I will put this bluntly: the core problem of the western world is capitalism. Capitalism has managed to become the de facto religion and primary social engineering tool for our lives. The presevation of commodity value has overtaken ethical and cultural concerns. Society is bent towards this purpose above all others. This is because capitalism is founded on surplus value. A thing made has to be exchanged at greater value than the cost of manufacture. Therefore, capitalism is maintained by two separate but equally destructive impulses. The first is the creation of artificial demand through the manipulation of desire. The second is the reduction of cost through the manipulation of expectation. The bottom line is that the world increasingly demands more goods but expects less means. One can bear witness to this enantiodromia over all aspects of our lives. Just look at our nation's holidays and note that they are appropriated by capitalist intent. In my opinion, we have sublimated our cultural rituals and traditions to capitalism.
In order for modern corporations to run at a profit in the United States, the government must run at a deficit. That is because the gap of production is being filled by cheap consumption powered by our hegemonic control of petroleum. The bottom line is that we are borrowing from future generations to fill today's manufacturing gap. There is a second underlying problem that is even worse: derivatives and default swaps. This game of investments procured from a derived value and insurance against the derived default is an artificial financial construct that can only survive under conditions of perpetual value inflation. In my opinion, derivatives and swaps are a symptom of capitalism failing in its essential purpose. Our financial wizards are creating implied surplus value in order to magnify dwindling assets... like placing a piece of gold between two mirrors and calling yourself rich.
Given that our lives are devoted to capitalism from our birth to our funeral, I think it is safe to say that capitalism is our religion, or perhaps more correctly our spiritual state. Our calendar and clock are attuned to the needs of capitalism, so it is as natural for us to live by capitalism's intent than any other system. I believe it is safe to say that we can fantasize about a life apart from capitalism but have no concrete ideas about how to make the fantasy concrete.
And what is the signature creation of capitalism? The corporation. They are golems, beings created by words and numbers. I believe that corporations are artificial intelligence. They have rights of personhood magnified by the power of monetary speech to spread the gospel of capitalism. The wars in the Middle East are a new crusade that pays debts instead of indulging sins. We are imposing capitalist doctrine on a collectivist region through force of arms. I was personally trained to represent the MAAWS doctrine--Money As a Weapons System. This doctrine was central to the so-called Sunni Awakening in the Anbar province. This once more shows that the government is beholden to corporate entities that exist by legislative fiat.
Revolt poses a special problem due to the acceptance by the vast majority of citizens of the divine right of capital. For many, it is a full-throated acceptance, for many others it is like the caged tiger: there is no other way they know how to live. A violent or non-violent overthrow would not overcome the prejudices about capital and surplus value that are cultural norm. Every successful revolution has been due to a new form of government and ecoomics that replaces the old. But each of these revolutions has resulted in a calcified power structure that favors the exclusive party of the revolutionaries and power is handed down via nepotism. Our own revolution bears this out.
The assumptions that create the disparities of privilege and power persist in spite of the intent to remove them via revolt. Instead, we witness the rise of a new aristocracy that sustains their existence via the new philosophy. For all the best intentions of the enlightenment, the disparities between rich and power are even more vast and enforced by more advanced apparatuses of security and jurisprudence. My belief is that the suddenness of revolution does not allow for the time necessary to inculcate values commensurate to the reforms. Therefore, our revolutionary leaders are often the worst character types for change. They have the philosophy in hand, but their assumptions are entrenched in the culture they rebel from. All of the noble philsophy in the world can not overcome incidental value judgments.
The greatest and lasting positive changes to society stem from movements. The civil rights movements that dotted the landscape throughout the twentieth century, from women's suffrage to gay rights, has created the deepest and most lasting progressive impact. It is not a revolt, but the open practice of a belief system in public arena. This practice shifts the perception of the surrounding citizens and alters the culture without creating a vacuum in the existing power structure. When done long and enough and with patience. The practice of movements wears away at crystallised structures that foment inequality like water on rocks.
