On "French Family Values"

Posted under hglindquist to the Paul Krugman forum in the NYTimes website, Friday, July 29, in response to his Op/Ed column "French Family Values":

hglindquist - 9:00 AM ET July 29, 2005 (#42725)

Re: French Family Values

I appreciate Paul Krugman writing about other possibilities for arranging the way we live.

As a person of Scandinavian descent I have long held the view that we are far too concerned about "socialism" and not concerned enough about "fascism" creeping into our systems.

When I reflect on the manner in which communities came together in the formation of our great nation to develop political and economic systems to meet the common needs, we didn't seem to be so encumbered with mental blinders against cooperative efforts in laying out our towns and villages, building water systems for instance, establishing the "rules of the commons".

People seemed to understand that some things are best sorted out in open debate between all the stakeholders in an issue. We knew that some issues left to the vagaries of "The Invisible Hand", could be irrationally distorted by the accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few, and monopolism could supplant capitalism under the guise of a free market.

Maybe I am being too idealistic in my hindsight; however, I find it somewhat humorous to read denunciation of ideas for ostensibly valid reasons which on closer examination are revealed to be chauvinistic responses to a foreign source ... as if most of what we now call the United States didn't stem from foreign sources.

On "Learning From Lance"

Posted under hglindquist to the Thomas L. Friedman forum in the NYTimes website, Wednesday, July 27, in response to his Op/Ed column "Learning From Lance":

hglindquist - 8:15 AM ET July 27, 2005 (#22796)

Maybe we will rethink the irrational logic of "If everyone pursues maximum personal benefit, the result will be maximum benefit to the group." (Tell that to an Army platoon!) Unless we have the context of the group's shared goals, the resources of the group will be used to attain the goals of the "person" who controls those resources. (Which is fine if the Lieutenant is in charge, following the Army's rules of engagement; however, if the private seeks to maximze what he or she decides is best for him or her ... )

If those who control the assets of a corporation (Capital) have more power than those who provide the labor (Labor) for that corporation ... and Capital and Labor do not have an agreement on shared goals, as in the building of community ... and each are seeking to maximize their own benefit ... well, we have that now, here in the United States. (Obviously, the reverse would be true, if that were the case ... it is the tension between the opposing interests that contributes so much energy to the dynamic of capitalism.)

As Ireland has learned (and Norway and Switzerland) it is the community (as in the nation) that must establish rules of the commons, the ground on which business takes place, if the community is to benefit.

Lance's seven victories have meaning because there is a Tour de France ... not the other way around.

We are tipping over

Don't our leaders get it? We have PASSED the tipping point!

When the design is to put the Freedom Tower on a 200 foot concrete pedestal, it becomes the Fear Tower.

When police in a "civilized" nation adopt a policy of shoot-to-kill based on suspicion, we have lost an essential charactersitic of liberty.

Of course it is UNDERSTANDABLE! I know why it is happening. It is to protect us from terrorists. That is my point. We are circling the wagons and we have "them" both inside the circle and out. Frightening, isn't it?!

You see, the question of who wins and who loses is paramount in the minds of both groups, "us" and "them". And they know what we do to the losers from the long history of our treatment of aboriginal populations.

We should have learned from the adventures of the West in China and India. In some cases it really is best to let the other group win early on, so they can become an equal partner in our world. But no, we have to control the oil, don't we? Because what would happen to our standard of living if we didn't? Who would be rich and who would be poor then?

What is being done in our (yours and mine, the people's) name?

This from the following article in today's (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)Washinton Post:

In Britain, a Divide Over Racial Profiling
Mistaken Killing by Police Sets Off Debate
By Glenn Frankel and Tamara Jones
Washington Post Foreign Service

LONDON, July 26

Yet after facing two coordinated bombing attacks on the city's transit system -- one of which killed 56 people, including the bombers, and injured 700 -- many people say they understand the reasons for the policy. "Shoot-to-kill keeps us secure, and I feel protected, but at the same time I'm scared," said Angel Henry, 22, an airline employee who is part Jamaican and says that at times she feels singled out for having black features. "It's a Catch-22 situation. We've got to just ride it out."

We are tipping over and "We've got to just ride it out."

---

Note: Read Dora Graham's article in the Authers Den entitled,

"England My England!"

