The surge ...
The escalation ...
The augmentation ...
If as President Bush said—clearly, by the way—"that Iraq is the central front in 'the decisive ideological struggle of our time,' " to quote Frank Rich in today's NY Times (OpEd, Sunday, December 14, 2007) ... then is "the surge" the last, best chance for victory in the Iraq?
And Bush and his cohorts like Senator Lieberman keep saying there is no viable alternative plan ... what about the Baker-Hamilton Commission's report outlining a series of concrete and defined steps to resolve the conflict?
But the question is, if this is "the decisive ideological struggle of our time" then is throwing 21,500 more troops ... bringing the current total to something less than the highwater mark in this war ... an appropriate response? Of course it isn't. 50,000 more troops wouldn't work ... and what is more worrisome, our soldiers will now stay in the conflict zones as embeds in the Irag military, rather than withdrawing to secure areas for rest and and renewal.
And that is the duplicity of this step ... for it does little if anything to end the civil war now raging in Iraq, while making our soldiers easier targets ... but it does take us closer to the Battle of Armageddon ... the dream of the neocons.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
On the eve of President Bush's latest proposal for victory in Iraq ...
For the forseeable future it is in our—the United States'—interest to have a stable Middle East in which oil can be provided to the world as a commercial commodity. Yes, there are caveats to that statement, but in the general sense it expresses my point of view.
How do we achieve that starting from where we are?
My primary assertion is that it is only in the interests of fundamentalist ideologues to have instability. Notice I don't say "terrorists", and I don't say "fundamentalists". I say "fundamentalist ideologues". Because it is the fundamentalist ideologues of all stripes who are using the cover of chaos to advance their ideology and its objectives ... whether they be Christian Rapturists, Neocons, Zionists, violent jihadists, or skinheads, for that matter.
It is in the interest of most people and their leaders in the region to have some form of stability that allows them to pursue what is for them a normal existence in a secure community.
Therefore, it would seem to me, that the wisest path to negotiating regional and national stability for secure communities to exist for the people, would be to bring all major groups in the region to the table and explain the facts, which are that the major powers of the world cannot afford to let the region descend into the kind of chaos that would interrupt the supply of oil as a commercial commodity—clear and simple. If it comes to that, we will have a world war, and nobody will win then, and some will lose more than others—go figure ... so we had better figure out a solution before that happens.
The problem with this approach, as I see it, is not with the lessor powers in the region, but with the United States. We are not behaving objectively or rationally as the world's superpower. Which is to say that we do not have a set of rules that we ask everyone—including ourselves—to live by. And as long as we treat different parties to the conflict differently, we will never achieve stability in that or any other region. In fact, we have no strategy of carrots and sticks to get everyone on the same page. We have a strategy to keep everyone except ourselves and our allies off our page ... and we do very little to make it benefit the others if they comply. Mostly we have tried to make our strategies work to benefit us.
International engagement does not have to be a zero sum game. Dah!
And escalating the war in Iraq by sending in more U.S. soldiers without initiating a regional peace process is delusional. We will still have too few troops to control the outcome of the civil war now raging, so we don't have a real stick. And our carrots don't feed peace. President Bush is obviously too caught up in an some kind of an oedipal emotional reaction to act rationally.
I mean, we have a war machine thrashing about with no clear objective possible ... and we can't pull the plug?!
How do we achieve that starting from where we are?
My primary assertion is that it is only in the interests of fundamentalist ideologues to have instability. Notice I don't say "terrorists", and I don't say "fundamentalists". I say "fundamentalist ideologues". Because it is the fundamentalist ideologues of all stripes who are using the cover of chaos to advance their ideology and its objectives ... whether they be Christian Rapturists, Neocons, Zionists, violent jihadists, or skinheads, for that matter.
It is in the interest of most people and their leaders in the region to have some form of stability that allows them to pursue what is for them a normal existence in a secure community.
Therefore, it would seem to me, that the wisest path to negotiating regional and national stability for secure communities to exist for the people, would be to bring all major groups in the region to the table and explain the facts, which are that the major powers of the world cannot afford to let the region descend into the kind of chaos that would interrupt the supply of oil as a commercial commodity—clear and simple. If it comes to that, we will have a world war, and nobody will win then, and some will lose more than others—go figure ... so we had better figure out a solution before that happens.
The problem with this approach, as I see it, is not with the lessor powers in the region, but with the United States. We are not behaving objectively or rationally as the world's superpower. Which is to say that we do not have a set of rules that we ask everyone—including ourselves—to live by. And as long as we treat different parties to the conflict differently, we will never achieve stability in that or any other region. In fact, we have no strategy of carrots and sticks to get everyone on the same page. We have a strategy to keep everyone except ourselves and our allies off our page ... and we do very little to make it benefit the others if they comply. Mostly we have tried to make our strategies work to benefit us.
International engagement does not have to be a zero sum game. Dah!
And escalating the war in Iraq by sending in more U.S. soldiers without initiating a regional peace process is delusional. We will still have too few troops to control the outcome of the civil war now raging, so we don't have a real stick. And our carrots don't feed peace. President Bush is obviously too caught up in an some kind of an oedipal emotional reaction to act rationally.
I mean, we have a war machine thrashing about with no clear objective possible ... and we can't pull the plug?!
Monday, December 25, 2006
First things first ...
Some musings ...
There is variation in the cosmos ... the cosmos being everything, and the universe being everything we know about.
If there were no variation in the cosmos, there would be uniformity.
Therefore there has to be "at least two states" of whatever there is.
Let us call the first state of the "at least two states", "on" and represent it with the value "1" or "one". Lets then call the second state of the "at least two states", "off" and represent the value "0" or zero.
Ah yes, binary math ... if we can combine 1's and 0's ...
Let us surmise that there is no way to combine or alter the relationship between the separate states of the "at least two states". Then there would be no activity in the cosmos.
Therefore there has to be at least some way to combine or alter the relationship between the separate states of the "at least two states".
If at any time their ceased to be a way to alter the relationship of whatever states existed of the "at least two states", activity would stop.
Whenever the conditions exist for the "at least two states" to alter their relationship, they do -- having the potential of becoming something different. If, in fact another "new state" is formed, than the above statements hold true for this "new state" and it's relationship to the prior existing states of the "at least two states".
If the forming of a "new state" eliminated variation in the cosmos, uniformity would exist and activity would stop. Therefore we can surmise that multiple items in "at least two states" exist simultaneously. And that being in one of "at least two states" applies to a set of items having that characteristic. Thus we have a transcending characteristic across multiple items.
We can surmise that "new state" and its relationship with the "at least two states" -- a set of which the "new state" is now a member -- can form new patterns of states and new patterns of relationships that did not exist prior to the existence of the new states -- even though the potential existed for their existence to be realized in their coming into existence.
We can also surmise that the cosmos has not reached its limit of altering relationships between multiple items with variations in being characterized as one of "at least two states", thereby creating new items with a "new state".
In this process, existence builds upon itself.
And as the 0 and 1 of binary math has the potential for expressing all real numbers, existence has the potential of all that is real.
Note: I will be working on this for awhile ...
----------------
Footnotes:
surmise v. an idea or thought of something as being possible or likely.
surmise. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surmise (accessed: December 25, 2006).
There is variation in the cosmos ... the cosmos being everything, and the universe being everything we know about.
If there were no variation in the cosmos, there would be uniformity.
Therefore there has to be "at least two states" of whatever there is.
Let us call the first state of the "at least two states", "on" and represent it with the value "1" or "one". Lets then call the second state of the "at least two states", "off" and represent the value "0" or zero.
Ah yes, binary math ... if we can combine 1's and 0's ...