In conclusion, I would like to stress the importance of searching for arguments against capitalism. The commodification of life has created a world where individuals are beholden to commandments of the marketplace. The current rightwing Potemkin Revolt is based on furthering extreme neoliberal capitalism and solidifying the power of evangelical serf communities. The strongest argument against this debilitating movement is a philosophy without the trappings of capitalism whatsoever. Even modern progressives are promoting a system that is inherently autocratic/oligarchic in intent. It is more than emulating the European model and inching our way towards social democracy... it should be the complete philsophical break from a system that preaches the miracle of perpetual motion when our world is fast coming to terms with entropic breakdown.
I would invite the TPM Cafe community to have a discussion about what best to do and how to do it. I owe the bulk of this blog to the ideas of Adorno, Lacan, Foucault, Lukacs, and Fuller. I hope that I phrased a few of their incredible ideas in a manner that can spark a dialogue.
]]>I just wanted to post this link to one of my favorite works. It is available to read for free online, but I would also reccomend purchasing a print copy or making some contribution to the Buckminster Fuller Institute.
Over the next few months, I will occasionally post other online works of interest, from General Smedley Butler to Hakim Bey, from Albert Schweitzer to Aga Khan IV.
There are resources online that reveal the precise nature of the problems facing humanity and what we can do about them on a microcosmic and macrocosmic level.
Love,
Zip
]]>My frosty side thinks otherwise.
In my opinion, the Baucus plan is the foundation of health reform. The beltway media knows it, Obama knows it, and informed citizens are growing to know it. The final bill will include landmark measures regarding pre-existing condition coverage and a mountain of regulation to control costs.
But (BUT) the final bill will likely be an unmitigated disaster. The seed is rotten.
The legislation has to be enforced by a combination of oversight and legal controls. I believe that neither of these august bodies will perform their function. Instead, I foresee the enforcement of mandates while any law that limits the "free market" will be undermined, overlooked, and overturned. Without a public option that has the funding and oversight necessary to force private industry to compete, industry will game the system. The cost of covering pre-existing conditions will raise all costs. Mandatory coverage places the onus of responsibility on citizens to insure themselves.
In my opinion, the final bill will transfer more wealth to the same financiers who engineered the current crisis. I believe that the banking tycoons are manufacturing another speculative bubble based on a mandated subsidy for increasingly shitty coverage.
And speaking of coverage:
The political implications are clear. The Dems will frame the failure of reform on big business. The Reps will frame the failure on government's inability to work on behalf of taxpayers. Both will be correct because both sides have created this coming debacle. And many voters will back Dems because the alternative will be a GOP typhoon of epic crazy.
We are being gamed. If the final bill is the Baucus Plan with sugar on top (as Obama's speech indicates) then this bill must die. Reconcile the bill and force a competitive public option or kill the final product.
Mark my words: if the Baucus plan with sugar reaches Obama's desk, it will be the biggest transfer of wealth upwards since the Iraq War.
Tell your Representative that you will not subsidize private care of your body. Demand a public option.
]]>I went ahead and I read Dr. Altemeyer's The Authoritarians over the weekend. I won't go into detailed criticism over the whole book, but I do want to address his premise. Dr. Altemeyer makes plain in his book that he is analyzing right wing authoritarian personality. He states that this personality is a risk factor in the corruption of democracy. He believes that left wing authoritarians exist, but in such small numbers as to be negligible. He stakes his ethos upon these claims, using his decades of research to bear as an authority on this subject.
In my opinion (with only a few years of authority to bear and lacking any clinical trials), I believe that Dr. Altemeyer is only identifying a small, albeit intensely visible piece of a puzzle. I think that the visibility of this reactionary and submissive subset of society blinds us from an overall perspective. The reason why Right Wing Authoritarians (henceforth referred to as RWA) can sway the direction of our democracy so well is because they are a catalyst. While their opinions and beliefs can be narrow, superstitious, wilfully ignorant, and submissive, they represent the majority of Americans. Their actions preserve the status quo.
If you can bear with me, I am going to address the first 10 questions in Dr. Altemeyer's RWA personality test. I will often rephrase the question with a noun substitution or a grammar shift to redistribute emphasis. My hope is by the end of the exercise, a few readers will continue on to my conclusion and enter into a fruitful discussion.
___ 1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals
and protestors are usually just "loud mouths" showing off their ignorance.
