Life is a biochemical process ...

The way I look at it ... Part II

See ... life is a biochemical process that dynamically replicates itself by interactively integrating with its environment.

If it didn't dynamically replicate itself by interactively integrating with its environment, it wouldn't "evolve".

The proof that it does (replicate itself by interactively integrating with its environment) is that it has (evolved).

One can say, the "purpose" of life, therefore, is to evolve. That is what it does.

This, then, is the basis of ethical value ... the pursuit of the evolution of life ... which is NOT now best served by conflict, but by cooperative collaboration ... not by guardians on the boundary (though necessary) but by the community they protect ... though we need our guardians—our warriors—to preserve and protect the community.

See, the way I look at it is ...

See, the way I look at it is that we—as a life-form—are a set of interactively integrated biochemical processes dynamically responding to the environment within which we are interactive.

Over the course of our emergence as a life-form, awareness—our conscious sense of our existence—has also emerged. And as it has emerged, we have created—as best we can—a narrative to explain the emergence of our existence and the type of awareness that has developed out of the biochemical encoding of current states of existence as memory for future reference.

We not only interact in the present with the environment "out there" but also with the memory environment from past experiencing of existence, and with the sets of "automatic" responses "hardwired" into us ... such as that of fear or lust or awe.

It is important to note that others as well as ourselves can erect a "mental monument" or archetype such as a concept of God that becomes a reference in our lives for the rest of our lives.

Death takes on resonance in reflection ...

We don't like to think about death and dying much—individually, about our own, that is—in my community. We certainly don't talk about it much.

Death is closing in on me.

I'm coming face to face with it ... again. This time it's not as close as last time. Theoretically there's some space, some distance ... some time.

Last time in July, 2002, it was in my face and touch and go whether I survived the next few hours as my medical team brought me through acute renal failure. I had lethal levels of potassium and creatinine in my blood from my kidneys shutting down.

This time I have significant blockage in my left carotid artery. I smoked heavily for a lot of years and I have had high cholesterol for as long as I can remember. The chickens are coming home to roost.

I'll have an MRI in the next few weeks and then my medical team and I will assess the risks. My biggest fear is a stroke. And the biggest problem in addressing that fear is my ongoing chronic kidney failure that has left me with less than 30% kidney function. Surgery will be risky.

I will be thinking about dying and I will share my thoughts here. Mostly—I think—because I can. And I am curious about how I will write about it ... knowing anyone can read this.

My death could be years away. It could be tonight. That hasn't changed. The change is that because of the blockage in my artery, I am reflecting on my death ... creating the resonance in my mind.

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

Dah!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Powerful interests play "we the people" like a drum. In the United States it's an oil drum. (Cheez looueez, aren't I clever?! *wink*)

Global monopolists cloak themselves in the trappings of petite market capitalists and decry government regulation ... so the global bullies can control (aka regulate) the markets. And we blissfully let them.

Think sports ... where would we be without foul lines, umpires, field judges, rules and regulations? Without 'em the Yankees would move the homerun fence closer every time they were up to bat at home, and refuse to play anywhere the other team did the same. 'Cuz they have the juice.

And now that our elected officials have sold out to corporate power and wealth ... and we've let them ... the checks and balances of our republic have been lost. We are consumers, not citizens.

We had better figure out a way to get our nation back ... we should be choosing between leaders more like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, than like Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton.

Pogo was right all along, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

We won the war and failed the occupation

It's always been about the oil. It's the neocon ideologues who tried to frost the cake with the Zionist agenda (which is NOT synonymous with "Jewish" agenda or even "Israeli" agenda).

Basically it was the Gunfight at the OK Corral between the Cheney gang and the Baker (Street?) Boys. Cheney had the upper hand for a time as he played Junior (aka Bush 43) as the clown puppet he is. Now the Baker(-Gates) front line of the Big Oil Bushies A-team is on the ascendant arc ...

We won the war and failed the occupation ... and now we are federalizing (balkanizing?) Iraq to secure our nation's strategic objective (since when? WWII?) of access to Middle East oil.

And the Democrats' leaders (my party) know full well that it isn't just getting "Vietnam" draped around their necks and jerked, its having odd-even days at the gas pumps coming back. And they damn well remember what happened to Jimmy Carter.

The freedom the majority of Americans will vote to support FIRST, is the freedom to come and go in their cars, pickups, and SUVs.

Pogo said it best, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

Living with hope as a horizon, rather than fear as a fence, Part I

Whew, I can hardly say it ... "Christian transcendentalist existentialist". Actually the transcendentalism is at least implied in the existentialism. But that is what I am, a Christian trancendentalist existentialist.

