Does free trade and globalization work? Depends on the objective. Are we talking amassing owned wealth for the few or creating a resource-rich community of nations for the many?
One thing it does NOT do is preserve higher labor costs for work that can be performed somewhere else at a lower labor cost. But, you might say, that is rational. But, I would counter, it is not rational if rationally determined ethical values (labor rights) regulate one labor source and laissez-faire values regulate the competing source of labor. Slavery, child labor, or 72 hour work weeks should not be options for civilized trading partners. (For that matter, neither should global pollution be an option.)
Another point—it would seem to me—is that in a fluid situation where a commodity such as labor cost is free to flow between disparate settings, equilibrium will be achieved at the lowest common level ... all else being equal. Here the "gravity" factor is the tendency for the buyer of a commodity to seek the lowest price ... all else being equal.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how Democrats let Bill Clinton pursue globalization, giving up our market leverage that could have been applied to rational labor rights and environmental regulations in the trade agreements. Except that Bill was never a democrat (small "d") but rather a moderate (Rockefeller) Republican.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
HuffPo comments for Tuesday, April 17
French Intelligence Warned CIA Of Al-Qaeda Hijack Plot In Early '01
"Everyone knew that something was cooking, that these people were preparing something big and spectacular," Alain Chouet, former chief of the security intelligence service at the DGSE, told AP. "Our American colleagues knew, our European colleagues knew, everyone did. But nobody had a hint it would happen inside the United States _ on the contrary."
Excuse me, but you might say there was a hint contained in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States." After which President Bush told the briefer, "Okay, you have covered your a--." I guess the French intelligence was just one more clue ignored. No wonder Condi Rice, then National Security Advisor, was scheduled to give a major speech on September 11, 2001, on the urgent need for a ballistic missile defense. Of course, that speech never happened.
By: GabrielOak on April 16, 2007 at 06:39pm
And remembering back to the summer of '01 and the military-industrial hype for the ballistic missile defense system(shield) ... then considering the "Shock and Awe" strategy of "rapid dominance" ... plus ... and ... plus ... and we can see the picture that here is a group of brilliant idiots whose only reality is their own delusions of alpha-hood.
I'm going to have watch DR. STRANGELOVE again ... I'm getting the creepy feeling that the neocons stole the script without giving proper credit.
By: hglindquist on April 17, 2007 at 09:45am
"Everyone knew that something was cooking, that these people were preparing something big and spectacular," Alain Chouet, former chief of the security intelligence service at the DGSE, told AP. "Our American colleagues knew, our European colleagues knew, everyone did. But nobody had a hint it would happen inside the United States _ on the contrary."
Excuse me, but you might say there was a hint contained in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States." After which President Bush told the briefer, "Okay, you have covered your a--." I guess the French intelligence was just one more clue ignored. No wonder Condi Rice, then National Security Advisor, was scheduled to give a major speech on September 11, 2001, on the urgent need for a ballistic missile defense. Of course, that speech never happened.
By: GabrielOak on April 16, 2007 at 06:39pm
And remembering back to the summer of '01 and the military-industrial hype for the ballistic missile defense system(shield) ... then considering the "Shock and Awe" strategy of "rapid dominance" ... plus ... and ... plus ... and we can see the picture that here is a group of brilliant idiots whose only reality is their own delusions of alpha-hood.
I'm going to have watch DR. STRANGELOVE again ... I'm getting the creepy feeling that the neocons stole the script without giving proper credit.
By: hglindquist on April 17, 2007 at 09:45am
Monday, April 09, 2007
How are we absurd? Let me count another way ... Post 2
Imus slanders the Rutgers women's basket ball team on MSNBC ... and keeps his job as of today.
A little six year old black girl is arrested and booked as a felon in Florida ...
We have become absurd ...
Don Imus has apologized�and has put his apology at the top of his web site�for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" after they lost in the NCAA finals.
Just when it didn't seem possible, Imus, host of MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," managed to reach a new low. While discussing the NCAA women's basketball game between Rutgers University and the University of Tennessee, Imus openly described the team, which has eight black and two white women on it, as "nappy-headed hos" after the show's producer, Bernard McGuirk, called the team "hardcore hos."
A little six year old black girl is arrested and booked as a felon in Florida ...
When 6-year-old Desre’e Watson threw a tantrum in her kindergarten class a couple of weeks ago she could not have known that the full force of the law would be brought down on her and that she would be carted off by the police as a felon.