1. Experts generally turn out to be right about their conclusions, while the naysayers are usually contradictory without basis.
Dr. Altemeyers first question is specific to the right wing by the use of established and radical.
___ 2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
2. Women should shave their legs and armpits when exposing these areas in public.
The issue of sexism and misogyny is conveniently ignored by Dr. Altemeyer in favor of isolating the "Promise-Keeper" contingent.
___ 3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy
the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
3. Our country desperately needs a charismatic leader who will expose and punish corruption and lay out a bold vision for the people to rally around.
___ 4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
This one is genuinely good, imo.
___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and
religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people's minds
5. It is always better to trust experts in government, churches, academia, and labratories than to listen to skeptics who doubt everything.
___ 6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every
bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
6. Communists and Islamic fundamentalists are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as American citizens.
___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
7. Substitute progressive for traditional. Substitute ignorance for bad ideas.
___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a local militia.
___ 9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this
upsets many people.
9. Our country needs individuals who will tell the truth, no matter what the cost.
___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
Substitute corruption for perversions and get rid of traditional beliefs.
I rephrased every question but numbers 4, 7, and 8 in order to replace right wing jargon with a less reflexive language. Numbers 7 and 8 I flipped because I have read number 7 at this site and other blogs, and number 8 brings in gun control vice sexuality. Question number 4 is a question everyone should ask themselves and then can replace with any group of people they see fit until they say NO. Replace gays and lesbians with pedophiles and murderers, and I believe everyone but the true antisocial or psychotic would strongly disagree.
Dr. Altemeyer has successfully narrowed his personality studies to a category of individuals who I describe as reactionary idealists. But what about the category of individuals who are apathetic observors? Those individuals who would never even get past the first question on the test without dismissing it as boring or a trap? These individuals are as submissive as the RWA, but do so because politics is "all lies," and cops are "just doing their job," and the President is "just as crooked as the next guy."
I commend Dr. Altemeyer's work inasmuch as it identifies paramaters of thought indicative of individual and group right wing authoritarianism. Is that the true threat to democracy? I don't think so.I believe the reactionary idealist is a symptom of an overall problem, and that is our general amnesia of and blindness to our actual national values. The RWA reactionary idealist may erect a singularly bizarre set of tropes, but nearly everyone else is just as guilty of creating egregores and distractions in order to avoid the obvious truth that the United States of America is a wholesale distributor of violence and exploitation. We have perpetrated countless atrocities directly or by proxy in order to benefit a few elite families. We live our lives under the constant scrutiny and advice of experts, work more hours for less pay, eat less nutritious food and accept an increasingly hostile body of laws and surveillance... it's not that RWAs are submissive, it's that they make a collective problem obvious by their shenanigans.
So the issue right now regarding health care goes beyond the mere question of right versus privilege, or individual versus universal. It is the fact that the cost of this health care is being borne on the backs of the third world. And every union we've helped bust, every coup we've funded and supported, every dictator who has been our friend before becoming our enemy, and every elected leader who fell by the hands of a soldier trained by our professionals underwrites the privilege/right of health care itself. Because our nation is fundamentally broken and we are doing almost nothing to fix it outside of demanding more benefits.
Because it is not about where we are going, it is where we are now. And I know that I am not afraid of a vocal contigent of deluded tea baggers. I am afraid of the next justified war against a comparitively defenseless nation. I am afraid that even if MLK himself were President he would be convinced to bomb Iran in order to secure the long term prestige of his party. And I am afraid that deep down we will tacitly allow the destruction to continue if it means that our families can maintain a safe and comfortable lifestyle.
