trying to bring about what I think ought to be. In an earlier post I reflected on the designation of "Christian Existentialist":
Putting it another way, How do we humans become God? What God do I want us to become? The answer FOR ME is in nuturing the potential in the other person ... and this is what I believe Jesus' message to be ... hence am I a Christian Existentialist? Should I use the term "Christian" with today's mixed baggage of meaning? I don't know. I'll think about it.See "Am I a Christian Existentialist?"
I would add that I believe in nuturing the other person by sharing ... and particularly in sharing the creative experience, the uniquely human experience of applying our imagination to "What might be" and selecting from the infinite range of options, "What ought to be," and then making it, "What is."
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Revisiting the military-industrial complex
I would suggest that in pursuing the subject, "Katrina and The Collective Good", (see posting of that title) it is time for us to revisit Dwight D. Eisenhower, Military-Industrial Complex Speech of 1961. The full text can be found at:
The most famous paragraph from Eisenhower's speech is:
Please ponder his words in light of the path ahead for our nation. Where does "stay the course" take us?
Note: If that link is blocked, try:
If THAT link is also blocked, google "military industrial complex" and you will be able to link to one of several sites that offer the full text from President Eisenhower's public papers.
The most famous paragraph from Eisenhower's speech is:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military[-]industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.Earlier he spoke these words:
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.Let me repeat for emphasis these words of Eisenhower's, "...; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is [it] poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
Please ponder his words in light of the path ahead for our nation. Where does "stay the course" take us?
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Folks, this is fascism
"'I don't think federal bureaucracy can handle the next disaster," said Toye Taylor, the president of Washington Parish, one of the hardest hit areas in Louisiana, who met with Mr. Bush this week.
"I expressed to the president that it would take a new partnership between the military and private sector," Mr. Taylor said. 'Because there will be another one and I don't think the federal government is going to be able to help." Indeed, Mr. Bush said in his address to the nation from New Orleans on Thursday night that the military would play a new role in federal disaster relief."
"FEMA, Slow to the Rescue, Now Stumbles in Aid Effort"
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER and ERIC LIPTON
NY Times, September 17, 2005
Link to article
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER and ERIC LIPTON
NY Times, September 17, 2005
Link to article
From wikipedia: The Doctrine of Fascism
The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council for Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)
The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)
Benito Mussolini, 1935
Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions
Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers
What the hell is going on?!
The Patriot Act, which limits the freedoms of patriots ... provocative by its very nature and thereby self-fulfilling in its proof of the need for further restrictions on freedom.
A strategy in Iraq destined to provoke an insurgency that can only be quelled by the Battle of Armageddon ... which we will win because we have the bomb, right?
And now after the purposeful gutting of the working govenment, we have the calls for the militarization of our nation.
What's going on? This is FASCISM, folks.
Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions
Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers
What the hell is going on?!
The Patriot Act, which limits the freedoms of patriots ... provocative by its very nature and thereby self-fulfilling in its proof of the need for further restrictions on freedom.
A strategy in Iraq destined to provoke an insurgency that can only be quelled by the Battle of Armageddon ... which we will win because we have the bomb, right?
And now after the purposeful gutting of the working govenment, we have the calls for the militarization of our nation.
What's going on? This is FASCISM, folks.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Katrina and the collective good
A work in progress: 9/25 9:45AM update
Note: 9/25 edits below.
Note: 9/25 edits below.
Note: Defining "the collective good" broadly, wikipedia—the free online encyclopedia—gives us the following: "the term 'collective good' describes all that is good for all people in a given community". (See collective good, community at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)
Let's begin by thinking for a moment about our community. How do we define it? Who belongs to it?
OK, with some "idea" of "our" community, no matter how clearly defined or ill-defined, formed or forming in our minds, let us think for a moment about three things:
1. What do we expect to be able to receive from our community?
2. What do we expect to have to give to our community?
3. To what extent do we believe we have these expectations in common with the other members of our community?
OK, we're getting somewhere. Now, in focusing on "the collective good" let us limit our expectations in 1 and 2 to only those expectations that we believe everyone in our community has a rational reason to believe that they apply to everyone. In other words, using 3 as a filter, let's rethink 1 and 2.
For example, I believe that some basic level of police and fire protection, and emergency medical care, should be available to everyone in my community. I also believe that everyone in my community should help pay for it. Yes—as they say—the devil is in the details. But I think you get the idea of the approach I am using to consider—revisit in my mind, and yours—the concept of "the collective good" in light of Katrina.
Another expectation I have that I consider part of the collective good of whatever community in which I am a member is that my community will defend my safety and security from our enemies. In this I expect my community to maintain as strong a defense system as necessary to keep the community safe and secure in the world as we understand it to be. In this regard, I support having a military as well as other support systems strong enough to provide that safety and security for my community.
I think you can see where this—the consideration of the collective good in light of Katrina—is leading in part.
As the gestalt continues to take shape in our minds, let us return to considering the question of who belongs to "our" community. Here is where--I believe--the issues of race, class, ethnic and cultural heritage, religious persuasion, and other identity factors play a large part in our sense of committment to others who may be within the geographical and political boundaries of our legally defined community, but who are not those with whom we share a la 3 the expectations of 1 and 2.
What about community? On one hand we have Hobbes dictum found in the following depiction of his thought:
Self-defense against violent death is Hobbes' highest human necessity, and rights are borne of necessity. In the state of nature, then, each of us has a right to everything in the world. Due to the scarcity of things in the world, there is a constant, and rights-based, "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short"
Source: wikipedia
On the other hand we have the infantry platoon where individual soldiers often give their lives to defend the platoon or even another comrade. Under this banner of camaraderie we also find parents, firefighters, police officers, and a host of others sacrificing self for the good of the others either as specific individuals in need of rescue or entire communities.
Less dramatic than the willingness to risk one's life, is the willingness to share one's "treasure" ... and in the aftermath of Katrina we see the outpouring of this willingness to share our resources even with people we have never met ... and in the case of the recent tsunami, those who aren't fellow citizens either.
How then does this sense of committment to community take hold in the individual? Or maybe the question should be, how is it lost?
Prior to Katrina, we weren't rallying to do something about the poverty in New Orleans.
Was the difference that we saw the hurricane as something that could happen to us? The disaster created a common bond where before there was none because we had an "us" versus "them" view of poor black people? That somehow "they" HAD to be different then us, or why would they be poor? For some of us the determining factor (the ONLY determining factor) is the indvidual's relationship with God THE FATHER, who blesses us according to HIS wisdom and grace.