But that’s what happened in this small, backward city in central Florida. According to the authorities, there were no other options.Bob Herbert
6-Year-Olds Under Arrest
April 9, 2007
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09herbert.htm
We have become absurd ...
Sunday, April 08, 2007
The new economics - Post 6
We should take what we have learned from Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism and move on to a new economics system based on a rational market.
What do I mean by a "rational" market? A rational understanding of the world typically means that we understand the cause and effect relationship of events. If the temperature of water drops below 0 degrees Centigrade/ 32 degrees Fahrenheit then the water freezes.
In a market in order to produce goods or services to sell or exchange, the producer/seller has to use a given set of resources and thereby incurs what should be the costs of bringing the goods and services to market. These "costs" are the "cause" of the "effect" of having goods or services to sell or exchange in a market. A market is rational to the extent that the costs (cause) are paid for out of the selling price (effect) of the market, as one factor.
We know from experience that the traditional market is not efficient in matching all costs incurred in producing given goods and services to the selling prices of those goods and services; and therefore some costs are left out of the current market price system (euphemistically called the free market or free price system). These costs not included are called "externalities". Examples of externalities are the cancer caused by second-hand cigarette smoke, the excavating and dumping of mountaintops into valleys and streams to get at coal seams in the mountains, and the dumping of dioxin in the Delaware and Hudson Rivers--to name but three.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist of an economist to figure this stuff out, yet we have had these brilliant idiots foisting the benefits of free market globalization off on us unsuspecting laypersons at least since Eisenhower became president.
It doesn't take a higher level equation to prove the free market economists wrong, simple common sense will do. The key thread to pull on to unravel their gossamer theory is the concept of "The Invisible Hand". Anyone who abandons rational skepticism for some god-like mechanism has already identified themselves as a flim-flam faker in the post-enlightenment world. (Yes, I understand that's a little hard to swallow for some folks.)
Do we still believe that whirlpools or tornadoes are the work of an angry God? Do we believe that pouring sand through a funnel and having it fall into a cone shaped mound is the work of an Invisible Hand?
What is more, is the whirlpool the ocean? Is the tornado the sky?
What do I mean by a "rational" market? A rational understanding of the world typically means that we understand the cause and effect relationship of events. If the temperature of water drops below 0 degrees Centigrade/ 32 degrees Fahrenheit then the water freezes.
In a market in order to produce goods or services to sell or exchange, the producer/seller has to use a given set of resources and thereby incurs what should be the costs of bringing the goods and services to market. These "costs" are the "cause" of the "effect" of having goods or services to sell or exchange in a market. A market is rational to the extent that the costs (cause) are paid for out of the selling price (effect) of the market, as one factor.
We know from experience that the traditional market is not efficient in matching all costs incurred in producing given goods and services to the selling prices of those goods and services; and therefore some costs are left out of the current market price system (euphemistically called the free market or free price system). These costs not included are called "externalities". Examples of externalities are the cancer caused by second-hand cigarette smoke, the excavating and dumping of mountaintops into valleys and streams to get at coal seams in the mountains, and the dumping of dioxin in the Delaware and Hudson Rivers--to name but three.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist of an economist to figure this stuff out, yet we have had these brilliant idiots foisting the benefits of free market globalization off on us unsuspecting laypersons at least since Eisenhower became president.
It doesn't take a higher level equation to prove the free market economists wrong, simple common sense will do. The key thread to pull on to unravel their gossamer theory is the concept of "The Invisible Hand". Anyone who abandons rational skepticism for some god-like mechanism has already identified themselves as a flim-flam faker in the post-enlightenment world. (Yes, I understand that's a little hard to swallow for some folks.)
Do we still believe that whirlpools or tornadoes are the work of an angry God? Do we believe that pouring sand through a funnel and having it fall into a cone shaped mound is the work of an Invisible Hand?
What is more, is the whirlpool the ocean? Is the tornado the sky?
Friday, April 06, 2007
Cheney as the Queen of Hearts ...
Cheney Reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam Link
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND
by Lewis Carroll
THE QUEEN'S CROQUET-GROUND
A large rose-tree stood near the entrance of the garden: the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red. Alice thought this a very curious thing, and she went nearer to watch them, and just as she came up to them she heard one of them say, `Look out now, Five! Don't go splashing paint over me like that!'
`I couldn't help it,' said Five, in a sulky tone; `Seven jogged my elbow.'