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=18906

A call for a new Age of Enlightenment

Posted under hglindquist to the Paul Krugman forum in the NYTimes website, Friday, July 29, in response to his Op/Ed column "French Family Values":

hglindquist - 10:39 AM ET July 29, 2005 (#42768)

Once again we must free ourselves from the bonds of delusional ideology and turn to the rational evaluation of our world, brilliantly practiced a few steps beyond the threshold of civilization so many centuries ago in Athens by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other slightly less well known Greeks.

The heritage of the world's philosophers from before Athens to today, provides a firm foundation for a return to reason. Let us not shy away from our task because it is difficult. Those who have gone before us have in many instances given their very lives that we may enjoy the freedom to think rationally about what we are doing, to question what is being done in our name.

Are we to be led by those who would deny us our heritage? Are we so weak and fearful that we would not be free? If I am not free to think, I am not free.

Gather your friends and acquaintances as we do on Tuesday evenings at the Symposia Salon in Greenwich Village: West Village Conversation Group, and question your world. We can fuel the flame of reason in a new Age of Enlightenment.

When:
7:00 pm, Tuesdays

Where:
Caffe Dell Artista
46 Greenwich Av.
between 6th and 7th Avs.
New York, NY

Map and Directions

The West Village discussion group is open to anyone who loves to make new friends and find ways of improving personal or community life. The meetings have rotating facilitators who come up with specific subjects, but people who attend shape the conversation and this gives a different flavor to every meeting. The discussion is respectful, open, and creative and there is no pressure to contribute. Everybody is welcome.

There is a minimum $5 order per person.

Contact: Corneliu Rusu
Email: info@symposia.us
Website: www.symposia.us

Some references:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the internet, describes the Age of Enlightenment in part as,

The Age of Enlightenment refers to the 18th century in European philosophy, and is often thought of as part of a larger period which includes the Age of Reason.

The term also more specifically refers to a historical intellectual movement, "The Enlightenment." This movement advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge.

In Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options by Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt, and Dennis L. Okholm (1999: Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 8th Ed.,ISBN 0-534-53393-0) write,

Distinguishing between reason and rhetoric—two concepts that are all too frequently confused—is important. Reason implies some sort of orderly thought process that can be traced, analyzed, and judged by intellectual standards. Reason claims to increase human knowledge or understanding, often apart from its practical applications. Reason may be valued for its own sake because it illuminates meaning, order, and perspective. Reason emphasizes the passion for clarity and truth; it stresses criticism and the search for sound arguments. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is a form of communication designed to persuade, to motivate people toward a predetermined action or opinion. Rhetoric is the skillful use of language in an effort to elicit a particular response. Rhetoric is a means; it takes the form of intellectual coercion or psychological persuasion. Rhetoric tends to be uncritical and dogmatic.

The distinction between reason and rhetoric raises some sticky semantic questions, but it is a similar distinction to that sometimes made between "education" and "propaganda." Education seeks to give persons the power to make decisions and the knowledge to make choices on their own. Propaganda is designed to produce a predictable opinion or response, whether or not responders understand what they do or why they do it. Over the years philosophy has been tilted toward the broader view—toward reason and education.

Logical reasoning is one of the most important areas of contemporary philosophical study. The traditional way of classifying logical arguments is to designate them either inductive or deductive. Different criteria are employed in evaluating each type, and we shall consider them separately.

The roots of the Neocons run deep ...

Posted under hglindquist to the Bob Herbert forum in the NYTimes website, Thursday, July 28, in response to his Op/Ed column "Oil and Blood":

hglindquist - 7:39 AM ET July 28, 2005 (#28622)

The roots of Straussian fascism, the political philosophy of the Neocons, run deep.