From my experience, what seems to emerge as the determining factor in how we relate to one another is whether or not we have something in common that unites as members of a definable group, allowing one to think of the other as "friend" rather than "foe".
For the time being let us define "friend" as someone we would share something with, and "foe" as someone we would withhold something from.
Yes, a "friend" for sharing a ride to work, could be a "foe" when asked to loan him or her money. this can get complicated.
Again from my experience, there comes to mind the religious divide of believer and unbeliever as the fundamental and unbridgeable division that separates us, one from the other. To the True Believer our common humanity is not enough ... except in the instance of the parable of the Good Samaritan, where we are united in the need for caring by one from the other, which then becomes evidence of the caregiver's faith in God and not necessarily his or her faith in humanity of the needy other. This seems particularly true when we are not willing to act to mitigate the circumstances that lead to the dire straits of the needy other, but only act to ameliorate the consequences of our earlier failure.
The other divisions determining "us" versus "them" I sugested above—of race, class, ethnic and cultural heritage, and so forth—come into play as barriers to developing a common sense of community.
There is also the factor of not being strangers to one another in the concrete sense of actually knowing the other person as someone we recognize or do not recognize. Then we can take a defined "person type" such as a person in a police uniform, or a teacher at the head of a classroom, or a minister or priest wearing a clerical collar, and so forth, all having more or less "friendly" images. On the other hand we have the "enemy" images ... and just describing them gives us a sense of difficulties we will face in attempting to build common ground in our diverse world.
Paul Krugman writes in his column, " Tragedy in Black and White" on the New York Times, Monday, September 19, Op/Ed page:
And who can honestly deny that race is a major reason America treats its poor more harshly than any other advanced country? To put it crudely: a middle-class European, thinking about the poor, says to himself, "There but for the grace of God go I." A middle-class American is all too likely to think, perhaps without admitting it to himself, "Why should I be taxed to support those people?"
Above all, race-based hostility to the idea of helping the poor created an environment in which a political movement hostile to government aid in general could flourish.
Please read Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech titled, "Military-Industrial Complex Speech", given in 1961. I refer to it in my posting, Revisiting the military-industrial complex.
Please read Robert G. Kaiser's Op/Ed column titled, "In Finland's Footsteps", from the August 7, 2005, Sunday Outlook section of the Washinton Post.
More to come ...
Below are notes that I am referring to as I write this essay
Title: Defining the Collective Good
- What do we believe is "appropriate help" that we should expect from the larger community to which we belong, and under what circumstances are we entitled to this help?
- How do we participate in receiving this "appropriate help"?
- What do we believe is "appropriate help" to give others in the larger community to which we belong, and under what circumstances are they entitled to this help?
- How do we participate in giving this "appropriate help"?
- How do we define the "larger community" to which we belong?
Sunday, September 11, 2005
The Greenwich Brewing Company
ww.greenwichbrew.com
Location map
Located on the southeast corner of 6th Avenue and 9th Street, and across 9th from Path's 9th Street Station, in Greenwich Village, the Greenwich Brewing Co. has been a favorite restaurant and bar since I first came to the New York City metropolitan area in 1999. Since then I have been coming here alone and with friends as frequently as the opportunity presents itself.
The Greenwich Brewing Co. is my preferred stop for an early dinner when I go to the West Village Conversation Group on Tuesday evenings at the Caffe Dell Arista, a couple of blocks to the northwest, up Greenwich Avenue.
When I am alone, I come here, eat and then spend a few minutes writing in my journal, capturing my mood and thoughts while immersed in the ambience of the Village.
I love it beyond words.
FYI, I usually have the Primavera Pizza with spinach, zucchini, mushrooms and broccoli.
Note: If you click on the thumbnails below, you can view a larger version of the photo.
Greenwich Brewing Co. from across 6th Avenue.
Greenwich Brewing Co. from across 9th Street.
The view from my favorite table,
just inside the front door.
Myself sitting at my favorite table,
summer of '05
Another view of myself with
my stenographer's notebook journal.
Cheers!
Monday, September 05, 2005
The Caffe Dell Artista
Caffe Dell Artista
Location Map
between 6th and 7th Avenues
Sunday, September 4, in the early evening I sat at the small table anchoring the west end of the large front windows of the Caffe Dell Artista overlooking Greenwich Avenue drinking coffee, eating strawberry cheesecake, and writing in my journal.
Sitting here on the second level of the building above a shop that is partly below street level has an aloof intimacy with the avenue and sidewalk that is enticingly engaging for the philosopher-poet (or is it poet-philosopher?) in me.
With bookends in place for my basic trip to Manhattan ... the Belly Delly on the top of Times Square where once Nick's Deli held sway, and the Caffe Dell Artista in Greenwich Village ... I have the underpinnings for variations on the main theme, the theme of being absorbed in the ultimate center of the urban universe.
Just do not think for a moment that I want you to come with me. I am a soloist.
I have tried to share my journeys with others. Shared, they are not the same. And in all but a limited set of exceptions when the company of another is equal to being alone, I prefer being alone.
I don't know why this is. It is.
I have tried to change ... but, alas, I have failed in doing so. Mostly, I suspect, because I feel no need to change ... nor desire.
In fact at the moment I was sitting at the table in the Caffe Dell Artista writing these notes in my journal in long hand among strangers at other tables, absorbing the energy of their presence ... their laughter and noise ... without having to respond, was rich in the awareness of others as I played by myself in the limitless arena of my mind ... thinking and writing ... the sensuous stroke of the pen on paper ... the cursive flow of my penmanship tactilely stimulating ... engaged in way that I can never be when typing on my computer, alone in my home's office.
Part of this feeling is also caught up in my brain overrunning my hand ... and while my mind loops into its own space, coming back to earth to finish the word, the sentence, the paragraph ... I am connecting galaxies of thought and memory in a way that has no equal for me.
Beyond all this is subliminal transcendental awareness of the history of Greenwich Village ... and my connectedness to the human spirit of this place. I love it so.
Note: If you click on the thumbnails below, you can view a larger version of the photo.
Caffe Dell Artista from across Greenwich Avenue.
Myself with my stenographer's notebook journal.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Next stop: easyInternetCafe
easyInternetCafe
234 West 42nd Street
New York, New York
I left the Belly Delly above West 49th Street around 3:30PM Sunday, September 4th, and headed south on 7th Avenue, crossing back and forth between 7th and Broadway as I wandered down to West 42nd Street and the easyInternetCafe where I went in and again logged onto the internet and into my blog.