Let us surmise that there is no way to combine or alter the relationship between the separate states of the "at least two states". Then there would be no activity in the cosmos.
Therefore there has to be at least some way to combine or alter the relationship between the separate states of the "at least two states".
If at any time their ceased to be a way to alter the relationship of whatever states existed of the "at least two states", activity would stop.
Whenever the conditions exist for the "at least two states" to alter their relationship, they do -- having the potential of becoming something different. If, in fact another "new state" is formed, than the above statements hold true for this "new state" and it's relationship to the prior existing states of the "at least two states".
If the forming of a "new state" eliminated variation in the cosmos, uniformity would exist and activity would stop. Therefore we can surmise that multiple items in "at least two states" exist simultaneously. And that being in one of "at least two states" applies to a set of items having that characteristic. Thus we have a transcending characteristic across multiple items.
We can surmise that "new state" and its relationship with the "at least two states" -- a set of which the "new state" is now a member -- can form new patterns of states and new patterns of relationships that did not exist prior to the existence of the new states -- even though the potential existed for their existence to be realized in their coming into existence.
We can also surmise that the cosmos has not reached its limit of altering relationships between multiple items with variations in being characterized as one of "at least two states", thereby creating new items with a "new state".
In this process, existence builds upon itself.
And as the 0 and 1 of binary math has the potential for expressing all real numbers, existence has the potential of all that is real.
Note: I will be working on this for awhile ...
----------------
Footnotes:
surmise v. an idea or thought of something as being possible or likely.
surmise. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surmise (accessed: December 25, 2006).
Friday, December 22, 2006
The narrative of existence ...
Our awareness creates and the stores a narrative of our existence in our brain. This narrative is given us by the those we turn to as children for information. It's "purpose" (utility for survival) is to allow us to connect the sensory and other forms of "information" we receive in the present to some pattern set, providing a means of classifying and coordinating the present ... and thereby organizing our lives coherently.
This narrative of our existence has become a key component in evolution's struggle for survival, for the ongoingness of human life ... and conceivably with the unleashing of nuclear energy, of life itself on this planet.
Different groups of human beings have different narratives encoded in their brains. We are watching the cataclysmic clash of different narratives in Iraq as this is being written.
The shear absurdity of thinking people are born with a narrative for democracy and freedom as defined by Western Capitalism encoded in them, is ... well, is so far beyond rational thought that only an ideologue would put forward the concept.
Our whole recorded history demonstrates the importance of encoding the conventional wisdom of a culture in the children of that culture WHILE they are still children, and recognizes the difficulty in changing that encoded narrative later in life.
More to come ...
This narrative of our existence has become a key component in evolution's struggle for survival, for the ongoingness of human life ... and conceivably with the unleashing of nuclear energy, of life itself on this planet.
Different groups of human beings have different narratives encoded in their brains. We are watching the cataclysmic clash of different narratives in Iraq as this is being written.
The shear absurdity of thinking people are born with a narrative for democracy and freedom as defined by Western Capitalism encoded in them, is ... well, is so far beyond rational thought that only an ideologue would put forward the concept.
Our whole recorded history demonstrates the importance of encoding the conventional wisdom of a culture in the children of that culture WHILE they are still children, and recognizes the difficulty in changing that encoded narrative later in life.
More to come ...
As a Christian Transcendental Existentialist ...
Disclosure ... I think of myself as a Christian transcendental existentialist ... who does NOT believe in the necessity of a supreme being in the Biblical (King James Version - KJV) sense of that identity.
Let us begin ...
I believe my interpretation of John 1:1-4:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
... which is that the potential of existence existed at the beginning, whatever that "beginning" was (is?)
... which deals with the idea that "what is" came out of "what was" and "what will be", will come out of "what is" ... which of course is the "transcendental" part ...
Pause
Let us begin ...
I believe my interpretation of John 1:1-4:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
... which is that the potential of existence existed at the beginning, whatever that "beginning" was (is?)
... which deals with the idea that "what is" came out of "what was" and "what will be", will come out of "what is" ... which of course is the "transcendental" part ...
Pause
Though we perceive existence (are aware of -- "awareness" relative to "existence" is important to existentialists ... like in which comes first, the chicken or the egg?) as ongoing -- past, present, future -- the reality of the cosmos does not HAVE to be in that "form". It could be like the infinity symbol and we are (I am?) simply passing along it's endless band ... or multiple bands with or without multiple dimensions.
However ... I experience my existence as ongoing -- past, present, future ... in a universe that is ongoing.
And -- this is my interpretation of Kierkegaard's leap of faith -- I choose to believe that my existence and that of the universe has meaning in its unfolding "ongoingness".
I am engaged in a search for that meaning.
From Luke 17:20-21 (King James Version, New Testament): Note: "He" is Jesus.
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
I find the meaning of my existence, including my awareness of experiencing my existence, within myself. I come to "understand" that meaning by sharing my awareness with others as they share theirs with me.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:20
If the sharing of experience is done in the spirit of pursuing the truth (as in the blind men and the elephant) it frees us from the mistakes of our past.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32
More to come ...
ncswede
Footnotes:
Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegard
As tiny url:
All Biblical quotations are taken from:
Pause
Putting aside the issue of dealing with our mistakes for a moment ...
Fear ... how do I conquer fear?
As a child I drew close to a parent or my older brother as I walked through the forest at night.
Now when I have time to think, I "assess" the situation ahead and "calculate" whether or not I can handle it ... then continue or turn aside.
When caught up without warning, the adrenalin kicks in and I react. (One of the reasons I love the Interior Alaska wilderness ... the adrenalin high is awesome because I have not been there long enough to have being in that environment become "normal". The individuals I REALLY admire are like the mountain climbers, and the rock climbers. I can get another shot of adrenalin simply by taking another step further into the bush.)
But what happens to a person in the devastation of a disaster such as a hurricane, a drought, an earthquake, ... war ... when the person is caught up in something so vast and consuming that every last vestige of hope in it ever getting better again is taken from him/her?
Or something close and personal and singular like the death of one's child ...
What then?
What rekindles the flame of the human spirit, what rekindles hope?
For me it is faith ... faith that "this to", whatever it is ... will have meaning as I (we) go on.
And I do not mean that in the sense that it is "a lesson to be learned" ...
And it does not mean that I could or would retain my faith if I were in the middle of a seemingly unending disaster ... I can't say because I have lived such a "blessed" life.
I can only discuss these issues from the perspective of my perception ... which is NOT the whole elephant by any means.
But faith was instilled in me as a child ... and it has never left me.
Now I don't believe in some Supreme Being acting as producer and director of the "Show On Earth" ... mostly because it ain't "the greatest" for whole bunches of people.
But I do choose to believe that what is happening/unfolding (living) has meaning in its becoming what it does become ... and that what I do now does affect the outcome ... (as in chaos theory of the small pebble being able to alter the course of the boulder as it starts to roll down the hill ... or as Jesus taught, "if you have the faith of a mustard seed you can move a mountain"[sic].)
And in this process of living, I make mistakes ...
Pause
I'm going to defer my discussions of "mistakes" (sin?) for now ... again.
I was reading in Gilson, Langan, & Maurer's RECENT PHILOSOPHY: Hegel to the Present last night in bed about the emergence of Existentialism with the works of Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Nietzsche's greatness lies in his discovery of the individual existent as the unequivocal "lieu" of historical Being's coming-to-be"
This is to me the incredible excitement of existentialism. "I" and my awareness of "I" comes out of existence. Existence does NOT come out of awareness.