Gordon Wright, history professor, wrote the following in The Ordeal of Total War: 1939-1945, with its 1968 Copyright:

"The German resistance did differ markedly in its composition and general outlook from the resistance norm in occupied Europe. By necessity it was much smaller; perhaps by necessity also it was more elitist in spirit, more suspicious of the masses, more doubtful about the practicality of political democracy. Its members were inclined to see Nazism not as an antiparlimentary political system but as a moral and political illness affecting the whole Western world. In Germany an atomized, secularized society had succumbed to demagogic dictatorship, as might happen to mass societies anywhere; the German masses had been corrupted, and could only be saved by an elite which would restore morality. Their dominant mood strongly resembled that of the German conservatives during the 1920's, when the source of evil had not been Naziam but liberal democracy. Some of them had hoped to turn the rootless mass into an organic Volk; some had even, for a time, seen this as Hitler's mission. Disillusioned by that experiment, they were not prepared to look to the masses as active allies in restoring sanity and balance to the nation. More than anywhere else in Europe, the German resistance looked to an elitist, decentralized regime with deep Christian roots. Only thus, they believed, could a mass society be prevented from slipping once again into some kind of totalitarian abyss."

Repeating for emphasis, "The masses had been corrupted, and could only be saved by an elite which would restore morality."

The Neocons, in their minds, are this elite saving the Western world. What they don't seem to understand is that leaders who save us from ourselves are dictators.

The question we should always ask of our leaders, Are they using fear to advance their agenda? or are the helping us to understand--in the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt--the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

You can read more about Professor Wright at:

http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1463/310.pdf

Who are the terrorists, Mr. President?

A poem by Hilding Lindquist
Copyright 2005
Reproduction and distribution is permitted with attribution.

I have been enlisted
by my President
to stay the course
to fight the terrorists
until they are gone.

I will, Mr. President, but
the questions are endless
in my mind.

Who are the terrorists, Mr. President?
and do they have roots?
or is theirs a virgin birth?
or manna from heaven?
God, their source.

Are they the ones
who blew up the trains and the bus
in London?
Are they the ones
who strap explosives to their bodies
and blow themselves up
in Iraq
and Israel?
Are they the ones
who flew the planes into
the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon
and the field in Pennsylvania?
Are they the ones
who shot the seven thousand Muslims
in Srebrenica?
Are they the ones
who slaughtered the Palestinians
in Chatilla and Sabra?

Do they have roots
in the Trail of Tears
of the Cherokee Nation?
Do they have roots
in the fight against Franco
in Spain?
Do they have roots
in the dropping of the bomb
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Do they have roots in Fallujah?

The questions are endless
in my mind.

Who are the terrorists, Mr. President?
and do they have roots?
or is theirs a virgin birth
or manna from heaven?
God, their source.

So I may stay the course
and know when they are gone,
the terrorists and their roots.

Have Bush and the Neocons gone insane?

Posted under hglindquist to the Bob Herbert forum in the NYTimes website, Thursday, July 28, in response to his Op/Ed column "Oil and Blood":

hglindquist - 9:10 AM ET July 28, 2005 (#28643)

In 1987, David Lamb, the noted reporter and author, wrote in The Arabs: Journeys Beyond the Mirage, "The stakes are high for the world in the Gulf war. If Khomeini wins and a wildfire of Shiite fundamentalism spreads through the region, Iran could control Arabia's oil fields. It is a script the United States and Western Europe would use military force to prevent."

Instead of preventing the spread of Shiite fundamentalism in the Middle East, Bush and the Neocons have used our military force to help its spread.

Today's news is filled with stories of the relentless push by the current transitional government in Iraq to install Shiite fundamentalism in Iraq. An example is found in the editorial, "Off Course in Iraq", in today's (Thursday, July 21, 2005) New York Times, which reads is part: "Most chilling of all are the prospects for Iraqi women. As things now stand, their rights are about to be set back by nearly 50 years because of new family law provisions inserted into a draft of the constitution at the behest of the ruling Shiite religious parties. These would make Koranic law, called Shariah, the supreme authority on marriage, divorce and inheritance issues."

And we are supporting this? Have our leaders gone totally mad?

A new paradigm for community action

Some thoughts for future development:

Hierarchical social structures (vehicles) fueled by greed are not capable of organizing (bringing us into) the global community of the 21st century.

Why aren't they? It's quite simple, they become encumbered by a historical legacy of power and control vested in specific individuals who are themselves limited by the specific skill sets that bring them to positions of power and control.

Change is occurring too rapidly for team play in which the quarterback is king. Even the short span of years the normal CEO has at the top has now become far too long, particularly when you consider the trajectory of his or her ascendency. We should think about the baseball model in which the movement of the ball really does determine who is in charge of the play.