It is Labor Day weekend and Times Square is teeming with tourists. The weather is gorgeous, sunny and not too hot with a bit of a breeze cooling the sidewalk crowds full of beautiful people interspersed among the rest of us ... in the incredible stew pot of diversity that is Manhattan ... nobody blending in until the residents start wearing black later in the season. The rich multi-color, multi-texture tapistry of people in New York on the warm days of summer.
Just thinking about making the trip to Manhattan raises my energy level several notches. Now I am here and thoroughly enjoying the moment ... expanded across an afternoon ... feeling the energy of the others crowding past absorbed in each others' energy ... knowing I am part of something that transcends each one of us ... knowing that if I stayed in the maw of this human maelstrom I would eventually burn out (maybe not so eventually in my case) ... but also understanding that it will not go away, it will be here whenever I come back.
I'm going to continue on down to Greenwich Village, where I will stop and have an Americano at the cafe where we have the West Village Conversation Group Meets on Tuesday evenings.
Caffe Dell Artista
46 Greenwich Avenue
between 6th and 7th Avenues
New York, NY
Then I'm catching the Path to Hoboken from the 9th Street station and going home.
Note: If you click on the thumbnails below, you can view a larger version of the photo.
Looking west on West 42nd Street
from the 7th Avenue end of the block.
Farther along West 42nd Street
toward the easyInternetCafe.
easyInternetCafe from across West 42nd Street.
Cheers! I'll get back to you.
Nick's Deli is closed
I made the trip from Maplewood, New Jersey, to Nick's Deli on the corner of 7th Avenue and West 49th Street in Times Square via train and subway. When I got there it was closed ... apparently for good.
I hadn't been there for a couple of months, thinking each week that I would make the trip and then putting it off ... mostly I think because it was (is) summer ... and Nick's has always been best done in the cooler months. Now I regret the delay in going.
But all was (is) not lost!
I immediately set out to find another eatery on this end of Times Square. I checked out the Playwright Tavern across 7th and still on West 49th ... a wee bit too uptown for my tastes. I have to have something quite a bit more scruffy ... not in the sense of unkempt, but in the sense of showing signs of plebian wear and tear, a place for us common folk to sit and eat ... and for me, to think and write.
I think I've found it.
BellyDelly Deli
1625 Broadway
Between 49th & 50th St
New York, New York 10019
Tel: 212-333-5650, 5733, 5750
Fax: 212-333-7464
And guess what, not only do they make an excellent tuna salad sandwich and have good drip coffee, they have a real salad bar AND internet access both via wifi and computer kiosks. (In fact, I am posting this message from one of their NEXTNET public internet access terminals. I purchased a prepaid card at the downstairs register and got on.)
My imagination is running sort of wild at the moment ... having a deli as THE end terminus of this particular journey where I come to the north end of Times Square on the N or R Trains, have my standard fare of a tuna salad sand with a pickle on the side and coffee, sit and comntemplate my navel while making some entries in my journal ... then wander on foot back down through Times Square before either returning directly home via the Midtown Direct commuter train from Penn Station or continuing further south to Greenwich Village and catching the Path from the 9th Street station to Hoboken and then taking NJ Transit to Maplewood ... has always been a the big attraction of the trip. And now to also have internet access in the deli ... well, can we get any closer to heaven on earth?
Plus, this gives me some incentive to clean up my www.aheadinnyc.com website ...
One negative, they were out of pickles.
Note: If you click on the thumbnails below, you can view a larger version of the photo.
Nick's Gourmet Deli before it closed.
Nick's Gourmet Deli after it closed,
from across 7th Avenue.
Nick's Gourmet Deli after it closed,
from across West 49th Street.
The BellyDelly Deli
looking up Broadway
The BellyDelly Deli
looking down Broadway.
The BellyDelly Deli.
Cheers!
I hadn't been there for a couple of months, thinking each week that I would make the trip and then putting it off ... mostly I think because it was (is) summer ... and Nick's has always been best done in the cooler months. Now I regret the delay in going.
But all was (is) not lost!
I immediately set out to find another eatery on this end of Times Square. I checked out the Playwright Tavern across 7th and still on West 49th ... a wee bit too uptown for my tastes. I have to have something quite a bit more scruffy ... not in the sense of unkempt, but in the sense of showing signs of plebian wear and tear, a place for us common folk to sit and eat ... and for me, to think and write.
I think I've found it.
BellyDelly Deli
1625 Broadway
Between 49th & 50th St
New York, New York 10019
Tel: 212-333-5650, 5733, 5750
Fax: 212-333-7464
And guess what, not only do they make an excellent tuna salad sandwich and have good drip coffee, they have a real salad bar AND internet access both via wifi and computer kiosks. (In fact, I am posting this message from one of their NEXTNET public internet access terminals. I purchased a prepaid card at the downstairs register and got on.)
My imagination is running sort of wild at the moment ... having a deli as THE end terminus of this particular journey where I come to the north end of Times Square on the N or R Trains, have my standard fare of a tuna salad sand with a pickle on the side and coffee, sit and comntemplate my navel while making some entries in my journal ... then wander on foot back down through Times Square before either returning directly home via the Midtown Direct commuter train from Penn Station or continuing further south to Greenwich Village and catching the Path from the 9th Street station to Hoboken and then taking NJ Transit to Maplewood ... has always been a the big attraction of the trip. And now to also have internet access in the deli ... well, can we get any closer to heaven on earth?
Plus, this gives me some incentive to clean up my www.aheadinnyc.com website ...
One negative, they were out of pickles.
Note: If you click on the thumbnails below, you can view a larger version of the photo.
Nick's Gourmet Deli before it closed.
Nick's Gourmet Deli after it closed,
from across 7th Avenue.
Nick's Gourmet Deli after it closed,
from across West 49th Street.
The BellyDelly Deli
looking up Broadway
The BellyDelly Deli
looking down Broadway.
The BellyDelly Deli.
Cheers!
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Old, poor, and chronically ill in New Jersey
I take a deep breath and let it out ... once again ... and again ...
The mood swings of frustration and anger alternating with appreciation and euphoria through bouts of deep depression ... ebb and flow through my psyche as I deal with old age, poverty, and chronic kidney failure.
I get the feeling that most everybody has enough troubles of their own so I shouldn't be bothering anybody with mine. What am I, a wimp? "Suck it up and move on."
Well, in my circumstances, "sucking it up and moving on", is dying. So, if you don't mind, I think I'll explore some other options, thank you.
Let me describe the latest Catch-22 situation I find myself in. I was scheduled to have a surgical procedure this Friday, September 2, 2005, (like, tomorrow) which would allow me to go on in-home dialysis shortly. (Which to my understanding saves the State of New Jersey and Medicare a considerable amount of money over traditional dialysis, but I could be wrong--I'll ask for the facts next time. In any case, it leaves me far more mobile and actually will be better for my body, if I can be on it.)