I reject the nihilism of Nietzsche by accepting faith, not specifically in God as Kierkegaard did, but in meaning ... and not in coming out of a past purpose but going toward a future in which I can and do participate meaningfully (as chaos theory demonstrates) out of my awareness ... by choosing what I believe ought to be and acting to make it what is.
And that choice is mine to make, as a result of searching for meaning within my own experience ... that I validate in concert with others to the extent that I am willing to be truthful (honest) about my own experience.
I find the roots of this incredibly exciting point of view in the teachings of Jesus ... which itself has roots in other teachings ... but I came to my point of view by believing that what Jesus taught has relevance for my life ... and exploring Jesus' meaning relative to my experience.
An aside: Y'know ... that almost 6,000 mile journey across the North American continent taught me one thing ... I have enormous liberty in a culture based on Judeo-Christian values. Not everyone in that space has the same freedom to come and go as I do for numerous reasons ... I think that freedom should be expanding, not shrinking. But how to do it? That's what we should talk about at some point. Is there any other place on our planet where a relatively poor, relatively old person such as myself can have this much freedom? I love it so!!!
ncswede
Footnote:
nilihism n- an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
nihilism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved December 05, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism
lieu n- Note this is the French word commonly translated as "place", and here meaning the point of Being, not as an idea put as a real center of awareness/experience in the cosmos that has arisen out of (from the ground of) existence.
Pause
If we are not honest with each other ... telling each other the truth about ourselves ... not worrying about our mistakes because all of us make mistakes (For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 New Testament, King James Version, www.blueletterbible.org)... then we cannot discover the meaning of our existence unfolding into the future. Because the potential of our future is with us here and now.
So, when those in authority lie to us ... they lead us astray from the discovery of the true meaning of our existence. That's the same for parents who do not tell their children (at the appropriate time) what is happening to their bodies and minds as they grow older. That's the same for teachers who do not provide the actual history of our world. That's for politicians who say one thing to get elected and another once elected. Or leaders who lie us into a war of their choosing. Or even friends who do not tell one another how they really feel about the way we treat each other.
An interesting experiment is having people guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. The larger the number of people guessing, the closer the average of all the guesses is to the actual number in the jar ... which makes a lot of sense.
Pause
A couple of ideas from Jesus ... that the Kingdom of God is within us (like, within ME) ... and Heaven is it's the realization of it's (the "Kingdom's) potential ...
I can readliy wrap these ideas into the transcendentally evolving ongoingness of existence ... toward (never ending) something positive ...
All of life responds positively to the nuturing of life ... and the seemingly limitless diversity of life within a given environment (bounded only by that environment ... which can in fact interact randomly (chaotically) with events overlapping from other systems/environments to expand possibilities) ...
So life is in the process of exploring all its options in its setting ... and expanding into those that are positive for one form or another ... which may be negative for another form of life ...
But then ... we humans ... seem to be able to build new environments to accentuate the positive ...
Fascinating ... to say the least.
PauseInvitation to Philosophy Issues and Options - Eighth Edition,
by: Stanley M. Honer, Mt. San Antonio College, Emeritus; Thomas C. Hunt, Mt. San Antonio College, Emeritus; and Dennis L. Okholm, Wheaton College
There is a section on Existentialism in Chapter 4 Epistemology: How We Know. It asserts the nihilistic view that all knowledge is subjective and therefore "there is nothing stable or objective about" knowledge.
It does go on with the view of religious existentialists as "likely to argue that human beings cannot know; they can simply believe. And belief is a nonrational 'leap of faith.'"
YES!!! I choose to believe ... and to work out my "knowledge" for forming my belief out of an honest dialogue with others.
And it is not the past governing the future put the future forming out of the present ... a future that I can affect by my choices. I do not disregard the past, put I m not bound by it either. I can decide that "what is" is NOT "what ought to be".
To be continued in Part II ...
Friday, December 01, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Life has purpose
From dictionary.com we learn the definition of "purpose":
If we plant a carrot seed we anticipate getting a carrot if we nuture its growth.
But we cannot say that life is "the" or even "a" purpose of the cosmos. There is no reason to believe that life developed other than because it was the possible outcome that occurred. Life didn't "have" to happen. It "did" happen.
But once it happened and the functionality—the ongoing capability—of life to replicate biochemical events persisted long enough for the existence of life to produce the awareness of existence then human life took on purpose and meaning:
To extrapolate the reverse sequence of purpose producing awareness producing existence as in the mind of God ... is what has gotten the human race into trouble ... because it can be clearly seen that we attribute OUR purposes to our Gods. We imbue our Gods with our purposes ... and therein lies the crux of our error.
For as the existentialist says, it matters not whether God exists or doesn't exist, for we are aware of our existence and not of God.
It's like the foxhole prayer ... everyone prays it (or most everyone). Those who survive gives thanks to God. Those who don't survive, we don't hear from.
More to come.
n 1: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions;
purpose. (n.d.). WordNet® 2.0. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose
If we plant a carrot seed we anticipate getting a carrot if we nuture its growth.
But we cannot say that life is "the" or even "a" purpose of the cosmos. There is no reason to believe that life developed other than because it was the possible outcome that occurred. Life didn't "have" to happen. It "did" happen.
But once it happened and the functionality—the ongoing capability—of life to replicate biochemical events persisted long enough for the existence of life to produce the awareness of existence then human life took on purpose and meaning:
meaning n 2: the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?Existence preceeds awareness and awareness preceeds purpose ... for having a purpose is the anticipation of an outcome of which one must be aware—even if it is imaginary.
meaning. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 18, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning
To extrapolate the reverse sequence of purpose producing awareness producing existence as in the mind of God ... is what has gotten the human race into trouble ... because it can be clearly seen that we attribute OUR purposes to our Gods. We imbue our Gods with our purposes ... and therein lies the crux of our error.
For as the existentialist says, it matters not whether God exists or doesn't exist, for we are aware of our existence and not of God.
It's like the foxhole prayer ... everyone prays it (or most everyone). Those who survive gives thanks to God. Those who don't survive, we don't hear from.
More to come.
Existence preceeds awareness ...
Existence preceeds awareness ... so what?
So that is the defining understanding of our experience ... and why I call myself an existentialist.
There was no "awareness" that "produced/created" existence. Existence produced awareness. Awareness "arose" out of the consistent replication of biochemical events.
This not so hard to fathom now that we know that simple states of "on" and "off" or "1" and "0" can produce in their complex combinations and recombining of combinations into new combinations, the computer program (software) as separate from yet dependent upon the actual computer equipment (hardware).
And it is the consistent functioning of the underlying operating system (Mac OS, Windows XP, DOS, Unix ... ) that allows the building of higher levels of integrated software.
Some thoughts ...
There has to be more than one state of energy/matter ... because with only one state, we would have uniformity throughout the universe/cosmos.
What "is" comes out of what "was". Which also means that what is going on now is the seeded ground from which the future arises. Even if there was a "beginning" preceeded by "nothing", that beginning arose out of that nothing ... and that is why I am a transcendalist ... or a transcendental existentialist.
What we have learned form chaos theory is that even the smallest act can have a huge effect on future events ... like the pebble at the top of mountain diverting the bloulder as it starts to roll down the mountainside and changing where it will wind up at the bottom; therefore everything I do—and everyone of us—is important.
Note: I use "universe" to denote the known and "cosmos" to denote everything, the known and the unknown.
So that is the defining understanding of our experience ... and why I call myself an existentialist.
There was no "awareness" that "produced/created" existence. Existence produced awareness. Awareness "arose" out of the consistent replication of biochemical events.
This not so hard to fathom now that we know that simple states of "on" and "off" or "1" and "0" can produce in their complex combinations and recombining of combinations into new combinations, the computer program (software) as separate from yet dependent upon the actual computer equipment (hardware).