On which Seven looked up and said, `That's right, Five! Always lay the blame on others!'
`You'd better not talk!'said Five. `I heard the Queen say only yesterday you deserved to be beheaded!'
`What for?' said the one who had spoken first.
`That's none of your business, Two!' said Seven.
`Yes, it is his business!' said Five, `and I'll tell him--it was for bringing the cook tulip-roots instead of onions.'
Seven flung down his brush, and had just begun `Well, of all the unjust things--' when his eye chanced to fall upon Alice, as she stood watching them, and he checked himself suddenly: the others looked round also, and all of them bowed low.
`Would you tell me,' said Alice, a little timidly, `why you are painting those roses?'
Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two. Two began in a low voice, `Why the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a red rose-tree, and we put a white one in by mistake; and if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know. So you see, Miss, we're doing our best, afore she comes, to--'
Do I have to tell anyone how much the Queen of Hearts reminds me Vice President Cheney?
Paint the white roses red ...
We have become absurd.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Comments on the War in Iraq ... Thursday, April 5
And we are supposed to continue the surge because General Petraeus knows what he is doing and he has confidence ... confidence in what? that the surge MIGHT work? That's the confidence of a general who wants another star and needs a ticket punch.
Petraeus has also said that there is NO military solution. So is this a training exercise for our field grade and higher officers?
I mean, what the hell is going on? The charge of the light brigade? Gallipoli? What delusion grips our brilliant idiots along with our plain old dumb ones as leaders to the point that we send ill-equipped, ill-prepared youth into battle?
At least if there were a draft there would be SOME kind of shared sacrifice ... but if the children of the rich and powerful had to go, we wouldn't be having this war would we?
The leaders our nation should be following are Congressmen Charles Rangel and John Murtha ... men who personally know what shared sacrifice in the time of war is all about.
...
A quote I like:
It was and still is absurd to think we could pacify Iraq with the size of occupation force we used. Generals Colin Powell, Eric Shinseki, and Anthony Zinni all said the same thing, to quote Zinni:
It is time we the people took our nation back.
Petraeus has also said that there is NO military solution. So is this a training exercise for our field grade and higher officers?
I mean, what the hell is going on? The charge of the light brigade? Gallipoli? What delusion grips our brilliant idiots along with our plain old dumb ones as leaders to the point that we send ill-equipped, ill-prepared youth into battle?
At least if there were a draft there would be SOME kind of shared sacrifice ... but if the children of the rich and powerful had to go, we wouldn't be having this war would we?
The leaders our nation should be following are Congressmen Charles Rangel and John Murtha ... men who personally know what shared sacrifice in the time of war is all about.
...
A quote I like:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"I have been writing for some time now that we are absurd as a nation.-Voltaire.
It was and still is absurd to think we could pacify Iraq with the size of occupation force we used. Generals Colin Powell, Eric Shinseki, and Anthony Zinni all said the same thing, to quote Zinni:
"I think it was clear they underestimated what they were going to face in the aftermath of the war. They didn't have sufficient planning for some of the problems they would face in major reconstruction of a country so centrally controlled and dominated by one figure and also had control of the institutions."The generals who went along with the neocons' absurd wild-eyed dreams and schemes are not only responsible for the military debacle that has unfolded for more now more than four years but also for the atrocities of Abu Garib (for starters).
It is time we the people took our nation back.
The new economics - Post 5
Let's hear it for The Invisible Hand ...
Are you kidding me? Whatever happened to the concept of skeptical review of speculation ... and speculation is all that any belief really is. (What? Of course I am an existentialist. Why do you ask?)
Some background from wikipedia.com:
What is more, a market or price system just doesn't spring miraculously into existence. It arises, layer by layer, on an emerging system of economics within a community of people ... and while that foundation may seem permanent, it isn't. It needs to be renewed generation after generation by educating each new generation, by maintaining and enhancing infrastructure, by building on what we have without allowing the foundation to deteriorate. If these costs aren't paid, the system is not maintained and it collapses ... sooner or later.
It is this community system as a foundation that is the platform for individual performance. Even if "the sky's the limit", launching oneself from a swamp or a crumbling deck is not the best way to reach the sky.
The simple facts of people paying their bills on time, of obeying traffic laws so trucks can move goods, of sending their kids to school each day and all that goes with that effort ... and yes, even being willing to suffer the indignity of welfare rather than resort to robbery ... all this and more that people do in working to make a community work economically ... can dissolve into a Hobbesian jungle or an autocratic dictatorship before our very eyes if people lose faith in the ability of their community to provide economic justice, to be treat them fairly in return for their effort and commitment.