]]>I began thinking about this issue more than a decade ago after the Heaven's Gate mass suicide. The seed that was planted in my mind at that time is that most belief systems not only have a beginning, but also have an end. There are very few circular spiritual constructs, and even those (such as Hinduism or Teutonic mythology) are marked by violent destruction with a new age rising from the ashes (the Kali Yuga or Ragnarok, for example). I supposed at the time that there is a correlation between irrational violence and the immanence of the eschaton. The closer to the present an individual or a group believes the end of the world, the more marked the violence... and the violence will reflect their belief system. I supposed that these kinds of beliefs can only serve to dissociate an individual from their environment and create an outlet for the expression of misery, transmuting despair into euphoric zeal.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, contain a "War Scroll" whereby an apocalypse is described, sides are declared, and tactics are outlined. This same mindset informs members of the racist Church of the Creator, that describes a holy race war of the pure Aryans versus the mud people with their corrupt and sinister values. Apply the same criterion to the NWO conspiracy theorists, who see a global conspiracy of Luciferian Illuminati who control the ebb and flow of society in order to implement a one-world government. Not only do each of these emphasis a band of true believers standing against the vanguard of evil, but they also emphasis the spiritual value of warfare and the impermanence of the physical body. What matters is one's spiritual ledger, where even the most violent and depraved of acts are done for the good of promoting their particular vision of the future.
Eschatology even informs certain domestic and foreign politics. The evangelical support of Israel, for example, is based on the belief that the second temple must be rebuilt as a precursor to the rapture. Michelle Bachmann stokes the fear of a one-world currency for a reason: it is a dogwhistle for evangelicals and America-firsters. While Islam believes in a day of judgment, Wahhabism pushes the envelope and believes that the end of the world is fast-approaching, and only the pure will survive Allah's judgment.
Belief in and hope for the end of the world is a natural consequence of fear, misery, despair, and helplessness. All of these factors are reinforced by the modern media, which transforms history into an observable phenomenon that operates on its own like theatre. When the phenomenon is observed with the filter of eschatology, a pattern emerges that lends credibility to your thinking. The murder of a spouse indicates the overall decline of family values. Terrorism is seen as the global struggle of good versus evil. President Obama is the antichrist foretold in the Book of Revelations.
I welcome any additional insight or criticism. I also pose this question: if so many believe, consciously or unconsciously, in the endtimes, what are the chances that humanity will manifest the end as a self-fulfilling prophecy?
]]>http://web.ccsu.edu/astronomy/tibetan_cosmological_models.htm
http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.articles/sufi.bahai.cosmology.html
I wanted to begin with these three links that deal with western and eastern cosmological models. They are strictly primers and have zero scientific relevance. I am posting them first and foremost for the sheer joy in contemplating such diverse and profound ideas. I believe they represent a poetry composed of symbol and serve a psychological purpose, in much the same manner that a reading of Dante's Divine Comedy can deliver.
I will try and not incorporate too much of the political into this post, although the purpose behind it is political in nature. This weekend's post by Stillidealistic was a claryon call for those of who who hold liberal and progressive political values to reclaim their religion and faith from the reactionaries who use religion as an authoritarian tool of control and prejudice. That thread descended into farce because certain individuals used the reactionary purpose of religion to paint the entirety of religion as something to be destroyed for the good of humanity.
I hold that the church of reason is dangerous too. The reason is simple: science is effective, but science is inductive and has an evolving nature. Newtonian physics has given way to Einstein, although the first must be understood before delving into the other. And... quite frankly very few people understand either, but that doesn't stop them from resting on their authority. They also don't understand that Einstein's general and special theories of relativity were controversial in their time. The reason was that Einstein reached his conclusions through mathematics and thought experiment in which he contemplated the outcome of his hypotheses on abstract extensions of mind. The tools had to be developed after the fact to prove his theories, and the proof took decades of hard and ongoing work. In other words, Einstein thought outside the box and relied on reason and intuition to derive conclusions where proof was not immediately observable.
So, initially, Einstein's theories were a cosmology (and when it comes to his stated goal of a unified field theory, remains a cosmology) rooted in mathematics in much the same manner that Lebiniz' theory of monads was derived from his application of infinitessimal calculus.
What informed Einstein's theories? Mystical pantheism:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
In other words, Einstein reached his conclusions not just through hard math but a mystical appreciation of the universe that viewed the cosmos as an interconnected whole. While metaphysics without proof is no rational explanation, the metaphysics supplied the belief that aided Einstein in his scientific inquiry. Einstein found philosophical kinship in Baruch Spinoza, whose ideas challenged Einstein into a greater appreciation of the cosmos. I provide the first link because the strain of mystical Judaism (chadism) is very much present in both Spinoza and Einstein.