And it is the consistent functioning of the underlying operating system (Mac OS, Windows XP, DOS, Unix ... ) that allows the building of higher levels of integrated software.
Some thoughts ...
There has to be more than one state of energy/matter ... because with only one state, we would have uniformity throughout the universe/cosmos.
What "is" comes out of what "was". Which also means that what is going on now is the seeded ground from which the future arises. Even if there was a "beginning" preceeded by "nothing", that beginning arose out of that nothing ... and that is why I am a transcendalist ... or a transcendental existentialist.
What we have learned form chaos theory is that even the smallest act can have a huge effect on future events ... like the pebble at the top of mountain diverting the bloulder as it starts to roll down the mountainside and changing where it will wind up at the bottom; therefore everything I do—and everyone of us—is important.
Note: I use "universe" to denote the known and "cosmos" to denote everything, the known and the unknown.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Notes on the journey ... Friday, November 17, 2006
I'm back in New Jersey. I flew in from Alaska on the evening of November 7 in time to vote.
I'm chronicling my trip to Interior Alaska—which started when I left for Florida on Friday, September 8—over on my Steese Review blog.
Here I want to restart my musings about cultural/economic/political/social stuff affecting my corner of the world ... for which, by the way, there was an excellent post by Jeff Madrick over on The Huffington Post titled "Milton Friedman: Not A Man For All Seasons". I recommend reading it ... plus Tim Sanders' post "Bury Friedman's Concept Of A Good Company", and David Goldstein's "On Milton Friedman, Comment Spam, and the Amorality of the Market", both also on The Huffington Post.
That election was something else, wasn't it? Wow! And then James Carville has the audacity to criticize Howard Dean's leadership of the Democratic National Committee. Carville has clearly lost it, whatever it was that he had. Read the straight scoop about Dean's leadership in the Kansas City Star.
Now we get to see what happens ... and it still may come to invoking Jack Cafferty's (of CNN) solution and impose term limits on everyone in Congress who was there prior to this last election.
Bush? Rove? They're totally exposed as carnival shills or clowns ... depending on your point of view.
But like I said, I'll watch how it unfolds ... see what happens when the new Congress convenes in January ... that's not too long for me, though it sure as hell is an ungodly long time for those in the military fighting and dying and getting wounded for what is now pretty much acknowledged as a lie and a mistake.
In the interim I'm going to spend some time letting my emerging understanding of the cosmos take shape here.
I'm chronicling my trip to Interior Alaska—which started when I left for Florida on Friday, September 8—over on my Steese Review blog.
Here I want to restart my musings about cultural/economic/political/social stuff affecting my corner of the world ... for which, by the way, there was an excellent post by Jeff Madrick over on The Huffington Post titled "Milton Friedman: Not A Man For All Seasons". I recommend reading it ... plus Tim Sanders' post "Bury Friedman's Concept Of A Good Company", and David Goldstein's "On Milton Friedman, Comment Spam, and the Amorality of the Market", both also on The Huffington Post.
That election was something else, wasn't it? Wow! And then James Carville has the audacity to criticize Howard Dean's leadership of the Democratic National Committee. Carville has clearly lost it, whatever it was that he had. Read the straight scoop about Dean's leadership in the Kansas City Star.
Now we get to see what happens ... and it still may come to invoking Jack Cafferty's (of CNN) solution and impose term limits on everyone in Congress who was there prior to this last election.
Bush? Rove? They're totally exposed as carnival shills or clowns ... depending on your point of view.
But like I said, I'll watch how it unfolds ... see what happens when the new Congress convenes in January ... that's not too long for me, though it sure as hell is an ungodly long time for those in the military fighting and dying and getting wounded for what is now pretty much acknowledged as a lie and a mistake.
In the interim I'm going to spend some time letting my emerging understanding of the cosmos take shape here.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
It's the incompetence, stupid.
Y'know, watching Hezbollah (Hizbullah) going about its business rebuilding Southern Lebanon ... after watching Haliburton go about our business rebuilding Iraq ... it struck me that something has changed in the good ol' can-do spirit of these United States of America ... and I don't think it has been with the workers.
I think the workers -- also known as, "the people" -- have been working as hard, if not harder, as before ... and with the same ol' "make-do with what you got to get ahead" attitude as before ... even though we -- the people -- have been falling behind.
What is it then? If it ain't "the people"?
Yup, you guessed it ... it's the incompetence of the brilliant idiots at the top -- also known as "our leaders".
We seem to have gotten to a point in our history -- once again -- where our "leaders" have figured out that by lying to us, they can stay in power ... 'cuz staying in power and reaping the bennies (the wealth) that they can suck up into their pockets from the hard work of the people ... is what they are all about. Turning what was once the premier middle-class country into another banana republic is OK with these leaders -- as long as they are the ones at the top.
And you see, after a few generations of sucking up the wealth produced by the hard work of the American people, they have forgotten what hard work is ... and measure the worth of their group's "employees" by the loyalty of these employees ("you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie") rather than by the competence of the employee ... 'cuz you can always get someone to do the work, you just have to stay in control of the wealth produced by the work.
Trouble with this is, that as the generations of inbreeding roll along ... well, sooner or later you get a GW in charge ... well, not REALLY in charge, but he thinks he is and that is dangerous enough ... but it becomes ALL about loyalty and very little about competence, and ... well, look around ... this is what you get.
Our nation is going to hell in the handbasket of men and women who care more about accumulating personal wealth and power than they do about the well-being of our nation. And for many of them now it is not because they know better. All they know as children of children of children of the rich is rewarding loyalty to their power, to perpetuate the control of the wealth produced by the labor of others.
AND it IS biting us in the butt.
I think the workers -- also known as, "the people" -- have been working as hard, if not harder, as before ... and with the same ol' "make-do with what you got to get ahead" attitude as before ... even though we -- the people -- have been falling behind.
What is it then? If it ain't "the people"?
Yup, you guessed it ... it's the incompetence of the brilliant idiots at the top -- also known as "our leaders".
We seem to have gotten to a point in our history -- once again -- where our "leaders" have figured out that by lying to us, they can stay in power ... 'cuz staying in power and reaping the bennies (the wealth) that they can suck up into their pockets from the hard work of the people ... is what they are all about. Turning what was once the premier middle-class country into another banana republic is OK with these leaders -- as long as they are the ones at the top.
And you see, after a few generations of sucking up the wealth produced by the hard work of the American people, they have forgotten what hard work is ... and measure the worth of their group's "employees" by the loyalty of these employees ("you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie") rather than by the competence of the employee ... 'cuz you can always get someone to do the work, you just have to stay in control of the wealth produced by the work.
Trouble with this is, that as the generations of inbreeding roll along ... well, sooner or later you get a GW in charge ... well, not REALLY in charge, but he thinks he is and that is dangerous enough ... but it becomes ALL about loyalty and very little about competence, and ... well, look around ... this is what you get.
Our nation is going to hell in the handbasket of men and women who care more about accumulating personal wealth and power than they do about the well-being of our nation. And for many of them now it is not because they know better. All they know as children of children of children of the rich is rewarding loyalty to their power, to perpetuate the control of the wealth produced by the labor of others.
AND it IS biting us in the butt.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
The incompetence of President Bush is sickening
I’ve been watching “When the Levees Broke” today ... and I am sickened by the ineptitude shown by my federal government under GW’s leadership.
The statement by one of the presenters that FEMA and the Homeland Security Department acted as if the levees had NOT breeched, was particularly insightful. The top echelons of the federal government—yes, including President Bush as was obvious from his itinerary during the first few days of the disaster—did not have a clue as to what had happened, nor its severity.