I wish by the time Sartre and Camus got into full swing they could have come up with a more easily pronounced label besides "existentialism" ... but be that as it may ... it is not as deep as you might think, though it can be kind of scary on the first go-round of thinking about it ... because we do wind up kind of floating out here in the cosmos as individual centers of awareness for god knows why ... and when you are right smack dab in the middle of the Nazi ascendency with swatikas flying over Paris--as Sartre and Camus were ... well ... that must have been a wee bit stressful, don't you think?

Anyhow, existentialism--to my way of thinking about it--is simply understanding that awareness--our consciousness, the fact that we think about ourselves as unitary beings for one thing--is produced or comes out of our existence. Awareness does NOT exist BEFORE existence. In other words, awareness does (did) not produce existence, existence produces (produced) awareness.

So if there is a "God", he, she, or it does not necessarily "think" like we do. And it matters not to the existentialist whether there really is a God or not ... we still must deal with our own personal awareness of our existence. If I choose to believe in God, fine. If I choose not too, fine ... maybe a wee bit more scary, but still fine. It really is up to me to choose ... even if the narrative of existence with a God is so ingrained in me that I never think about the actual choice.

"Transcendentalism" means that "what is" came out of (was produced by) "what was". And whether I am a point of consciousness running on a predetermined track or a fractal event in chaos, I experience my awareness of my existence as coming out of the past and going into the future. The future comes through the present. And I have no reason to think this has not always been the case which puts no limits on how in fact that happens to be the case.

OK, now the "Christian" part. Life--my individual being--is an enigma wrapped in the mystery of existence, to tweak Winston Churchill's phrase. My quest for resolution stems from the sense of awe I feel when looking up at the stars on a moonless night in the dead of winter from the frozen banks of the Yukon River, or hold my child as a newborn in my arms. What is this all about?

I choose the life of Jesus as an "iconic image" for resolving the mystery in my consciousness: What is it all about ... for me? I ask, and I must answer ... because I stand alone as a center of awareness in the cosmos ... or, rather, I experience myself (am aware of myself) as a unitary being in the environment in which I find myself. How do I live in that environment? How do I harmonize with the mystery?

I want to live with hope as a horizon rather than fear as a fence. Moving forward, horizons recede before me. Fences come closer.

Personally, I don't consider it necessary to believe that Jesus was a real person, nor that he was "the only begotten Son of God". And I find it strange that many who do believe, do not follow his message by trying to live their lives according to the values attributed to him.

For me, the message attributed to Jesus teaches us how to live without fear and full of hope ... and that is what I want focus on next.

You have to hand it to Baker and Gates, the Big Oil Bushies' A-Team front line ...

They--Baker and Gates--know what the hell they are doing.

And they ARE protecting the clearly defined strategic interests of our nation even if it means losing the 2008 election to the Democrats ... which is me, because I'm registered as a Democrat to vote.

And this is the huge difference between the talking heads type of leadership of my Democratic party and the serious professionals in the global arena. The top professionals like Baker and Gates are focused on achieving results.

Do you notice how Cheney is moving farther and farther into the background? God, what a deranged ideologue that guy was ... is, rather. Talk about the man behind the curtain in Wizard of Oz! Of course, Cheney knew how to make Junior--aka President Bush 43--think he (Junior) was President in more than title. What a mess!

And guess what? The Bush family pros are cleaning Junior's mess up once again. And I say, THANK GOD!

I mean, for chrissake, Baker handed the Democrats political leaders a bipartisan solution to Iraq in the policy recommendations of the report of the Iraq Study Group ... and they couldn't handle it! See, the Democratic pols are too worried about the 2008 election to focus on what is best for our nation. They simply think getting Democrats elected is ipso facto best. (Tell THAT to us folks in New Jersey, and you will have us rolling in the aisles ... laughing.)

Think about it, Bush threatened to veto anything he didn't like. So? Then he's left with nothing! The Democrats couldn't handle that. How the hell does anyone think they can handle a culture with young men and women willing to commit suicide for their beliefs?

And then we have all those Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon clowns ... all of 'em hiding behind Cheney's juicing the imperial presidency concept of unitary executive powers with Junior as President? Baker must have seen the trainwreck coming over the horizon. (Personally, I think it was Barbara Bush who intervened. "You have to do SOMEthing, Papa. They're creaming our boy.")

Geez loueez ... if it weren't for people like Mitch McConnell I might even register as a Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

Baker and Gates are good at what they do ...

The big Oil Bushies' A-Team--headed by James Baker (the Third)--organized the best possible strategy to clean up (once again in G.W.'s life) the mess Junior (aka President Bush 43) had made in Iraq. This strategy was spelled out in the policy recommendations of the report of the Iraq Study Group last year. Remember?