I was doing all my pre-admission stuff and everything was on track--or so I thought--when I received a call on Tuesday, August 30, from the hospital's Financial Aid Office "reminding" me that I had an appointment with them the next day, Wednesday, August 31, at 10AM.
That was the first I had heard about any appointment with the hospital's Financial Aid Office ... and the communication deteriorated from that point on ... so I cancelled my procedure on Friday thinking the responsible thing to do would be to resolve the financial questions BEFORE I had the surgery. Because if it wasn't covered by some form of financial assistance on top on my Medicare A and B, then I had better rethink what I was getting myself into. (I have learned from experience that it is best to have these issues resolved ahead of time rather than afterward. I'm still paying off medical bills from 2002 that weren't covered.)
Anyway, I started asking questions about whether I qualified for Financial Assistance and they responded by telling me that I had to be committed to the procedure before they could give me that information.
Now, this sounded VERY strange to me. Here I have been reading all this stuff about the patient needing to "take charge of his/her medical care". So shouldn't I have the information I need to make a responsible decision? Like, can I afford what you're going to do to me? And shouldn't I have some kind of a reasonable estimate (like the range of possibilities) for what the outcome might be in terms of cost?
See, I had been going along thinking I was covered at this hospital, because I was covered at my other primary hospital, but, no, they said they couldn't tell me that ahead of time. The way I was understanding what they were telling me was that I had to accumulate the bills and THEN they would tell me whether or not the financial assistance program would pay them. How strange is that?
My first recourse was to contact the Social Services department of this hospital and review the situation. They basically told me that that was how this particular financial assistance program worked. When I replied that that put me between a rock and a hard place ... they offered to put me in contact with someone higher up in the Financial Aid Department. When I then asked if I could have something like a patient advocate to act as a mediator because otherwise I would talking to the person in charge of the rules which I was questioning. The Social Services response was that all they could do was refer me to the Financial Aid Supervisor. I told them that would be too stressful of a situation for me. They replied, "That's your choice".
I next went back to the surgeon's office. They informed me that I had to work it out with the hospital.
My next recourse was to share all this with a person in Essex County's Division of Aging. Here I began to make headway. This person and this department has been of great assistance over the past couple of weeks as I have been trying to sort out my health care options. She immediately responded and located a person in the hospital's geriatric department whom I can contact.
I went from frustration and anger to appreciation and euphoria, then settled into depression. I told the Division of Aging person how much I appreciated her help, and that hopefully I would have the emotional energy to pursue the contact by next week.
It's true growing old and being poor ain't for wimps. I'll let you know how "chronically ill" works out in the short run. In the long run, we're all dead.
The mood swings of frustration and anger alternating with appreciation and euphoria through bouts of deep depression ... ebb and flow through my psyche as I deal with old age, poverty, and chronic kidney failure.
I get the feeling that most everybody has enough troubles of their own so I shouldn't be bothering anybody with mine. What am I, a wimp? "Suck it up and move on."
Well, in my circumstances, "sucking it up and moving on", is dying. So, if you don't mind, I think I'll explore some other options, thank you.
Let me describe the latest Catch-22 situation I find myself in. I was scheduled to have a surgical procedure this Friday, September 2, 2005, (like, tomorrow) which would allow me to go on in-home dialysis shortly. (Which to my understanding saves the State of New Jersey and Medicare a considerable amount of money over traditional dialysis, but I could be wrong--I'll ask for the facts next time. In any case, it leaves me far more mobile and actually will be better for my body, if I can be on it.)
I was doing all my pre-admission stuff and everything was on track--or so I thought--when I received a call on Tuesday, August 30, from the hospital's Financial Aid Office "reminding" me that I had an appointment with them the next day, Wednesday, August 31, at 10AM.
That was the first I had heard about any appointment with the hospital's Financial Aid Office ... and the communication deteriorated from that point on ... so I cancelled my procedure on Friday thinking the responsible thing to do would be to resolve the financial questions BEFORE I had the surgery. Because if it wasn't covered by some form of financial assistance on top on my Medicare A and B, then I had better rethink what I was getting myself into. (I have learned from experience that it is best to have these issues resolved ahead of time rather than afterward. I'm still paying off medical bills from 2002 that weren't covered.)
Anyway, I started asking questions about whether I qualified for Financial Assistance and they responded by telling me that I had to be committed to the procedure before they could give me that information.
Now, this sounded VERY strange to me. Here I have been reading all this stuff about the patient needing to "take charge of his/her medical care". So shouldn't I have the information I need to make a responsible decision? Like, can I afford what you're going to do to me? And shouldn't I have some kind of a reasonable estimate (like the range of possibilities) for what the outcome might be in terms of cost?
See, I had been going along thinking I was covered at this hospital, because I was covered at my other primary hospital, but, no, they said they couldn't tell me that ahead of time. The way I was understanding what they were telling me was that I had to accumulate the bills and THEN they would tell me whether or not the financial assistance program would pay them. How strange is that?
My first recourse was to contact the Social Services department of this hospital and review the situation. They basically told me that that was how this particular financial assistance program worked. When I replied that that put me between a rock and a hard place ... they offered to put me in contact with someone higher up in the Financial Aid Department. When I then asked if I could have something like a patient advocate to act as a mediator because otherwise I would talking to the person in charge of the rules which I was questioning. The Social Services response was that all they could do was refer me to the Financial Aid Supervisor. I told them that would be too stressful of a situation for me. They replied, "That's your choice".
I next went back to the surgeon's office. They informed me that I had to work it out with the hospital.
My next recourse was to share all this with a person in Essex County's Division of Aging. Here I began to make headway. This person and this department has been of great assistance over the past couple of weeks as I have been trying to sort out my health care options. She immediately responded and located a person in the hospital's geriatric department whom I can contact.
I went from frustration and anger to appreciation and euphoria, then settled into depression. I told the Division of Aging person how much I appreciated her help, and that hopefully I would have the emotional energy to pursue the contact by next week.
It's true growing old and being poor ain't for wimps. I'll let you know how "chronically ill" works out in the short run. In the long run, we're all dead.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Symposia Seniors
Symposia Seniors is a Senior Citizen group that I helped found at the Symposia Bookstore in Hoboken, New Jersey. We meet at 4:30PM each Saturday afternoon, Lord willing and the creek don't rise ... and it isn't too hot ... and the main members are feeling OK ... which in my case means I haven't been to meeting in three weeks altenating between too hot and not feeling well.