And while the hurricane itself was an “act of God”—as we designate natural events, usually disasters—the aftermath was not.
I can think of no other situation where a “crew” failed so miserably that they would then be allowed to continue doing ANYTHING of importance. I mean, get real, when the ship sails onto the reef, don’t we blame the captain? The captain of Exxon Valdez, John Hazelwood, wasn’t even on the bridge when it stuck Prince William Sound’s Bligh Reef ... but we all knew it was his responsibility.
You see, the hurricane wasn’t the “reef” we hit ... our “reef” as a nation was the aftermath and our running into it was our failure to send the help the people obviously needed ... obvious to even the most causal observer on the ground at the time.
Brownie’s resumé was that of a “valet to the oil industry” before being appointed to head FEMA.
The problem with the Bushies is that they equate loyalty to the Bush family with competence.
And Bush is saying, in effect, “Trust me to make a silk purse out of the pig’s ear I have bitten off in Iraq.” Isn’t it OBVIOUS by now, one year after Katrina struck New Orleans, that GW has bitten off more than he can chew? (to mix metaphors a tad)
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Rummy's talking about WWII ...
OK, let’s take a look at WWII ... the war we won.
I. The president was a Democrat: Franklin Delano Roosevelt or FDR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
“In July 1941, Roosevelt ordered Secretary of War Henry Stimson to begin planning for total American military involvement. The resulting “Victory Program,” under the direction of Albert Wedemeyer, provided the President with the estimates necessary for the total mobilization of manpower, industry, and logistics to defeat the “potential enemies” of the United States.”
II. FDR selected General George Marshall to lead the military into war—a war we won, by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall
“On September 1 1939, the very start of World War II in Europe, he was selected by Franklin D. Roosevelt to be Army Chief of Staff, a position he held until 1945. In 1944, became the first U.S. General to be awarded 5-star rank, otherwise known as General of the Army. This position is the American equivalent in rank to Field Marshal. Marshall once joked that he was glad the U.S. never created a ‘Field Marshal’ rank during World War II, since he would then have to be addressed as ‘Marshal Marshall’.
“During World War II, Marshall was instrumental in getting the U.S. Army and Army Air Corps reorganized and ready for combat. Marshall wrote the document that would become the central strategy for all Allied operations in Europe, selected Dwight Eisenhower as Supreme Commander in Europe, and designed Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy.”
III. Harry S. Truman as a Senator (another Democrat) made sure we got a bang for our taxpayers buck—in the war we won (but I repeat myself shamelessly):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Truman_Co mmittee
“He gained fame and respect when his preparedness committee (popularly known as the ‘Truman Committee’ ) investigated the scandal of military wastefulness by exposing fraud and mismanagement. His advocacy of common-sense cost-saving measures for the military attracted much attention. Although some feared the Committee would hurt war morale, it was considered a success and is reported to have saved at least $11 billion.”
The problem with the Bush Adminsitration is that they think competence is loyalty to them. And the Republican Party is still the party for what big business wants and opposed to what we the people need.
I wish they would have run this war like WWII ... maybe we’d be winning. Selecting competent generals to fight the war and having strong oversight to eliminate egregious fraud would have made a HUGE difference ... don’t you think? That is, if we were fighting the right enemy—in the first place.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Balancing left and right wings ...
Some thoughts ...
If the ruling oligarchy of our country gets us working stiffs to start elbowing each other in pursuit of individual ownership AND lose sight of the power of consensus among workers on labor issues, then we struggle from weakness against their strength ... and the balance of the "dialectic" inherent in capitalism between asset capital plus knowledge capital on one hand vs. labor on the other is thrown out of kilter toward wealth as power ...
I believe it is the potential win-win game of the marketplace that energizes capitalism ... when and where both sides believe they get what they want ... which is possible in the market ... where the seller gets his/her price and the buyer gets his/her product or service ... both are satisfied ... and will trade with each other again.
The problems arise when either side gets the upper hand.
But trying to have a so-called "free" market is impossible as long as there are significant externalities (costs to the marketing comunity that are unpaid out of the price of goods and services or rents ... such as we see in the tobacco companies avoiding the costs of health care for the diseases smoking and second-hand smoke cause).
What we are left with is reason and attempting to have as rational a market as possible.
The gibbersih of the free market and the Invisible Hand taking care of the common good is simply a ploy by the oligarchy to amass wealth and power ... sending the economy into a tailspin sooner or later due to the imbalance of power ... as plane that has lost a wing on the left.
It is also true if labor gets the upper hand and too much power ... losing the wing on the right.
If the ruling oligarchy of our country gets us working stiffs to start elbowing each other in pursuit of individual ownership AND lose sight of the power of consensus among workers on labor issues, then we struggle from weakness against their strength ... and the balance of the "dialectic" inherent in capitalism between asset capital plus knowledge capital on one hand vs. labor on the other is thrown out of kilter toward wealth as power ...
I believe it is the potential win-win game of the marketplace that energizes capitalism ... when and where both sides believe they get what they want ... which is possible in the market ... where the seller gets his/her price and the buyer gets his/her product or service ... both are satisfied ... and will trade with each other again.
The problems arise when either side gets the upper hand.
But trying to have a so-called "free" market is impossible as long as there are significant externalities (costs to the marketing comunity that are unpaid out of the price of goods and services or rents ... such as we see in the tobacco companies avoiding the costs of health care for the diseases smoking and second-hand smoke cause).
What we are left with is reason and attempting to have as rational a market as possible.
The gibbersih of the free market and the Invisible Hand taking care of the common good is simply a ploy by the oligarchy to amass wealth and power ... sending the economy into a tailspin sooner or later due to the imbalance of power ... as plane that has lost a wing on the left.
It is also true if labor gets the upper hand and too much power ... losing the wing on the right.
Note: Posted origianlly as a comment on the Vanity Fair website: V.F. Dish
http://boards.vanityfair.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1&start=0
under thread, "In response to minimum wage righties push for $2.13 an hour"
http://boards.vanityfair.com/thread.jspa?threadID=15802&tstart=0
Posted: Aug 18, 2006 9:43 AM
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Some hypotheses ...
Freedom comes when leaders aka centers of power have to contend for the loyalty of the people rather than command it ... and within the range of options under the umbrella (within the spheres of influence) of these contending leaders, the individual can make choices.
The most frightening thing to any leader who seeks power is the freedom of people not to be loyal to a leader.
Neither democracy nor the marketplace are zero sum games—win-lose. They are win-win games if played rationally, and that is why they create their own energy.
And...
It isn't profits that drag down the marketplace. It is the externalities—the costs not paid for out of the profits—that drag down the marketplace.
The main fault of capitalism is its tendency to legitimatize externalities. While monopolies are always a problem, they are not in any way market capitalism. It is the desire of owners to avoid paying the real (rational) costs of producing goods and services that lead to them forming monopolies, i.e. controlling the marketpalce.
There is no such thing as a free market. There can be more or less rational markets depending on how well they pay the costs of producing the goods and services sold and of the market itself in rents.
The most frightening thing to any leader who seeks power is the freedom of people not to be loyal to a leader.
Neither democracy nor the marketplace are zero sum games—win-lose. They are win-win games if played rationally, and that is why they create their own energy.
And...
It isn't profits that drag down the marketplace. It is the externalities—the costs not paid for out of the profits—that drag down the marketplace.
The main fault of capitalism is its tendency to legitimatize externalities. While monopolies are always a problem, they are not in any way market capitalism. It is the desire of owners to avoid paying the real (rational) costs of producing goods and services that lead to them forming monopolies, i.e. controlling the marketpalce.