What do you think it is going to be like around here when people wake up to the fact that our brilliant idiots in charge of economic policy have given away our labor rights so they can live in mansions?
Note: My god, there are those who still think Clinton was a democrat (small "d")! He was and is a Rockefeller Republican. Get real, folks.
Are you kidding me? Whatever happened to the concept of skeptical review of speculation ... and speculation is all that any belief really is. (What? Of course I am an existentialist. Why do you ask?)
Some background from wikipedia.com:
The invisible hand is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to illustrate how those who seek wealth by following their individual self-interest, inadvertently stimulate the economy and assist society as a whole. In the general opinion, in The Wealth of Nations and other writings, Smith claims that, in capitalism, an individual pursuing his own good tends also to promote the good of his community, through a principle that he called “the invisible hand” of the market, which ensures that those activities most beneficial and efficient will naturally be those that are most profitable. The specific mechanism for this, Smith saw as being the free price system.The biggest problem with Adam Smith's conjecture is that there is no such thing as a "free price system" BECAUSE individuals are unwilling (under the dictum of the invisible hand to pursue self-interest) to give up any advantage that skews the market in their favor. In other words, they are unwilling to pay all the costs incurred in "earning" their profits. Economists call these costs left unpaid "externalities", and aptly so so because while they exist, they are external to the price system. For instance, cancer caused by second-hand cigarette smoke, or the digging up and dumping of mountaintops into valleys and streams below to get at coal seams, are externalities.
What is more, a market or price system just doesn't spring miraculously into existence. It arises, layer by layer, on an emerging system of economics within a community of people ... and while that foundation may seem permanent, it isn't. It needs to be renewed generation after generation by educating each new generation, by maintaining and enhancing infrastructure, by building on what we have without allowing the foundation to deteriorate. If these costs aren't paid, the system is not maintained and it collapses ... sooner or later.
It is this community system as a foundation that is the platform for individual performance. Even if "the sky's the limit", launching oneself from a swamp or a crumbling deck is not the best way to reach the sky.
The simple facts of people paying their bills on time, of obeying traffic laws so trucks can move goods, of sending their kids to school each day and all that goes with that effort ... and yes, even being willing to suffer the indignity of welfare rather than resort to robbery ... all this and more that people do in working to make a community work economically ... can dissolve into a Hobbesian jungle or an autocratic dictatorship before our very eyes if people lose faith in the ability of their community to provide economic justice, to be treat them fairly in return for their effort and commitment.
What do you think it is going to be like around here when people wake up to the fact that our brilliant idiots in charge of economic policy have given away our labor rights so they can live in mansions?
Note: My god, there are those who still think Clinton was a democrat (small "d")! He was and is a Rockefeller Republican. Get real, folks.
How are we absurd? Let me count another way ...
The corporate monopolists/neocons in control of our nation have abandoned the pursuit of self-criticism for the pursuit of self-interest. Self-interest trumps truth.
Bob Herbert, NY Times OpEd columnist, in his column today titled "Our Crumbling Foundation", writes:
Herbert continues:
ab·surd /æbˈsɜrd, -ˈzɜrd/ -adjective
1.utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 05 Apr. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd>.
Bob Herbert, NY Times OpEd columnist, in his column today titled "Our Crumbling Foundation", writes:
Blackouts, school buildings in advanced states of disrepair, decrepit highway and railroad bridges — the American infrastructure is growing increasingly old and obsolete. In addition to being an invitation to tragedy, this is a problem that is putting Americans at a disadvantage in the ever more competitive global economy.While seeking to dominate the globe, our brilliant idiots in charge have hollowed out our core in pursuit of personal wealth and power. They tell us they are doing this to keep America strong while weakening our foundation.
Herbert continues:
Felix Rohatyn, the investment banker who helped save New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970s, has been prominent among those trying to sound the infrastructure alarm. Along with former Senator Warren Rudman, he has been criticizing the government’s unwillingness to invest adequately in public transportation systems, water projects, dams, schools, the electrical grid, and so on.
...