Which is OK, too, because we decided when started back in the dead of last winter, that it wouldn't be until this coming fall before we REALLY got going. We wanted to just place a "marker" in peoples consiciousness so that when they got done with their summer doings this year they might consider getting involved ... and if they don't, that's OK, too, because Leo and I are having a great deal of fun getting our stuff together and planning to publish it ourselves if need.
Leo is writing a memoir novel with a working title of Operation Plowshare of his life in Hoboken which spans almost 80 years ... stretching back into the lives of both his parents who were also lifelong Hoboken residents. So far we've been working through Leo's youthful antics and pranks up to and incuding a hitch in the US Army in Europe during the Cold War ... fascinating stuff.
I've been working the kinks out in our "publishing" operation by printing and binding a booklet series of my postings here on this blog. I have called the series Thoughts Written In Poverty: Philosophy 0 to 101. So far I have complete small "press runs" for Part 1: July, 2004 and Part 2: August, 2004.
Websites for addtional information:
Which is OK, too, because we decided when started back in the dead of last winter, that it wouldn't be until this coming fall before we REALLY got going. We wanted to just place a "marker" in peoples consiciousness so that when they got done with their summer doings this year they might consider getting involved ... and if they don't, that's OK, too, because Leo and I are having a great deal of fun getting our stuff together and planning to publish it ourselves if need.
Leo is writing a memoir novel with a working title of Operation Plowshare of his life in Hoboken which spans almost 80 years ... stretching back into the lives of both his parents who were also lifelong Hoboken residents. So far we've been working through Leo's youthful antics and pranks up to and incuding a hitch in the US Army in Europe during the Cold War ... fascinating stuff.
I've been working the kinks out in our "publishing" operation by printing and binding a booklet series of my postings here on this blog. I have called the series Thoughts Written In Poverty: Philosophy 0 to 101. So far I have complete small "press runs" for Part 1: July, 2004 and Part 2: August, 2004.
Websites for addtional information:
Friday, August 19, 2005
I am poor
I am poor. I am also Scandinavian. Being poor is not a shameful state of affairs for Swedes.
And my being poor doesn't correlate well with my lifestyle. It is the label attached to a person who has—in my case—a minus net equity. I owe more than I own. And who receives less than a specific amount each month—which varies from state to state depending on the cost-of-living in that state (I believe).
My lifestyle has more to do with simplicity and patience, of stopping to smell the flowers and absorb the ambience of the world around me.
I live in a suburb a little over half-an-hour away from Manhattan on the NJ Transit Midtown Direct commuter line ... which gives me access to one of the great metropolitan centers of the world for less than $5 roundtrip. I am mobile within my world, a world that offers more interesting things that I can do than I can get around to doing.
Plus, I share the use of a computer with high-speed internet access in the household where I live.
I am fortunate to be part of a culture that values the worth and dignity of each individual member based on a belief in the intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself rather than the exchange value of the assets he or she owns, or social position, or ...
And what do I mean by " intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself"?
How can an "end in itself" be "transendental"? How can we transcend or go beyond an "end in itself"? Isn't an "end in itself" an end without any beyond?
This is where the concept of "an idea" comes into play. (Which is VERY Platonian, but that should not bother us, just giving credit where credit is due.) It is that "the idea" of "a chair" is something other than a specific chair and applies to all chairs ... and in that sense goes beyond a specific chair—transcends it—even though the specific chair is an end in itself.
Thus if I believe in the intrinsic value (intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing; Merriam-Webster) of the individual human life as a trancendental end in itself, I am saying that each individual person has worth and dignity that requires respect and consideration, and that that "idea" applies to all human beings.
(Note: It is difficult for me to not immediately extend the concept to all forms of life, but that is a subject for another essay.)
Therefore, my placement on the poor to rich spectrum of ownership (or any other positioning relative to others) does not affect the intrinsic value of my individual human life.
Is this just whistling in the dark? Making a silk purse out of a pig's ear?
As one blind man, it is only with the help of others that I can put together the whole image of the elephant. I can only relate as honestly as I can the description of what I am hanging onto, and encourage others to do likewise.
And my being poor doesn't correlate well with my lifestyle. It is the label attached to a person who has—in my case—a minus net equity. I owe more than I own. And who receives less than a specific amount each month—which varies from state to state depending on the cost-of-living in that state (I believe).
My lifestyle has more to do with simplicity and patience, of stopping to smell the flowers and absorb the ambience of the world around me.
I live in a suburb a little over half-an-hour away from Manhattan on the NJ Transit Midtown Direct commuter line ... which gives me access to one of the great metropolitan centers of the world for less than $5 roundtrip. I am mobile within my world, a world that offers more interesting things that I can do than I can get around to doing.
Plus, I share the use of a computer with high-speed internet access in the household where I live.
I am fortunate to be part of a culture that values the worth and dignity of each individual member based on a belief in the intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself rather than the exchange value of the assets he or she owns, or social position, or ...
And what do I mean by " intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself"?
How can an "end in itself" be "transendental"? How can we transcend or go beyond an "end in itself"? Isn't an "end in itself" an end without any beyond?
This is where the concept of "an idea" comes into play. (Which is VERY Platonian, but that should not bother us, just giving credit where credit is due.) It is that "the idea" of "a chair" is something other than a specific chair and applies to all chairs ... and in that sense goes beyond a specific chair—transcends it—even though the specific chair is an end in itself.
Thus if I believe in the intrinsic value (intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing; Merriam-Webster) of the individual human life as a trancendental end in itself, I am saying that each individual person has worth and dignity that requires respect and consideration, and that that "idea" applies to all human beings.
(Note: It is difficult for me to not immediately extend the concept to all forms of life, but that is a subject for another essay.)
Therefore, my placement on the poor to rich spectrum of ownership (or any other positioning relative to others) does not affect the intrinsic value of my individual human life.
Is this just whistling in the dark? Making a silk purse out of a pig's ear?
As one blind man, it is only with the help of others that I can put together the whole image of the elephant. I can only relate as honestly as I can the description of what I am hanging onto, and encourage others to do likewise.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Creeping closer to death
I have end-stage kidney disease aka chronic renal failure. I am beginning to feel the fatique and low-level nausea of my kidneys shutting down with my Creatinine level closing in on 5.0.
I have been engaged in the struggle against life-threatening kidney failure since acute kidney failure struck at the end of July, 2002, in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I spent ten days in Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, the first few days hovering at death's door. (I describe the experience in my memoir, "Into the Hospital".)