There is no such thing as a free market. There can be more or less rational markets depending on how well they pay the costs of producing the goods and services sold and of the market itself in rents.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
I hear the jellyfish are making a comeback.
www.truthdig.com comment #18309 by Hilding Lindquist on 8/15 at 4:21 am
What should be clear to the world by now—and for which the “wall” is the perfect icon—is that the Neocons - Rapturists- Zionists (NRZ’s) have a mindset of domination, not peaceful co-existenance.
While watching the credits roll at the end of Oliver Stone’s movie, The World Trade Center last week, I was taken in by a feeling of sorrow over the opportunity we had lost in the pursuit of world peace. I remembered the outpouring of worldwide compassion and support for my country ... that I personally refelt as the movie unfolded ... and that we have now pissed away in brutal pursuit--not just of revenge--but of power.
The choice by our Neocon inspired leadership to use this moment in history to pursue world domination rather than world peace says it all.
This is the madness that motivates these folks ... the NRZ’s as I call them.
The question becomes (which should be easily answered by a “Christian” nation): If we don’t act on behalf of peace when we are strong and can do something, when will we?
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” -Matthew 5:9
Turning to the latest war between Hezbollah and Israel: It’s clear that we (the USA) were egging Israel on as a planning exercise (an experiment?) in reviewing our options vis-a-vis Iran.
Anyone who says Israel won is delusional or lying.
Yet who believes our President is not still on a path to Armageddon in the Middle East?
Forget who is right or who is wrong. When those who actually are the strongest abandon the pursuit of peace, the world is doomed as a safe place for human beings.
I hear the jellyfish are making a comeback.
What should be clear to the world by now—and for which the “wall” is the perfect icon—is that the Neocons - Rapturists- Zionists (NRZ’s) have a mindset of domination, not peaceful co-existenance.
While watching the credits roll at the end of Oliver Stone’s movie, The World Trade Center last week, I was taken in by a feeling of sorrow over the opportunity we had lost in the pursuit of world peace. I remembered the outpouring of worldwide compassion and support for my country ... that I personally refelt as the movie unfolded ... and that we have now pissed away in brutal pursuit--not just of revenge--but of power.
The choice by our Neocon inspired leadership to use this moment in history to pursue world domination rather than world peace says it all.
This is the madness that motivates these folks ... the NRZ’s as I call them.
The question becomes (which should be easily answered by a “Christian” nation): If we don’t act on behalf of peace when we are strong and can do something, when will we?
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” -Matthew 5:9
Turning to the latest war between Hezbollah and Israel: It’s clear that we (the USA) were egging Israel on as a planning exercise (an experiment?) in reviewing our options vis-a-vis Iran.
Anyone who says Israel won is delusional or lying.
Yet who believes our President is not still on a path to Armageddon in the Middle East?
Forget who is right or who is wrong. When those who actually are the strongest abandon the pursuit of peace, the world is doomed as a safe place for human beings.
I hear the jellyfish are making a comeback.
Monday, August 14, 2006
On the Middle East conflict between Hezbollah and Israel
Some talking points amongst the din and clatter and shouting:
Hezbollah is a engaged in a violent struggle with Israel.
Israel is engaged in a viloent struggle with Hezbollah.
Hezbollah has not abided by UN Resolutions.
Israel has not abided by UN Resolutions.
The major issues (as I see them) are:
- The right of Israel to exist (adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947.)
- The right of return (International Law and decreed by UN Resolution 237)
- The withdrawal to th 1967 borders with an end to the state of belligerency (decreed by UN Resolution 242)
- The sharing of Jerusalem (Decreed by UN Resolution 252 and others, such as 476)
- The exchange of prisoners.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The nature of the conflict is clearly documented in the UN Resolutions in response to that conflict from the establishment of the State of Israel up until today.
The question is: Will the Arab states agree to stop their belligerency against the State of Israel if Israel agrees to and abides by a specific set of conditions in a two-state (Israel and Palestine) solution?
Amongst other acts, by building the wall and usurping land that would belong to Palestine under Resolution 242, Israel lays down a marker that it is unilaterally setting the conditions of the two-state solution ... and justifying it by pointing to the perpetual belligerency of those aligned against her.
Amongst other acts, by Iran and other Muslim states/groups saying Israel should not exist and or challenging the wall (amongst other issues such as the Sheba Farms land), they challenge Israel and her unilateral solution ... and perpetuate a state of belligerency against Israel.
This has all the earmarks of a tribal pissing contest based on who is the most violent so who must be the most feared.
Unless these issues are resolved peaceably, the conflict will continue ... a conflict Israel may have hoped to win via the transformation of the Middle East by military means a la the Neocon plan to remake Iraq as a western-style democracy ... which, by the way—in case anyone is paying attention—is failing miserably ... and could be why Israel may feel the need to prove that she is tougher than the USA when it comes to things like war.
So now that Israel and her ally (my country, the USA) have stirred up the hornets nest in the Middle East with their ill-conceived ventures (Iraq and Southern Lebanon), Israel wants the international community to bail them out ... when, as history shows, Israel does not have a good track record herself in abiding by the wishes of the international community.
It’s like Israel is pouring fuel on a fire close to a gasoline storage tank and calling up the fire department saying, “You better get over here and stop this fire before the storage tank blows up.” ... “No, we didn’t start it. The neighbors did, but it was so small we knew you wouldn’t come and put it out until it got bigger.”
Well, it ought to be clear to everyone involved that sooner or later this is could go nuclear (the gasoline storage tank blows up) if it is not resolved peaceably. It already is nuclear on our side (Israel and the USA) a la Kipling: “Whatever happens we have got/The Gatling gun and they have not.” [sic].
So why aren’t we (the USA) hard at work trying to resolve this peaceably while we still have the clout to do so? This is where the debacle in Iraq rears its ugly head. The billiant idiots devising the Project for the New American Century actually believed they could transform Iraq and thereby set in motion a transformation of the Middle East.
Now because the results of the Neocons’ blind ignorance and wishful thinking are that the region is tipping into a chaotic state and truly threatening to Israel, the Neocons are saying we have to escalate the conflict lest Israel lose. "Pour more fuel on the fire! Then the fire department will HAVE to respond."
Dah!
This conflict CANNOT be settled militarily.
We have to be more creative than that ... but the Neocons - Rapturists - Zionists (the NRZ’s) are yelling, “Bring it on!”
Is it any wonder that the world worries about us when we elect a president like GW?
In one respect the Armageddonists are right. That battle will cleanse the world ... trouble is, it’s the jellyfish who will have another go at, not the human race.
Hezbollah is a engaged in a violent struggle with Israel.
Israel is engaged in a viloent struggle with Hezbollah.
Hezbollah has not abided by UN Resolutions.
Israel has not abided by UN Resolutions.
The major issues (as I see them) are:
- The right of Israel to exist (adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947.)
- The right of return (International Law and decreed by UN Resolution 237)
- The withdrawal to th 1967 borders with an end to the state of belligerency (decreed by UN Resolution 242)
- The sharing of Jerusalem (Decreed by UN Resolution 252 and others, such as 476)
- The exchange of prisoners.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel
The nature of the conflict is clearly documented in the UN Resolutions in response to that conflict from the establishment of the State of Israel up until today.
The question is: Will the Arab states agree to stop their belligerency against the State of Israel if Israel agrees to and abides by a specific set of conditions in a two-state (Israel and Palestine) solution?
Amongst other acts, by building the wall and usurping land that would belong to Palestine under Resolution 242, Israel lays down a marker that it is unilaterally setting the conditions of the two-state solution ... and justifying it by pointing to the perpetual belligerency of those aligned against her.