There are other aspects of the emerging global community for which our hierarchical soical structures are not adequate for integrating the world's diversity. If we think in terms of making everyone as homogeneous as possible, then we are misguided, but this is the end result for which a hierarchical social structure is best suited: get everyone to align under the direction of leaders.

We do not need vertical alignment top to bottom, front to back. Nor do we need the integration of the blender. We need the integration of the work of art in which components retain their essential characteristics in the creative whole.

The Sexual Nature of Evil

Consider this question: Are we really at such a loss as to why young men are blowing themselves up in the name of religion?

Reflecting on the swirl of newly produced hormones coursing through my body in my late teens and early twenties from the vantage point (and safety!) of my old age, I don't find it difficult to understand at all.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment ... Baptist oriented--with a brief mix of Pentecostal ... yes, I experienced the psychic phenomenum of "Speaking in Tongues" as a manifestaion of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". Imagine my suprise when I later started lusting after members of the opposite sex! How could this be?

The battle I fought against Satanic forces seeking to control my soul was gigantic, heroic, and--finally--tragic ... because I was fighting myself.

Fast forward to a philosophical review of our history from the vista of old age: We have made it public policy to deny the sexual nature of sociopathic environments in our history, such as the slavery in the Southern Baptist south and homophobia in the military.

Because we do not, as part of our conventional wisdom, acknowledge the double-bell shaped curve of human sexuality as a continuum without sharp delineation in our species, we continue to fail in our attempts to understand the roots of much behavior that we have labeled as evil.

My hypothesis is that if we understood the sexual nature of our own history, we could better understand the (also seemingly obvious upon reflection) sexual nature of the jihadists efforts.

Do we really NOT understand the frenzied drive to overcome the lust awakened in us by what religous leaders call Satanic forces?

I can still remember--though I no longer feel--the heat of that powerful force ... and the peace that finally came when I understood it was natural, that I was supposed to feel that way, and the secret to feeling the indescrible joy in its climax and release (as opposed to guilt and shame), was to care about the other person.

Otherwise, I was a dog chasing my own tail.

Read my play, HUNTING THE ROAD KILL MOOSE, dealing with this subject.

I will also be facilitating the Tuesday evening, August 2nd, Symposia Salon in Greenwich Village on this subject, "The Sexual Nature of Evil." Check out www.symposia.us for time and place.

Hee Hee, Ho Ho, Karl Rove has got to go!

It's clear that Karl Rove was involved in the leak. It
is also clear that the White House said anyone
involved in the leak would have to go. And it is clear
that the White House lied through its spokesperson,
Scott McClelland, about Rove right up until the point
where it became clear that Rove was one of the two
sources for the leak. (Just the facts, ma'am.)

All that being said, this is still something of a
smokescreen to divert our (the American public's)
attention away from the fact that the President lied
to us about the intelligence gathered prior to going
to war in Iraq (and therefore its justification). And
if THAT isn't an impeachable crime, I don't know what
one should be.

As Frank Rich wrote today (Sunday, July 17, 2005) in
his column, titled "Follow the Uranium", on the Op/Ed
page of the NY Times:

"Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that
there's only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl
Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight
takes the fall at exactly that moment when it's
essential to protect the king."

(Sent as an e-mail to weekends@cnn.com)

7/7, London Calling

The horror of the 7/7 bombings in London will reverberate as long as memory remains.

A thought on the spiraling violence of my world

Herein lies my sudden doubt,
imperfect fear.
Beyond this day,
this year
The twirl of man's mad carousel
will bind us to its wall,
to travel the cyclic corridors of time,
unheard above the shrieking barkers cry
and the playing of his raucous tune.

Hunting the Road Kill Moose

Updated May 10, 2006:

My play, Hunting the Road Kill Moose, has been rewritten!

Act I
Act II
Act III

It's a play in 3 acts about conflict over the rules of sex in today's America.

An actors' group read the final draft at Symposia Bookstore in Hoboken, New Jersey, on May 7th. (See the poster.) The post-reading reviews by the group were enthusiastic, and the organizing director has asked me to submit my next play, On His Steps, to him when it is in its final draft and ready for a reading ... which is planned for this September.

My third play, The Last Supper, has been plotted and "cast". I plan to to bring it to final draft form, ready for reading by early Spring of next year.