“A modern economy needs a modern platform, and that’s the infrastructure,” Mr. Rohatyn said in an interview. “It has been shown that the productivity of an economy is related to the quality of its infrastructure. For example, if you don’t have enough schools to teach your kids, or your kids are taught in schools that have holes in the ceilings, that are dilapidated, they’re not going to be as educated and as competitive in a world economy as they need to be.”
ab·surd /æbˈsɜrd, -ˈzɜrd/ -adjective
1.utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 05 Apr. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd>.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Bush is the King of Hearts in wonderland
The emperor has no clothes ...
Bush 43 isn't King of the USA, he is the King of Hearts in Wonderland ... absurd ... where down is up, and up is down.
How did our great nation get to this point? It happened when our leaders abandoned skepticism in the pursuit of truth for the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps truth.
It isn't just Bush who is absurd. Look in the mirror, America.
We have plans for success for our children in preschool ... I mean the kind that plot out the steps to high-paying adult careers, for chrissakes!
And you think that's going to turn around anytime soon?
I repeat, we as a society have bought--hook, line, AND sinker (the perfect pun)--the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps the pursuit of truth.
We have abandoned skepticism toward both our understanding of "what is" AND our choices of "what ought to be" ... and in doing so we have become absurd.
Instead of listening to leaders like Congressman Charles Rangel and his concepts of governance taken from the New Testament Book of Matthew, we listen to the likes of Tim Russert who discusses the issues with an eye on ratings.
And worse ... We are the ones who sit glued to the tube watching the news of Anna Nicole Smith's death unfold. We are the ones who spend more time tracking the contestants on American Idol than the policy statements and records of our political candidates.
We are a combination of Rome with the circuses in the Coliseum and Nazi Germany with the fear of others. We are absurd.
Sadly, with the sell-out of labor rights in globalization, we drove off the cliff. Now we have nothing to support a renewal.
And we have no prophets to call us to repentance ... sack cloth and ashes don't wear well in the board room.
Bush 43 isn't King of the USA, he is the King of Hearts in Wonderland ... absurd ... where down is up, and up is down.
How did our great nation get to this point? It happened when our leaders abandoned skepticism in the pursuit of truth for the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps truth.
It isn't just Bush who is absurd. Look in the mirror, America.
We have plans for success for our children in preschool ... I mean the kind that plot out the steps to high-paying adult careers, for chrissakes!
And you think that's going to turn around anytime soon?
I repeat, we as a society have bought--hook, line, AND sinker (the perfect pun)--the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps the pursuit of truth.
We have abandoned skepticism toward both our understanding of "what is" AND our choices of "what ought to be" ... and in doing so we have become absurd.
Instead of listening to leaders like Congressman Charles Rangel and his concepts of governance taken from the New Testament Book of Matthew, we listen to the likes of Tim Russert who discusses the issues with an eye on ratings.
And worse ... We are the ones who sit glued to the tube watching the news of Anna Nicole Smith's death unfold. We are the ones who spend more time tracking the contestants on American Idol than the policy statements and records of our political candidates.
We are a combination of Rome with the circuses in the Coliseum and Nazi Germany with the fear of others. We are absurd.
Sadly, with the sell-out of labor rights in globalization, we drove off the cliff. Now we have nothing to support a renewal.
And we have no prophets to call us to repentance ... sack cloth and ashes don't wear well in the board room.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Some thoughts along the way
- I can think of only two absolutes.
1. There is more than one element making up the cosmos.
2. "What is" is the ground of "what will be" in the awareness of existence.
- Most of what we think we know should be examined with a great deal of skepticism.
- The problem with being too skeptical is not being willing to buy a ticket to Paris if we have never been there. Some faith in "hearsay" is necessary to live.
- How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were? Too much uncertainty results in anxiety, even fear.
- We are taught a narrative of existence from childhood on. To what extent are we able to question it before anxiety or fear are felt?
For example, say that as young children we are taught by the adults in our lives that Disney World, heaven, and hell all exist. Before we go to Disney World it is just the adults telling us it exists. Then we start planning to go there, and because we really believe it exists (have no doubt whatsoever because mommy and daddy told us and others confirm it), we get excited. Then we get there and it is everything and more than what they said it would be like. On the way home from Disney World Mommy and Daddy reaffirm that we are going to heaven if we believe in Jesus and to hell if we don't. Once that emotional marker is set in childhood, it's there for life.
While skepticism will in time alter rational speculations, the emotional element will always be there to be triggered by the skepticism. Because one has to doubt to be skeptical, and doubt alters faith, and our Christian religion teaches that it is faith that saves us ... and in a sense it is right because we act on our beliefs as in whether or not we believe the plane will actually fly.