I believe that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face if we eschew faith and intuition as simply irrational. I do agree that believing in the unproveable isn't rational. That doesn't make the irrational an inherently bad thing. What makes irrationality a bad thing is to cling to an irrational belief in spite of sound evidence to the contrary. Thus, geocentric flat earth became irrational, outmoded, and dangerous when church authorities held to it and destroyed lives over the belief in spite of the evidence. What makes it worse is that there is nothing in the Bible outside of a command for the sun to stand still that provides backing for the assertion. In fact, a huge body of work existed thanks to Arab studies and mapmaking that put the lie to flat earth several centuries beforehand. A belief can not make a true thing untrue. But a belief can help discover the true, and in my opinion is essential to novel discoveries.
I would also like to add the psychological element to myth and cosmology:
http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/emerald.htm
When you discuss myth, it is impolite, ignorant, and rude to write it off as superstition. Myths serve a psychological purpose that is undeniable. The history of alchemy reveals, not only a pre-enlightenment approach to chemistry, but a systematic psychology rooted in self-determination and cognitive development. Their belief stemmed from the axiom, "As above, so below," which indicated that the behavior of base elements reflected the behavior of the human animal and the study of both would reveal the evolving nature of the soul. Thus, base dross elements such as evil and temptation could be removed through finding the symbolic correlation behind one's acts and chemical processes.
Much psychological theory reflects these original alchemical ideas. One need only look at Erickson's tension of opposites or Maslow's pyramid or Jung's collective archetypes to see ideas that were discussed and written about as early as the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
In conclusion, I want to defend faith, not only because I am a man of faith, but because faith is essential to human nature. Faith can be the cause of tremendous suffering. Hitler's faith in eugenics and antisemitic conspiracy theory fueled his violent monomania. The faith in the forgiveness of sin led to mass participation in the Holy Crusades. And, in my opinion, the faith in reason uber alles has led to unreasonable acts using spare and awful logical constructs. Bybee's torture memos are a case in point. The cold rationale of organ failure/death being the criterion for torture allowed a reasonable front for human rights abuses. The idea that "if it makes sense on paper, then it can be defended" has led to such acts as cost/benefit analytics which allow health insurers to deny converage because the cost of insuring is greater than the benefit of a potentially saved life. Plus, we are given the added and fun benefit of empathy being derided as a criterion for the dispensation of justice.
I am not saying that any of these things are remotely reasonable. They are irrational and dangerous acts using reason as a fig leaf. What others smarter than I have called the banality of evil. But... BUT... were we as a nation not so wedded to the belief in the divine power of reason, we would not be so easily suckered into clouding our judgment. We would instead (I hope), view reason and critical thinking as faculties to be developed along with other faculties like maturity into an individual (alchemically, perhaps)... we wouldn't belief off the cuff that we are inherently rational because we are part of a rational nation. And the religion of nationalism is a discussion for another day.
Thank you for reading this, and I hope to have a polite and enjoyable discussion!
]]>
Release those photos. History demands it.