Amongst other acts, by Iran and other Muslim states/groups saying Israel should not exist and or challenging the wall (amongst other issues such as the Sheba Farms land), they challenge Israel and her unilateral solution ... and perpetuate a state of belligerency against Israel.
This has all the earmarks of a tribal pissing contest based on who is the most violent so who must be the most feared.
Unless these issues are resolved peaceably, the conflict will continue ... a conflict Israel may have hoped to win via the transformation of the Middle East by military means a la the Neocon plan to remake Iraq as a western-style democracy ... which, by the way—in case anyone is paying attention—is failing miserably ... and could be why Israel may feel the need to prove that she is tougher than the USA when it comes to things like war.
So now that Israel and her ally (my country, the USA) have stirred up the hornets nest in the Middle East with their ill-conceived ventures (Iraq and Southern Lebanon), Israel wants the international community to bail them out ... when, as history shows, Israel does not have a good track record herself in abiding by the wishes of the international community.
It’s like Israel is pouring fuel on a fire close to a gasoline storage tank and calling up the fire department saying, “You better get over here and stop this fire before the storage tank blows up.” ... “No, we didn’t start it. The neighbors did, but it was so small we knew you wouldn’t come and put it out until it got bigger.”
Well, it ought to be clear to everyone involved that sooner or later this is could go nuclear (the gasoline storage tank blows up) if it is not resolved peaceably. It already is nuclear on our side (Israel and the USA) a la Kipling: “Whatever happens we have got/The Gatling gun and they have not.” [sic].
So why aren’t we (the USA) hard at work trying to resolve this peaceably while we still have the clout to do so? This is where the debacle in Iraq rears its ugly head. The billiant idiots devising the Project for the New American Century actually believed they could transform Iraq and thereby set in motion a transformation of the Middle East.
Now because the results of the Neocons’ blind ignorance and wishful thinking are that the region is tipping into a chaotic state and truly threatening to Israel, the Neocons are saying we have to escalate the conflict lest Israel lose. "Pour more fuel on the fire! Then the fire department will HAVE to respond."
Dah!
This conflict CANNOT be settled militarily.
We have to be more creative than that ... but the Neocons - Rapturists - Zionists (the NRZ’s) are yelling, “Bring it on!”
Is it any wonder that the world worries about us when we elect a president like GW?
In one respect the Armageddonists are right. That battle will cleanse the world ... trouble is, it’s the jellyfish who will have another go at, not the human race.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
911: The "Do Nothing" Conspiracy ... as a movie
Here's the pitch:
A small group of Neocons (SGN) high up in the Bush Administration learn of an Al Qaeda plot to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House.
The SGN'ers recognize this as the perfect event/opportunity avoid a protracted political struggle to implement the Project for the New American Century, and begin to immediately distract attention from the Al Qaeda plot. This is easily done because of turf battles between the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon.
But they can't simply leave it entirely in the hands of the terrorists ... so they tweak the operation a tad ... like make sure a plane does not reach the White House, limit the number of casualties in the WTC plus assist the the collapse of the buildings, and—because the Pentagon is such a damn hard target to hit correctly (the section recently rebuilt for the task)—send in a airplane as a drone.
But oops, one or more of the SGN'ers realized that he/she/they can make a lot of money by placing put orders on the stock of the companies that will be involved BEFORE 9/11 ...
And oops again, that damn outer wall of the Pentagon doesn't collapse on impact ... so it becomes harder and harder to make believe that a 757 hit it ...
And oops, some kids start putting the pieces of the puzzle together ... in a video no less ...
And oops, the NORAD tapes are released ... and the 911 Commission heads say they were lied to ...
But not to worry ... the public is convinced there was no active conspiracy to plan and execute 911 from the beginning to the end involving the whole Bush Administration ... so everyone breaths a huge sigh of relief and lives happily ever after ... with the riches God showered on them ... but oops they realized they couldn't collect on the put orders, so they just have to benefit from the common good under the guidance of the Invisible Hand.
Whadaya think?
A small group of Neocons (SGN) high up in the Bush Administration learn of an Al Qaeda plot to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House.
The SGN'ers recognize this as the perfect event/opportunity avoid a protracted political struggle to implement the Project for the New American Century, and begin to immediately distract attention from the Al Qaeda plot. This is easily done because of turf battles between the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon.
But they can't simply leave it entirely in the hands of the terrorists ... so they tweak the operation a tad ... like make sure a plane does not reach the White House, limit the number of casualties in the WTC plus assist the the collapse of the buildings, and—because the Pentagon is such a damn hard target to hit correctly (the section recently rebuilt for the task)—send in a airplane as a drone.
But oops, one or more of the SGN'ers realized that he/she/they can make a lot of money by placing put orders on the stock of the companies that will be involved BEFORE 9/11 ...
And oops again, that damn outer wall of the Pentagon doesn't collapse on impact ... so it becomes harder and harder to make believe that a 757 hit it ...
And oops, some kids start putting the pieces of the puzzle together ... in a video no less ...
And oops, the NORAD tapes are released ... and the 911 Commission heads say they were lied to ...
But not to worry ... the public is convinced there was no active conspiracy to plan and execute 911 from the beginning to the end involving the whole Bush Administration ... so everyone breaths a huge sigh of relief and lives happily ever after ... with the riches God showered on them ... but oops they realized they couldn't collect on the put orders, so they just have to benefit from the common good under the guidance of the Invisible Hand.
Whadaya think?
Sunday, August 06, 2006
If we abandon reason and transparency in a democracy, voting doesn’t count
Written as a comment in response to the Ear to Ground coulmn "Press ignores church's role in Bush's policies", August 3 on www.truthdig.com:
Comment #16866 by Hilding Lindquist on 8/05 at 12:16 pm
Re: Comment #16825 by Stephen Smoliar on 8/05 at 7:51 am
In turn regarding: Comment #16617 by Hilding Lindquist on 8/04 at 8:11 am
(See Even the butterfly makes a difference below.)
“I have to take issue with Hilding Lindquist: ‘voting is the packaging that comes with the gift of reasoning between informed participants.’ The best packaging for the ‘reasoning between informed participants’ is CONSENSUS.”
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough—or go far enough in my explanation. You see, “reasoning between informed participants” is the process of forming consensus/agreement. And voting is the means by which we indicate whether or not we have reached consensus/agreement. The last time I was in a consensus building group (fairly recently, I’ve just taken the summer off from my group activities) the larger we were the more we used a show of hands or some other voting mechanism to indciate how close we were to consensus/agreement.
My point was that coming to consensus/agreement (deciding as a group) through informed reasoning by the participants is the substance of democracy (there’s some history here). The mechanism for marking who is in agreement and who is not—voting—is simply that.
However, because we are dealing with millions of diverse people—who probably will never reach a true consensus on any specific agreement—it does not mean we have to abandon informed reasoning between the participants.
There have been a number of studies out that demonstrate that a group of people each one of whom makes an individual decision about something like the jellybeans in a jar will produce an average that is pretty close to the actual number ... even though there are outliers way off the mark.
Central to all this is transparency ... the people have to be able to see the jelly beans in the jar in order to make an informed estimate.
Stephen ends his comment with, “This takes us back to the hypothesis that our problem is not that America is not a population of ‘informed participants’ but that the mass media are doing everything they can to keep them from BEING ‘informed participants!’”
I don’t know of a time when the population of these United States was not being misinformed by yellow journalism, end times evangelism, corporate interests, labor interests, political interests, war machine interests, etc., etc., etc.
The one thing that I know that motivates the “population” of our nation to take action is the loss or the threatened loss of there livelihood ... or some part thereof.