When the Democrats--having been given the majorities in both Houses of Congress by we the people--could not muster the political backbone to simply tell President Bush that nothing was going to happen until AFTER he adopted and started to implement the Iraq Study Group's report ... like, for instance, if Bush vetoes something he is left with nothing. Or am I missing something? What's this big threat of a veto? Congress passes the legislation. The Democrats didn't have the guts of leadership to stand up to Bush and his disaster ... even when handed the gift of the Iraq Study Group report by Big Oil Bushies A-Team!!! That was the easy out.

So the A-Team's front line (Baker-Gates -- that's Secretary of Defense Gates) is going to protect the strategic interests of the United States the hard way ... because they can't depend on the Democrats to do anything but talk. We are going to align ourselves with the Sunnis (think Saudis) to control access to the oil in the Middle East.

And the Democrats, again, aren't going to do a damn thing about it -- except talk -- BECAUSE they KNOW that if they force the pullout of troops, it isn't the bloodbath for Iraqis that the American public is worried about ... it's the odd-even days for pumping gas! aka the Jimmy Carter effect ... and the Democrats will be blamed for it.

You have to hand it Baker and Gates. These guys are good at what they do ... protecting the strategic interests of Big Oil ... oops! I mean the United States. Oh well, they seem to be the same for now.

The only people dumber than Bush 43 are the Democratic politicians ...

The reality is that the invasion of Iraq PLUS no serious plan for the occupation to follow BECAUSE THE CHENEY-RUMSFELD-NEOCON CABAL DIDN'T THINK WE NEEDED ONE was the pinnacle of foreign policy folly.

And the only people dumber are the politicians in the party under which I am registered to vote (Democrats) who are now letting the Big Oil Bushies' A-Team of Baker-Gates once again clean up Junior's mess. Instead of a regional arrangement involving all relevant parties (which Baker offered to us on a silver (gold? platinum? oil-slicked?) platter, we are aligning ourselves with the Saudis (aka Sunnis) to put the power politics squeeze on the Shiites and Iran. (We already have the Kurds.)

We are setting ourselves up for years of mischief by China and Russia in the Middle East instead of resolving this issue when we have the strength to do so, simply because our Christian Right supports a unilateral policy of support for Israel against all foes AND the Democrats didn't cement the Iraq Study Group policy into place when they had the chance.

The Democrats today do not have the operative wisdom necessary for strategic leadership. That wisdom is bought and paid for by the Big Oil folks on one side and the "Rockefeller" Globalists on the other. (I don't consider Hilary a Democrat. She's what I remember as a "Rockefeller Republican": internationally, a globalist; nationally, a moderate corporationist; locally, a pot-hole politician.)

We are kicking the can down the road, and the Democrats are playing right into it because they (we?) are afraid of two things (primarily): 1. The Jimmy Carter affect of losing strategic control over the petroleum we need to fuel our cars, pickups, and SUVs; and 2. The Zionist agenda (which is NOT synonymous with "Jewish" or even "Israeli" agenda) and their attack style of politics (Where did Rove learn his tactics? I wonder.)

While posturing to the left-wing base, the Democrats are doing nothing to effectively alter course, complaining that even with a majority, they don't have the votes. Dah! If Bush 43 wants to veto something, he winds up with nothing. That's pretty effective ... unless you're worried that it will backfire when gas is pumped on odd-even days matching your license plate. They could have simply said, adopt the Iraq Study Group policy suggestions or you aren't going to get anything passed.

When we Americans talk about our freedom, it is about a freedom to get up and go in OUR personal vehicle. Take THAT away and there is hell to pay. (Again, do you remember Jimmy Carter, folks?)

We WANT our government to protect our strategic interests ... wisely.

Gawd, how I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the Saudi ruler had that sit-down "Let's get things straight" talk with Cheney.

From another perspective: All a person has to do is go to where the people are doing whatever it is they really want to do ... like living in the Alaska bush ... farming in the Northern Midwest ... or fishing for stripers on the shore when the bennies are gone *wink* ... and you get a sense that the dynamism of our culture is not in global monopolism but in petite market capitalism ... where people can effectively do their own thing. Protect the right of the people to do their thing within fairly applied (for all) foul lines, and that political party would trounce all comers.

The Democratic politicians got snookered ... again!

When will the politicians in my party (the one I am registered to vote under) get AHEAD of the curve?

The Big Oil Bushies' A-Team is taking charge ... just like they always do to clean up the messes Junior aka George W. makes.