Yesterday was despressing as I finally made the call to my nephrologist (kidney doctor) and told him the time had come, the symptoms he had described and "ordered" me to call him when they appeared, had appeared. I couldn't put off dialysis any longer.
Today I began the process of the final sort through my treatment options, which will be dictated to some extent by how I can pay for the medical care I am about to receive ... because it will be an expensive regimen for the remainder of my life.
Faced with the hurdles of the next few weeks, I was starting to feel sorry for myself and consider whether it was going to be worth it, worth going through all the rigmarole of applying for the additional medicaid coverage I would need, getting the tube placed in my abdomen, and then go through the training for the peridoneal dialysis I would most likely be undertaking because I can do it at home. Maybe, I should just settle back and drift off into the cotton candy slumber of death from kidney failure.
But the self-pity didn't last too long. The room and closet and office spaces I use are simply too messy to leave for someone else to clean up. I have to try to hang around long enough to at least get that straightened out.
So I got up this morning, showered and headed off to see my PCP (Primary Care Physician) at the clinic.
She cheered me up immediately. I hadn't seen her for a while because I missed an appointment when I was sick that day, and it is harder then heck to get a new appointment. So I just kept putting it off ... until I knew I had to see her today if I was going to get anything straightened out ... and went in as "walk-in" ... which she takes on Monday afternoons and Wednesday mornings.
Knowing it would be a long wait, I brought along a couple of bottles or water and Jon le Carre's novel, ABSOLUTE FRIENDS, ( which by the way, is turning out to be an absolutely fascinating read!)
All went well and she steered me to the Clinic Social Worker who steered me to the County's Division of Aging, where later in the day I met truly helpful local government employee ... who took all the time I needed to explain the programs available to me as a Senior Citizen at my current level of income. (I'm publishing my journal as a series under the title, THOUGHTS WRITTEN IN POVERTY, so that ought to give you some idea of my financial situation.)
The process will continue through at least few more evolving iterations.
I have been engaged in the struggle against life-threatening kidney failure since acute kidney failure struck at the end of July, 2002, in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I spent ten days in Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, the first few days hovering at death's door. (I describe the experience in my memoir, "Into the Hospital".)
Yesterday was despressing as I finally made the call to my nephrologist (kidney doctor) and told him the time had come, the symptoms he had described and "ordered" me to call him when they appeared, had appeared. I couldn't put off dialysis any longer.
Today I began the process of the final sort through my treatment options, which will be dictated to some extent by how I can pay for the medical care I am about to receive ... because it will be an expensive regimen for the remainder of my life.
Faced with the hurdles of the next few weeks, I was starting to feel sorry for myself and consider whether it was going to be worth it, worth going through all the rigmarole of applying for the additional medicaid coverage I would need, getting the tube placed in my abdomen, and then go through the training for the peridoneal dialysis I would most likely be undertaking because I can do it at home. Maybe, I should just settle back and drift off into the cotton candy slumber of death from kidney failure.
But the self-pity didn't last too long. The room and closet and office spaces I use are simply too messy to leave for someone else to clean up. I have to try to hang around long enough to at least get that straightened out.
So I got up this morning, showered and headed off to see my PCP (Primary Care Physician) at the clinic.
She cheered me up immediately. I hadn't seen her for a while because I missed an appointment when I was sick that day, and it is harder then heck to get a new appointment. So I just kept putting it off ... until I knew I had to see her today if I was going to get anything straightened out ... and went in as "walk-in" ... which she takes on Monday afternoons and Wednesday mornings.
Knowing it would be a long wait, I brought along a couple of bottles or water and Jon le Carre's novel, ABSOLUTE FRIENDS, ( which by the way, is turning out to be an absolutely fascinating read!)
All went well and she steered me to the Clinic Social Worker who steered me to the County's Division of Aging, where later in the day I met truly helpful local government employee ... who took all the time I needed to explain the programs available to me as a Senior Citizen at my current level of income. (I'm publishing my journal as a series under the title, THOUGHTS WRITTEN IN POVERTY, so that ought to give you some idea of my financial situation.)
The process will continue through at least few more evolving iterations.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Some thoughts on old age and dying ...
One of my earliest "mature" stories, begun in my early twenties, started with the protagonist sitting on his front porch in his old age, slowly rocking back and forth, passing the time, thinking about the end of his life, fast approaching. The stream of consciousness setting up the story was about what regrets he might have.
As I thought about that story, it changed my life. Because I became aware early on that the biggest regret for me would come if I didn't pursue my dreams, march to my drummer, take my own path through life. It mattered not a twit whether the route would be crowded or lonely, hard or easy, long or short ... what mattered, I thought, would be that it was mine, of my choosing. I would get the feedback from my decisions.
As a white male of Scandinavian descent, born and raised in the northern tier States of Minnesota and Washington, a natural-born citizen of the United States, gifted with a reasonable intelligence and no physical defects, AND of the working class, I was relatively free to do whatever I wanted to do. I had no legacy of expectations other than to not screw up so badly that it would embarrass family or friends. I was blessed indeed. I was free ... still am, for that matter.
Now that I am that old man rocking away the end of my life, I feel like sharing what I am thinking about ... as openly and honestly as I can. At least some part of that feeling stems from the fact that the important adults in my childhood and youth kept most of their thoughts and how their experiences affected them, hidden from me. I wish I would have known then, or at least in my young adult years, what I now know ... and which I understand as being a fairly common experience.
For starters, up until my early forties, I didn't think much about dying. As a child, I thought a lot about going to Hell, because I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian, a mixture of old time Baptist and Pentecostal religion. I was saved, experienced the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the psyche phenomenon of Speaking in Tongues ... the whole bit. As a child, I only knew what I knew.
In my late teens I started seriously questioning the literal teachings of the Bible and spent the next forty some years trying to figure it all out, details of which I allude to from time to time in my stories and public journals.
In my early forties, I had the mid-life crisis we hear so much about as common to older men. I realized in a startling epiphany that my life really was going to end some day, leaving me with less time to live than I had already lived. I even remember much of the specific circumstances when and where it happened. It was in the fall, the early 1980's and I was traveling to Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington, from Seattle, via public transportation--a Greyhound and then the local city bus. I had been up most of the night before discussing the state of the cosmos in an all night restaurant, and slept most of the way to Olympia on the Greyhound bus. I got there, boarded the city bus to the college, and as I settled into my seat, I suddenly realized that I was going to die.
I can still remember the shock I felt at that moment. It was true, I was going to die. If ever there was a troubling of deaf heaven with bootless cries, to borrow a line from Shakespeare, that was it.