What the Neocon corporationists have accomplished to date, is put us firmly on the path to a major upheaval due to the continuing economic degradation of labor.
Maybe they actually believe they can turn the United States into a banana republic with a huge split between economic classes dividing them into owners (i.e., those who own enough to support themselves and their families) and workers… but the workers have no place to go but into the streets.
(Of course there is always the prospect of another World War to bail ‘em out.)
And I also believe that the primary “creative” dialectic in a capitalist society (which gives it its vibrant strength) is between the interests of asset and knowledge capital on one side pursuing their self-interst (with their own little sub-dialectic contributing to the mix) and the interests of labor on the other side pursuing its self-interest. (Give either side the upper hand, and you got trouble.)
But I digress. What I do believe is that if we abandon reason and transparency in a democracy, voting doesn’t count.
Comment #16866 by Hilding Lindquist on 8/05 at 12:16 pm
Re: Comment #16825 by Stephen Smoliar on 8/05 at 7:51 am
In turn regarding: Comment #16617 by Hilding Lindquist on 8/04 at 8:11 am
(See Even the butterfly makes a difference below.)
“I have to take issue with Hilding Lindquist: ‘voting is the packaging that comes with the gift of reasoning between informed participants.’ The best packaging for the ‘reasoning between informed participants’ is CONSENSUS.”
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough—or go far enough in my explanation. You see, “reasoning between informed participants” is the process of forming consensus/agreement. And voting is the means by which we indicate whether or not we have reached consensus/agreement. The last time I was in a consensus building group (fairly recently, I’ve just taken the summer off from my group activities) the larger we were the more we used a show of hands or some other voting mechanism to indciate how close we were to consensus/agreement.
My point was that coming to consensus/agreement (deciding as a group) through informed reasoning by the participants is the substance of democracy (there’s some history here). The mechanism for marking who is in agreement and who is not—voting—is simply that.
However, because we are dealing with millions of diverse people—who probably will never reach a true consensus on any specific agreement—it does not mean we have to abandon informed reasoning between the participants.
There have been a number of studies out that demonstrate that a group of people each one of whom makes an individual decision about something like the jellybeans in a jar will produce an average that is pretty close to the actual number ... even though there are outliers way off the mark.
Central to all this is transparency ... the people have to be able to see the jelly beans in the jar in order to make an informed estimate.
Stephen ends his comment with, “This takes us back to the hypothesis that our problem is not that America is not a population of ‘informed participants’ but that the mass media are doing everything they can to keep them from BEING ‘informed participants!’”
I don’t know of a time when the population of these United States was not being misinformed by yellow journalism, end times evangelism, corporate interests, labor interests, political interests, war machine interests, etc., etc., etc.
The one thing that I know that motivates the “population” of our nation to take action is the loss or the threatened loss of there livelihood ... or some part thereof.
What the Neocon corporationists have accomplished to date, is put us firmly on the path to a major upheaval due to the continuing economic degradation of labor.
Maybe they actually believe they can turn the United States into a banana republic with a huge split between economic classes dividing them into owners (i.e., those who own enough to support themselves and their families) and workers… but the workers have no place to go but into the streets.
(Of course there is always the prospect of another World War to bail ‘em out.)
And I also believe that the primary “creative” dialectic in a capitalist society (which gives it its vibrant strength) is between the interests of asset and knowledge capital on one side pursuing their self-interst (with their own little sub-dialectic contributing to the mix) and the interests of labor on the other side pursuing its self-interest. (Give either side the upper hand, and you got trouble.)
But I digress. What I do believe is that if we abandon reason and transparency in a democracy, voting doesn’t count.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Blessed are the peacemakers ...
Taken from comments written in response to "The Photos That Damn Hezbollah", in Ear to the Ground,, August 1, on www.truthdig.com:
The seeds of this violence go back millenia ... and it all seems to rest on the concept that my God is stronger than your God ... of people with tribal mindsets, each tribe believing it was chosen by their God. (And strangely in this case, all by the same God.)
As little boys behind the barn we used to call it a pissing contest. What do you call it?
Regarding the playground: You see, the mother realized there might be more to the story (See A playground story) ... the father did what most of us do, assume the fault of the other party. The story is a little bit of a Rorschach test or maybe a gestalt is a better description, because the "isolated in the neighborhood" concept sort of gives a certain outline.
I personally believe that much violence (however started) is in the instance of the specific act of violence, unjustified ... which is not to say that a strenuous defense is unjustified ... but too often it is in the iconic form of the husband who after hitting his wife, says, "She had it coming." or "She made me do it."
As a supposedly Christian nation with the example of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of our authentic heroes ... for us to be the sole vote on the UN Security Council blocking a call for an immediate ceasefire is morally indefensible ... in my judgement.
Regarding the holocaust: I am sorry that millions of innocent Jewish people lost their lives in the death camps of Germany located in Europe.
As the offspring of Swedish immigrants to the United States, and having learned the history of the Western Hemisphere, I am also sorry that millions of innocent native people lost there lives at the hands of Europeans.
Is their moral equivalence between those two events of genocide? I don't know. I have never examined them with making that determination in mind.
What I do know, is that I respect Ghandi more and more every day. Because he knew ... as I believe ... that tit for tat violence never ends, it ... escalates ... and with nukes already in the Middle East and more on the way ... we have to figure out some way to stop the cycle of violence ... "It stops here!" ... which -- according to what is attributed to a man named Jesus -- is the responsibilty of the strong. "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."
Who can be stronger here on earth than God's children?
Comment #16496 by ed_tru_lib on 8/03 at 2:55 pm
Ah Hilding-I didn’t say Israel. I said Jews. Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (Jacob) predate Saul by more than a millenium. I had to assume you meant bully, since you were obviously comparing the other kid to hezbollah.
We’re in complete agreement though about how they should have learned from the old testament. Being ready AND ABLE to defend themselves just a few years sooner could have prevented the holocaust.
The seeds of this violence go back millenia ... and it all seems to rest on the concept that my God is stronger than your God ... of people with tribal mindsets, each tribe believing it was chosen by their God. (And strangely in this case, all by the same God.)
As little boys behind the barn we used to call it a pissing contest. What do you call it?
Regarding the playground: You see, the mother realized there might be more to the story (See A playground story) ... the father did what most of us do, assume the fault of the other party. The story is a little bit of a Rorschach test or maybe a gestalt is a better description, because the "isolated in the neighborhood" concept sort of gives a certain outline.
I personally believe that much violence (however started) is in the instance of the specific act of violence, unjustified ... which is not to say that a strenuous defense is unjustified ... but too often it is in the iconic form of the husband who after hitting his wife, says, "She had it coming." or "She made me do it."
As a supposedly Christian nation with the example of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of our authentic heroes ... for us to be the sole vote on the UN Security Council blocking a call for an immediate ceasefire is morally indefensible ... in my judgement.
Regarding the holocaust: I am sorry that millions of innocent Jewish people lost their lives in the death camps of Germany located in Europe.
As the offspring of Swedish immigrants to the United States, and having learned the history of the Western Hemisphere, I am also sorry that millions of innocent native people lost there lives at the hands of Europeans.
Is their moral equivalence between those two events of genocide? I don't know. I have never examined them with making that determination in mind.
What I do know, is that I respect Ghandi more and more every day. Because he knew ... as I believe ... that tit for tat violence never ends, it ... escalates ... and with nukes already in the Middle East and more on the way ... we have to figure out some way to stop the cycle of violence ... "It stops here!" ... which -- according to what is attributed to a man named Jesus -- is the responsibilty of the strong. "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."
Who can be stronger here on earth than God's children?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)