When the Saudis called Cheney over for that sit-down talking to, they told him to stop screwing up and let the Baker-Gates team do their thing to preserve the Big Oil cartel. We're talking real money here, folks. Mama Bush has been totally upset by what the Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon gang that couldn't shoot straight did to (with?) her boy. "Do SOMEthing, papa!"

So now we have movement to protect our vital interests as a nation ... which should be accompanied by riding George W. out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered. But, no, them darn Democratic politicians are going to hand this one to the Republicans by getting all in an uproar over General Petraeus ... when the huge majority of Americans trust the General to protect our interests more than the politicians of either party.

See, we the people know we gotta have that petroleum to fuel our vehicles ... and if we don't! Well, Jimmy Carter can tell you what happens if we don't.

And the Saudis (read "Sunnis") want us to have it, too. Translation: This ain't no Vietnam, folks.

Geez loueez, George W. screws up—just like he always does—and now the Democratic politicians are being made to look worse than him! No one could make this stuff up.

Let's face it. Until we are ready to give up our cars, pickups and SUVs ... we're joined at the hip with the Middle East ... and the political party that screws that up is going to have hell to pay down the road.

It's autos and oil, folks

The Democratic politicians should know by now that we love our cars, pickups, and SUVs. We are still an oil dependent economy, folks ... just in case you haven't noticed.

This means securing access to Iraq's oil is STILL (continues to be) a strategic objective of the United States.

What is so difficult for y'all to understand? There is no way a responsible national leader can advocate pulling out of Iraq ... ending the war, yes ... because it isn't a "war" for us, it's an occupation. The "war" is the non-traditional civil war between the different factions--tribes and sheiks--of various ethnic and religious stripes ... and we are smack-dab in the middle of "it".

The thing is, we are now behaving somewhat rationally in this situation. We're aligning ourselves with the interests of our historical allies in the region ... who are (dah!) the Saudis (hence the Sunnis in Iraq.) We already have the Kurds with us, of course ... just in case anyone hasn't noticed.

What does all this mean? Well, until we stop being dependent on petroleum as a primary energy source for the masses who love their vehicles ... no Democratic politician is going to risk destabilizing the supply ... the masses really do have a short memory and are not entirely rational in the short-term ... pull our troops out and they will quickly stop worrying about war casualties and start worrying about odd and even days to buy gas. (Remember when we all blamed Jimmy Carter for THAT?)

The Energy Crisis
That week, the energy crisis that Carter had been trying to avoid since taking office had finally erupted. The OPEC oil producers' cartel had recently announced another in a series of oil price increases that sent gasoline prices skyrocketing and led to severe shortages. Long gas-pump lines and short tempers started in California and spread eastward, focusing Americans' outrage over a seemingly endless economic decline. Much of that anger was directed at the White House: Carter's approval rating had dropped to 25%, lower than Richard Nixon's during the Watergate scandal.

The president did come home, canceling his vacation and retreating to Camp David, where he started working on what would be his fifth major speech on energy. But Carter soon realized that Americans had stopped listening to him. "Jimmy had made several speeches on energy... and it just seemed to be going nowhere with the public," recalls Rosalynn Carter. "So he just said, 'I'm not going to make the speech,' and instead went to Camp David and brought in lots of people to talk about what could be done."

- from PBS, The American Experience

We're choosing sides in Iraq's civil war ...

It's obvious, isn't it? We—the U.S.—are allying with the Sunnis to counter the Shiite-Iranian connection. We've already partnered with the Kurds.

This is the part of the surge that is working ... well, in the sense of protecting our strategic objective of securing access to the oil.

And the Democratic politicians know better than to pin their hopes on the rational nature of the American citizen en masse. If the Middle East dissolves into chaos and the Republicans can in any way hang a following economic upheaval amongst the gas-guzzling masses on the Democrats ... well, Katie bar the door, folks ...

You can see the leadership of Defense Secretary Gates in tandem with James Baker behind the scenes in the current strategy. We are pursuing stability in our interest by aligning with those groups that need us to gain or hang onto power and territory: the Kurds and the Sunnis. We are establishing ourselves in the periphery of the Shiite area to keep the outcome under control.

We can say to the Shiah leaders, "We gave you a chance to govern democratically, and you blew it. We will now use the realpolitick of power politics to keep a lid on the area."

What we are not admitting (or at least President Bush isn't) is that we so bungled the post-war period that the Iraqis never had a real chance to make their country work. We did not occupy the country with sufficient forces to counter the inevitable anti-occupation insurgency ... quickly attracting Al Qaida to the conflict. This was a result of the Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon cabal's echo chamber policy making.