]]>Past vegetable carts towards stone nuggets
up the first hill and the body armor begins
to stick to the torso in a lover's embrace
listen to your breath and think your thoughts
goats replace the children and nibble at the green bottoms
of brown things
the terrain winds and clicks and casts eyes
from windows set in unfinished stone
a tangle of cable veins their way
from underground to six houses with satellites pointed to Mecca
I enter the middle of these homes
with the Major
and the Captain
the translator
and a note
A sheik steps from the bed of a truck
two local soldiers hold his outstretched hands
he lands without disturbing the clay
reaches into his pocket and withdraws
a string of beads
he takes his seat across from us
between the heads of household
The grunts in our squad
form a perimeter
outside the perimeter
the local soldiers smoke
and smile which reveal most of their teeth
Tea is served in lily-shaped glasses
poured over four brown sugarcubes
stirred by spoons no bigger than a grown man's thumb
the first sip is scalding and the men begin to speak
starting with the Shariah lawyer
(who is also the eldest Uncle)
he first asks to see the note
looks at each of us and sets his stare at me
the translator tells me that I must read the report
while the rest of the room stays silent
I begin to read about two white cars
who meet and then pass at a crossroads
one is suspected of carrying explosives
the other is carrying a family:
a chemical engineer whose brother
is a professor of biology on vacation
they share the front
in the back sits the professor's daughter
while her daughter is seated beside her
(the daughter in fact had entered the room
and took a seat on the lawyer's lap
she was no more than four)
the Army mistook one car for the other
an order was issued a missile was fired
the front of the vehicle became a crater
swallowed the professor
devoured the engineer
and maimed the daughter's hand
the child was left unharmed
bathed in her family's blood
waiting for medical aid
from an Army medic
that arrived four hours later
The child looked towards the ceiling
I turned over the report
She wore a pink shirt and magenta pants
with a matching crocheted head piece
her eyes were large and had three
symetrical lines
beneath them carved upon the eyelid
The lawyer paraphrased the report
when he reached the portion about the child
he swept his hand along her cheek
and wept for a moment before clicking his teeth
the sheik put his fingers to his mouth
nodded twice and reached for the note
he read the translation aloud and shook his head
the note was a letter of apology signed
by an Army Brigadier General
the note offered no confession of guilt
but instead expressed regret over the unfortunate confusion
the order was given based upon the existing intelligence
without nefarious intent
therefore the United States offers
restitution
The lawyer began to thumb his rosary
as the sheik spoke to us
the family since the incident was the object of gossip
tying them to Al Qaeda
the note is not exculpatory
the note does not name the victims
the sheik invokes Pan Am 103
destroyed over Lockerbie Scotland
2.7 billion was repeated three times
ten million dollars per family
that is no less than what these victims deserve
pillars of the local community
but the sheik averred
what is truly desired by all in the family
is a monument dedicated to all the atrocities
perpetrated by the invasion
he described a wall like the Viet Nam memorial
but in order to accomodate
the number of souls
the volume of blood on our hands
the wall would have to reach to the sky
and stretch the length of the Euphrates
The sheik paused and took a sharp breath
the girl child took a seat on the carpet
and arranged the blonde hair on her doll into a braid
the Major and the Captain
offered to request that the note name the victims
and declare them free of terrorist ties
the rest they declared in unison
was not possible
Congress had established the rules of compensation
Iraqi parliament agreed to them:
No more than 2500 dollars per proven death
No more than 2500 dollars for injury
No more than the estimated value of destroyed property
In one lump some and no more
The total for the victim was 10000 dollars
1.2 million Iraqi Dinar
take it
leave it
sue your own government
our hands are effectively tied
The sheik relented
requested the letter in less than thirty days time
the negotiations concluded
now conduct the payment
conclude the day's business
I opened my pack and took out a clipboard
verified the information on the vouchers
scratched the pen on a blank piece of paper
signed the disbursing block
I took the Dinar from my left cargo pocket
counted each pink bill twice
each bill was worth 25 thousand
the Major signed the authorizing block
and ordered me to stand up
I looked down on the carpet
until ten toes
each painted red
appeared in front of my boots
I turned the clipboard away from me
she signed the payment block
The lawyer took her right hand
wrapped in blue silk tied in a bow over her wrist
he tugged at the knot and she looked away
he revealed her hand
wrapped in translucent gauze
missing three fingers
he thrust her hand in front of me
I saw the ivory-colored scar that held her palm together
he said in English:
is this enough identification for you
or do you need to see her card?
I handed her the money
and stole a look at her eyes
and sure enough
they matched her child's.
History is not a continuum of progress. There is no gradual increase in scientific discovery, political liberty, and economic prosperity. I would even venture that there is a negative countertrend to each of these areas. The ability to communicate universally via cellular phones and the internet is countered by an increase in surveillance and coercion. The rise of the labor union is met by sophisticated intrusive countermeasures that often lead to union negotiators colluding with business leaders. The rising tide of economic progress can be swallowed by unregulated monopolies. And, as history unfolds, the countertrend can and does sometimes gain the upper hand.