But I got through the moment, and the day with a renewed committment to follow my own path ... which was never very straight for any length of time, but always interesting.
Fast forward to the end of July, 2002, when I came quite close to dying from acute kidney failure. One of the benefits from dying from kidney failure is that it is usually a simple and painless drifting off into a coma and then dying as all the body's functions shut down. I liken it to settling into a big cotton candy cloud. I don't remember consciously fighting it. I do remember thinking that if this is dying, it ain't so bad. It didn't seem to matter one way or the other, whether I lived or died.
I haven't been afraid of dying since. I get a little annoyed once in awhile when I am right in the midst of a writing project, and I feel my body acting kind of sluggish, and I can get peeved about the interruption if I do in fact have to head off to the Emergency Room to check my blood chemistry when I don't feel right. My basic reaction is that I don't want to be bothered with it at the moment. If I'm not in the midst of something, I am much more mellow, even sanguine, about it.
Another thing, I have prostate cancer and receive a periodic hormonal medical treatment to keep my testosterone in check. As a result, I am basically a chemical enuch. With this new status I discovered that many men don't like to talk about a reduced sex drive in old age. From my point of view, it solves a lot of problems. If I would have known how I would feel about it once it was imposed ... who knows, I might have opted for it sooner. It's hard to explain the additional sense of freedom I have simply because I no longer have an appreciable sex drive. This is a clear example of what I believe older people should share.
I have lived each age-phase of my life past childhood and puberty in pursuit of what I wanted at the time. I regret none of it. It got me here. In this moment, here and now, I am free with more choices than I could ever hope to pursue. I can pick the most satisfying for me, and I do. I love it with a full-throttle zest for living in the moment.
I'll get back to you on the subject.
As I thought about that story, it changed my life. Because I became aware early on that the biggest regret for me would come if I didn't pursue my dreams, march to my drummer, take my own path through life. It mattered not a twit whether the route would be crowded or lonely, hard or easy, long or short ... what mattered, I thought, would be that it was mine, of my choosing. I would get the feedback from my decisions.
As a white male of Scandinavian descent, born and raised in the northern tier States of Minnesota and Washington, a natural-born citizen of the United States, gifted with a reasonable intelligence and no physical defects, AND of the working class, I was relatively free to do whatever I wanted to do. I had no legacy of expectations other than to not screw up so badly that it would embarrass family or friends. I was blessed indeed. I was free ... still am, for that matter.
Now that I am that old man rocking away the end of my life, I feel like sharing what I am thinking about ... as openly and honestly as I can. At least some part of that feeling stems from the fact that the important adults in my childhood and youth kept most of their thoughts and how their experiences affected them, hidden from me. I wish I would have known then, or at least in my young adult years, what I now know ... and which I understand as being a fairly common experience.
For starters, up until my early forties, I didn't think much about dying. As a child, I thought a lot about going to Hell, because I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian, a mixture of old time Baptist and Pentecostal religion. I was saved, experienced the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the psyche phenomenon of Speaking in Tongues ... the whole bit. As a child, I only knew what I knew.
In my late teens I started seriously questioning the literal teachings of the Bible and spent the next forty some years trying to figure it all out, details of which I allude to from time to time in my stories and public journals.
In my early forties, I had the mid-life crisis we hear so much about as common to older men. I realized in a startling epiphany that my life really was going to end some day, leaving me with less time to live than I had already lived. I even remember much of the specific circumstances when and where it happened. It was in the fall, the early 1980's and I was traveling to Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington, from Seattle, via public transportation--a Greyhound and then the local city bus. I had been up most of the night before discussing the state of the cosmos in an all night restaurant, and slept most of the way to Olympia on the Greyhound bus. I got there, boarded the city bus to the college, and as I settled into my seat, I suddenly realized that I was going to die.
I can still remember the shock I felt at that moment. It was true, I was going to die. If ever there was a troubling of deaf heaven with bootless cries, to borrow a line from Shakespeare, that was it.
But I got through the moment, and the day with a renewed committment to follow my own path ... which was never very straight for any length of time, but always interesting.
Fast forward to the end of July, 2002, when I came quite close to dying from acute kidney failure. One of the benefits from dying from kidney failure is that it is usually a simple and painless drifting off into a coma and then dying as all the body's functions shut down. I liken it to settling into a big cotton candy cloud. I don't remember consciously fighting it. I do remember thinking that if this is dying, it ain't so bad. It didn't seem to matter one way or the other, whether I lived or died.
I haven't been afraid of dying since. I get a little annoyed once in awhile when I am right in the midst of a writing project, and I feel my body acting kind of sluggish, and I can get peeved about the interruption if I do in fact have to head off to the Emergency Room to check my blood chemistry when I don't feel right. My basic reaction is that I don't want to be bothered with it at the moment. If I'm not in the midst of something, I am much more mellow, even sanguine, about it.
Another thing, I have prostate cancer and receive a periodic hormonal medical treatment to keep my testosterone in check. As a result, I am basically a chemical enuch. With this new status I discovered that many men don't like to talk about a reduced sex drive in old age. From my point of view, it solves a lot of problems. If I would have known how I would feel about it once it was imposed ... who knows, I might have opted for it sooner. It's hard to explain the additional sense of freedom I have simply because I no longer have an appreciable sex drive. This is a clear example of what I believe older people should share.
I have lived each age-phase of my life past childhood and puberty in pursuit of what I wanted at the time. I regret none of it. It got me here. In this moment, here and now, I am free with more choices than I could ever hope to pursue. I can pick the most satisfying for me, and I do. I love it with a full-throttle zest for living in the moment.
I'll get back to you on the subject.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Some thoughts on Intelligent Design (ID)
Posted to the Paul Krugman forum on the NY Times Op/Ed website, hglindquist - 7:52 AM ET August 6, 2005, #44707 and hglindquist - 8:03 AM ET August 6, 2005, #44708:
If ID is an attempt by Creationists to present a rational concept, everyone should applaud. With reason as a guide, blind faith is quickly shown to be irrational ...
But to show the advance of reason that ID brings to Christian Fundamentalists I would like to quote Sir Isaac Newton (taken from Karen Armstrong's A HISTORY OF GOD--a recommended read, by the way):
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. . . . He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfection; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing."
Remember what Newton did for the Age of Enlightenment (from Wikipedia):
"There was a wave of change across European thinking, which is exemplified by the natural philosophy of Sir Isaac Newton, a mathematical genius and brilliant physicist. The ideas of Newton, which combined his ability to fuse axiomatic proof with physical observation into a coherent system of verifiable predictions, set the tone for much of what would follow in the century after the publication of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica."