And President Bush is again screwing up the policy by cheerleading with a ridiculous kick-butt posture ... He really doesn't have a clue about what's happening ... just like he didn't when Cheney-Rumsfeld were in charge ... the BIG difference is in who is driving policy now.

It's a Gates-Baker process. And it is in accord with the strategic objectives of the U.S.

The Democrats had better get on board.

As yes, the surge is working in Iraq ...

The surge is working in Iraq to divide the country into sectarian enclaves, separating the population into Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis ... also resulting in an enormous number of refugees fleeing both to other countries and to other areas within Iraq from their homes.

And the surge is working in Iraq to create allies for our military forces from Sunni insurgents.

And this is supposed to be success?

It is seen as success in achieving the strategic objective of the United States in securing access to Iraqi oil ... which for me has always been the basic goal since day one. If we can't do it because we bungled the post-war period thereby seeding the civil war now raging, then we will do it by choosing up sides with those (Kurds and Sunnis) most likely to align with us.

We can forget democracy because the majority are Shiites and their affinity tends towards Iran, not us or our ally, Saudi Arabia. (Please note that the same logic holds for the Palestinian areas between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea ... not that they affiliate with Iran, but against us and our ally, Israel.)

Is this wrong ... or right, for that matter? Neither. It's reality ... the realpolitik of power politics reality ... really.

Let's shift our thinking about the minimum wage

The global economy is having a race to the bottom in wages paid for human effort. Any rational person immediately recognizes the conditions under which many third world workers perform for pay are tantamount to slavery. For that matter, the bind that illegal immigrants find themselves in here in the United States—because of their inability to report unfair labor practices without identifying their own illegal status—is also a form of indentured servitude.

Why can't we start by saying a person should be able to earn at least enough to live on by working 4 hours a day, six days a week for 24 hours per week ... wherever that person works? This would be three 8-hour days ... or two 12-hour days. This would define the local minimum wage. The important thing is to leave time for personal development. The requirement that all minimum wage labor jobs be limited to 24 hours per week unless the WORKER specifically agrees to longer hours at overtime wages would be written into law.

It isn't just the low pay but the low pay AND long hours that leave the individual worker unable to alter his or her labor value in the labor market.

By working fewer hours the individual could then choose from whatever variety of opportunities present themselves in his or her area ... such as education, additional or self employment (which can lead to ownership, for one thing), thinking (which can lead to invention among many, many outcomes), leisure activities or entertainment, whatever.

The next thing I would start in the industrialized countries—where forms of energy other than human effort predominate—is mandatory work for everyone past the age of 16 and not in school full time except the elderly and disabled. We have enough work to do here in the United States to keep everyone eligible working 24 hours a week. And we have enough income from the technologically developed use of energy to pay for full employment of this kind. Government agencies would be "employers of last resort".

My reasoning stems from the rational requirement to give each individual a reasonable opportunity to improve his or her life according to the individual's own needs and desires, and thereby be a real participant in the labor market.

Furthermore, considering an individual's needs and desires in a general sense, we know that a staple need and desire of maturing adults is to have children and raise them successfully to maturity. In other words, to have a stable family over an extended period of time. Stable families are also a goal of mature societies ... or should be. A mature country like the United States should be seeking ways and means to create a solid economic foundation for its families.

I also believe that sorting out economic solutions in a rational market ("rational" in that the rules have been imposed fairly out of experience by the participants—those at risk—themselves) where the participants have relatively equal equity in the transaction creates the most positive economic dynamism ... and that freeing the worker from the social encumbrances imposed by mandatory long hours at low pay would do more to energize the economy and or families and communities than any other single act.

Note: Let me clear about what I mean by "relatively equal equity in a transaction". It only exists when both the seller and the buyer do NOT have to sell and buy, or both the seller and the buyer HAVE to sell and buy to get what each needs. If the seller does not have to sell but the buyer has to buy, or the seller has to sell and the buyer does not have to buy then there is NOT relatively equal equity in the transaction.

The problem with unregulated capitalism—among other things, and not meaning rational market capitalism which creates the positive economic dynamism of the industrialized world—is not that it devolves into a "free" market, but that the stronger participants use monopolistic practices and become the sellers who do not have to sell when the buyers (as in consumers who need gasoline to get to work and there are a limited number of gasoline suppliers) have to buy, or become the buyers who do not have to buy when sellers (as in sellers of their personal labor) have to sell.

The so-called "free" market (which because of externalities does not exist) let's the bullies regulate the market substituting monopolism in the guise of capitalism. We need to reinvigorate our marketplaces by establishing relatively equal equity in all transactions ... starting with the most basic transaction of all: wages for labor.