Think for a moment what it would be like to be taught that dying as a warrior for God results in being awarded direct transport to heaven with a personal cornucopia of goodies provided on arrival ... but I digress.
The rational issue is getting from the aboriginal's spear to the Apollo program ... of getting from planet earth to the outreaches of the universe. In this process skepticism regarding currently accepted speculations is necessary.
Skepticism isn't necessary in itself, but if we are to create what we choose ought to be out of what is, then it is necessary to be skeptical ... both about what is and about what we choose ought to be.
Simply put, it is possible to destroy the world. But because it is possible doesn't mean it should be done. It is possible to burn a person to death, and it has been done. We have decided that is something we should no longer do on purpose as a penalty for heresy or committing a crime.
We now have diseases we can treat with medicine and medical science. There was a time when we relied on our faith in God.
Why are some choices considered moral or ethical choices and others aren't? What is a moral or ethical choice has changed across both time and cultures.
Anyway, some thoughts along the way.
1. There is more than one element making up the cosmos.
2. "What is" is the ground of "what will be" in the awareness of existence.
- Most of what we think we know should be examined with a great deal of skepticism.
- The problem with being too skeptical is not being willing to buy a ticket to Paris if we have never been there. Some faith in "hearsay" is necessary to live.
- How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were? Too much uncertainty results in anxiety, even fear.
- We are taught a narrative of existence from childhood on. To what extent are we able to question it before anxiety or fear are felt?
For example, say that as young children we are taught by the adults in our lives that Disney World, heaven, and hell all exist. Before we go to Disney World it is just the adults telling us it exists. Then we start planning to go there, and because we really believe it exists (have no doubt whatsoever because mommy and daddy told us and others confirm it), we get excited. Then we get there and it is everything and more than what they said it would be like. On the way home from Disney World Mommy and Daddy reaffirm that we are going to heaven if we believe in Jesus and to hell if we don't. Once that emotional marker is set in childhood, it's there for life.
While skepticism will in time alter rational speculations, the emotional element will always be there to be triggered by the skepticism. Because one has to doubt to be skeptical, and doubt alters faith, and our Christian religion teaches that it is faith that saves us ... and in a sense it is right because we act on our beliefs as in whether or not we believe the plane will actually fly.
Think for a moment what it would be like to be taught that dying as a warrior for God results in being awarded direct transport to heaven with a personal cornucopia of goodies provided on arrival ... but I digress.
The rational issue is getting from the aboriginal's spear to the Apollo program ... of getting from planet earth to the outreaches of the universe. In this process skepticism regarding currently accepted speculations is necessary.
Skepticism isn't necessary in itself, but if we are to create what we choose ought to be out of what is, then it is necessary to be skeptical ... both about what is and about what we choose ought to be.
Simply put, it is possible to destroy the world. But because it is possible doesn't mean it should be done. It is possible to burn a person to death, and it has been done. We have decided that is something we should no longer do on purpose as a penalty for heresy or committing a crime.
We now have diseases we can treat with medicine and medical science. There was a time when we relied on our faith in God.
Why are some choices considered moral or ethical choices and others aren't? What is a moral or ethical choice has changed across both time and cultures.
Anyway, some thoughts along the way.
Monday, April 02, 2007
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ...
If we the people can't have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth concerning how justice is pursued by the Bush 43 Administration ... then when can we have it?
I mean, if they won't tell us (truthfully, which means under oath for this gang) how and why citizens are hauled into court ... what is Bush 43 aka Shrub willing to tell us truthfully?
This has got nothing to do whether folks are Democrats or Republicans ... or at least it shouldn't. It's got everything whatsoever to do with the concept of justice being blind ... which is not supposed to be the three monkeys: speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil ... no matter what Bush and Gonzales try to foist off on us.
I mean, they have to be kidding, right?
Or are they really that dumb? ... like in, "it's the stupidity, stupid."
I mean, if they won't tell us (truthfully, which means under oath for this gang) how and why citizens are hauled into court ... what is Bush 43 aka Shrub willing to tell us truthfully?
This has got nothing to do whether folks are Democrats or Republicans ... or at least it shouldn't. It's got everything whatsoever to do with the concept of justice being blind ... which is not supposed to be the three monkeys: speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil ... no matter what Bush and Gonzales try to foist off on us.
I mean, they have to be kidding, right?
Or are they really that dumb? ... like in, "it's the stupidity, stupid."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)