We have just elected (h/t to dorn76) a gentleman of mixed heritage, illegitimate birth, and a foreign name to the highest office in the land. However, this distinction is made dubious because his election arrives after the most reactionary leadership we have endured. Worse still, Bush's tenure arrives after an extended period of reactionary leadership, from Nixon forward. I use the term reactionary because their political power is rooted in a reaction against threats and enemies. The threat of communism, drugs, terrorism, the dissolution of religious values, and the ideals of youth drove the ship of state. In fact, the main reason liberalism fails politically is due to being framed as congruent with these enemies. Conservatives root their politics in the idea that if liberalism were to succeed, then our enemies have won. Conservatives are allowed to push reactionary ideas and achieve reactionary goals because they are allowed to paint alternatives as enemy victories. Once the cultural mindset is fixed and rooted in reactionary attitudes, then that culture collapses under its own gravitational pull. Once the Vatican convinced its members of the primacy of its orthodoxy and the perpetual threat of heresy, then that culture fell victim to the Dark Ages. When paranoia supercedes common sense life becomes nasty, brutish, and short.
In order to push against this decades-long reactionary trend, it is necessary to thoroughly repudiate every facet of the reactionary philosophy. I submit that it does our society no good if we relent against one reactionary trend in order to focus on another. I further submit that it does our society no good if compromise yields the essential paranoia and power nexus to the conservatives. Therefore, all pieces of a decisive counter must be put into play.
The reactionary players have no problem putting every piece into play. They have had nearly two generations of practice and a playbook written by Machiavelli, who specialized in analyzing warring states from the perspective of uniting against a common enemy. Free speech can become a tool of the aristocracy by turning speech into cash and businesses into people. This makes centralized consolidated speech more free than the contesting masses of the polity. The justification for this is that free trade and neoliberal regulations hamper capitalism and thus weaken us to foreign infilitration. Due process can become coercive because accusatorial process is tranformed into inquisitorial process directed at an omnipresent enemy mythology. Once the enemy is potentially everywhere, the enemy can then transubstantiate into everyone.
You can take every individual right, apply enemy-oriented reactionary premises, and then eliminate that right. Then, once those rights are subservient to paranoia, all protections are lost. Once you are an enemy, once your ideas are those of the enemy, you are no longer human but a beast that can be tortured, imprisoned, ridiculed, and exterminated. Once you are a heretic, you must be destroyed in order to be saved.
The root of delusion is the objectification of identity. Once someone becomes something, then that person becomes a receptacle for your delusion. Only when a child or a spouse becomes a possession can someone justify abusing them. Only when a woman made a pact with the devil could an inquisitor justify torturing her body to save her soul. Only when President Clinton became "Slick Willy" could the reactionaries justify hunting him into a keystone impeachment. Only when liberals become mentally ill brainwashed cultist terrorists can the reactionaries justify the police state.
With that being said, I present the idea that we must cease making humans into objects. We must cease turning life into statistics. We must infiltrate human sympathies and compassion into all crevices of public discussion and political life. We must return to the major premise of individual rights carefully balanced against collective equality. And in every way we must fight against reactionary objectification. We can not afford to ignore torture policymakers. They must be held liable and responsible because even the lowliest scum terrorist is a human that deserves accusatorial treatment. Otherwise, reactionaries from Al Qaeda can objectify us as evil and justify their continued jihad.
Reactionary thinking is inherently cruel and inhumane. So a humane radical philosophy must be championed in its place. This is partly why I supported Obama so strongly. His message of United States instead of red/blue states resonates with this need for a triumphant humane philosophy. However, Obama can not confuse this with centrism. It does no good to forgive the architects of torture and publish the torture memos because a United States must let justice prevail. Otherwise, any enemy activity can swiftly insitigate the return of torture because the reactionary idea persists. It does no good to rescue the ailing economy but allowing the essential megabank structure to persist because the reactionary dynamic will ressurect.
The end result should be a common ground that transcends political beliefs about the size and scope of government. The common ground should be that we hold the truth to be self-evident that all men, women and children are created equal and deserve certain inalienable individual rights, and that no matter what enemy may arrive upon our shores the power of this truth will unite us in common purpose to defeat the enemy without sacrificing this ideal.
Whether this result definitively occurs or not is, unfortunately, besides the point. The importance is that those of us who believe as I do to hold fast to our purpose and not acquiesce one iota of this truth in the name of compromise. It is one thing to compromise on the scope and shape of government. It is one thing to compromise on the time and duration of a law or tax. It is another thing entirely to compromise the integrity of of human life.