One more thought, this time from Jean-Paul Sartre,(in translation, of course, from THE PHILOSOPHY OF JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, edited and introduced by Robert Denoon Cumming):
"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."
I accept that.
Now if I chose to take Kierkegaard's leap of faith to believe in God then I would have to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief, would I not? Many people I know, respect, and love have made this choice. They cover a wide range of ID advocates to Literal Creationists. Most of them are not stupid or uneducated.
I choose to believe that God does not exist and to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief.
Getting Literal Creationists to establish a standard of rational consistency via the concept of ID is a huge step forward, in my humble Existentialist opinion.
Maybe we will have a new Age of Enlightenment?!
If ID is an attempt by Creationists to present a rational concept, everyone should applaud. With reason as a guide, blind faith is quickly shown to be irrational ...
But to show the advance of reason that ID brings to Christian Fundamentalists I would like to quote Sir Isaac Newton (taken from Karen Armstrong's A HISTORY OF GOD--a recommended read, by the way):
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. . . . He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfection; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing."
Remember what Newton did for the Age of Enlightenment (from Wikipedia):
"There was a wave of change across European thinking, which is exemplified by the natural philosophy of Sir Isaac Newton, a mathematical genius and brilliant physicist. The ideas of Newton, which combined his ability to fuse axiomatic proof with physical observation into a coherent system of verifiable predictions, set the tone for much of what would follow in the century after the publication of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica."
One more thought, this time from Jean-Paul Sartre,(in translation, of course, from THE PHILOSOPHY OF JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, edited and introduced by Robert Denoon Cumming):
"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."
I accept that.
Now if I chose to take Kierkegaard's leap of faith to believe in God then I would have to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief, would I not? Many people I know, respect, and love have made this choice. They cover a wide range of ID advocates to Literal Creationists. Most of them are not stupid or uneducated.
I choose to believe that God does not exist and to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief.
Getting Literal Creationists to establish a standard of rational consistency via the concept of ID is a huge step forward, in my humble Existentialist opinion.
Maybe we will have a new Age of Enlightenment?!
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
On reading the fora of the NY Times Op/Ed Columnists
Posted under hglindquist to the Bob Herbert forum in the NYTimes website, Wednesday, August 3, :
hglindquist - 10:04 AM ET August 3, 2005 (#29261)
The fora of the NY Times are a fascinating read! So many people appear to have closed their minds to reason ... all along the spectrum of political thought from the right to the left.
Some individuals expend a seemingly inordinate amount of time and energy to respond in kind to the sophomoric rhetoric (drivel?) of an opposing view. Where does all this angst come from?
Are we turning our back on the ideals of our great nation?
This spoken by a Republican President:
"It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... "
Yes, there is some latitude in interpretation of our ideals, but I believe that we have start with what we believe these principles mean and explain with reason how we then come to our interpretation of them as applied to current events.
In this there will always be the tension between what is and what we believe ought to be.
I would suggest that if we turn away from the pursuit of freedom and a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", we will be retreating. And what is retreat?
hglindquist - 10:04 AM ET August 3, 2005 (#29261)
The fora of the NY Times are a fascinating read! So many people appear to have closed their minds to reason ... all along the spectrum of political thought from the right to the left.
Some individuals expend a seemingly inordinate amount of time and energy to respond in kind to the sophomoric rhetoric (drivel?) of an opposing view. Where does all this angst come from?
Are we turning our back on the ideals of our great nation?
This spoken by a Republican President:
"It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... "
Yes, there is some latitude in interpretation of our ideals, but I believe that we have start with what we believe these principles mean and explain with reason how we then come to our interpretation of them as applied to current events.
In this there will always be the tension between what is and what we believe ought to be.
I would suggest that if we turn away from the pursuit of freedom and a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", we will be retreating. And what is retreat?
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Reaping the harvest of Manifest Destiny
Once again the Christian West is embarked on a program of bringing our view of "knowing what is best for them" to another culture. We used to call this Manifest Destiny.
One problem in bringing our (the Christian West's) view of enlightenment to the Middle East is that we have a historical legacy in how we have treated aboriginal populations. Remember Kipling? Didn't he write something like, "We have got the gatling gun, and they have not"?
The next problem, stemming from that one, is that the Muslims have the gatling gun, and they are willing to use it in defense of their culture.
What did Nathan Hale say? "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
The blowback (unintended consequenses) of our policies in the Middle East, which are so obviously constituted to protect our access to its oil, is that we have allowed the doctrine of jihad as a violent response to imperialism to take root. Muslims are not Native Americans with bows and arrows, nor Australine aborigines with boomarangs, nor Africans with spears. Muslims have an arsenal of lethal weapons at their disposal and the will to use them, in a culture that affirms the validity of martyrdom in opposing the encroachment of other cultures.
This conflict will not now cease until either we renounce our designs on the Middle East or the doctrine of jihad is renounced by Muslims everywhere. Which do you think will happen first?
Bush does not have a clue as to the conflagration that has been fanned and fueled by the Neocon's War in Iraq, because he is a true believer in the Christian God of the Bible.
Or maybe he does. Maybe he believes that he is God's instrument in bringing us to the prophesied Battle of Armaggedon.
Either way, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle ... or stopping the grain from ripening.
One problem in bringing our (the Christian West's) view of enlightenment to the Middle East is that we have a historical legacy in how we have treated aboriginal populations. Remember Kipling? Didn't he write something like, "We have got the gatling gun, and they have not"?
The next problem, stemming from that one, is that the Muslims have the gatling gun, and they are willing to use it in defense of their culture.
What did Nathan Hale say? "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
The blowback (unintended consequenses) of our policies in the Middle East, which are so obviously constituted to protect our access to its oil, is that we have allowed the doctrine of jihad as a violent response to imperialism to take root. Muslims are not Native Americans with bows and arrows, nor Australine aborigines with boomarangs, nor Africans with spears. Muslims have an arsenal of lethal weapons at their disposal and the will to use them, in a culture that affirms the validity of martyrdom in opposing the encroachment of other cultures.
This conflict will not now cease until either we renounce our designs on the Middle East or the doctrine of jihad is renounced by Muslims everywhere. Which do you think will happen first?
Bush does not have a clue as to the conflagration that has been fanned and fueled by the Neocon's War in Iraq, because he is a true believer in the Christian God of the Bible.
Or maybe he does. Maybe he believes that he is God's instrument in bringing us to the prophesied Battle of Armaggedon.
Either way, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle ... or stopping the grain from ripening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)