]]>I have given President Obama a lot of leeway because history shows that this nation is an empire masquerading as a democracy. That being said, I could not expect miracles. I did, however, expect strategic and tactical skill and a degree of competence mixed with swagger. In my opinion, Obama was swept in on a tide of "Anything But Bush" (ABB). I base this opinion on the general trends in the primary and election campaigns. Whosever appeared to be making the least risky argument for ABB moved up in the polls, and whosoever sounded/acted like Bush or echoed Bush dogma moved down in the polls. The strongest McCain surge in the polls occurred after it appeared that he had broken away from Bush and had donned a maverick and reformer image that was going to be bolder than Bush around the world and fiscally reactionary at home. Once McCain inserted his foot in his mouth and echoed Bush tropes about the economic crisis (and once Palin showed herself as too green for world power), he slipped and never recovered. This is not to say that we are a "center right" nation, but we are a nation that prefers conventional wisdom. As long as the facts gently conform to the media viewpoint, a small majority will fall in line. It just happens to be that the media is a hard right factory that manufactures center right consent.
Any progressive or liberal tendencies are pruned by the ever-present and tacit threat of upheaval (catastrophe) if we the people listened to the better angels of our nature. This is where President Obama is uniquely qualified to upset the status quo. His skills at the bully pulpit are the strongest in over a generation of politicians... the strongest since Reagan. The opposition is in disarray and out of effective ideas or tactics. I won't go as far as to say he should run the cycle on the opposition, but he should at least swing the bat.
Instead, on a pair of key national crises, he has failed to seize the moment. The first was and is the economy. I can understand (and even sympathise) with hiring FRB whiz kids and Clinton era retreads. The idea makes a degree of sense. Larry Summers and the Rubin school helped create a legitimate economic tide of prosperity in the 90s. The head of the New York branch of the Fed is the closest connection to Wall Street without necessarily being Wall Street. But President Obama has invited almost no one else to the table, and their ideas are the only ideas being offered from the bully pulpit. And their ideas are being roundly and soundly criticised because they fail on multiple levels. The action is too temperate, and the ultimate solution is a reinflated housing market and megabanks passing toxic assets between themselves like a hot potatoe and subsisting on taxpayer largesse. Quite frankly, the Summers/Geithner plan is the biggest social welfare act in US history... over ten percent of the national GDP is now being used to subsidize less than a tenth of a percent of the national population who provide less capital than they are receiving. Further, the Summers/Geithner plan allows these few banks to collude with the Fed and guide fiscal policy in perpetuity. This will guarantee increased costs, a rise in poverty, and the continuation of debt servitude that has consumed the middle class.
Why didn't Obama invite other economic thinkers to the table? Why isn't there a commission running alongside the administration that can offer a broader pallet of ideas? Why is the administration slow-playing the public with grim projections on Sunday talk shows without the consistent refrain of sound ideas? That is criticism one.
The second criticism is over the refusal to prosecute anyone associated with violation of domestic and international crimes against humanity. There isn't even a hint of independence. There isn't any allusion to potentially hiring a special prosecutor to sift through the wreckage. There is no vocal reaching out to Congress to hold investigations. The administration wants to "look forward," but it sounds more and more like they intend to cover up a national trauma. At the very very least, an effort should and must be made to investigate the ineffectiveness of torture as an intelligence technique. Lord knows we have field evidence to prove this assertion. This could shut up the critics on the right who believe that torture somehow saves lives. Further, I personally accept nothing less than an expurgation of our national sin by holding the architects of the policy accountable. The Bush administration committed unspeakable acts to men and laws. They were allowed to make clear language that prohibits torture obscure. They made a mockery of meaning that will (mark my words) give rise to grosser abuses in the future. This has to be repudiated in public through investigation and prosecution. Nothing less will do. Otherwise, we will simply pass the baton to the next administration who may or may not respect the rule of law. In other words, every passing day is a roll of the dice so long as sweep this under the rug. We will be one terrorist incident away from reigniting the same amoral fervor.
In conclusion, I want to apologize to Oleeb and others who I disagreed with for the sake of context. I temper my outlook through (I hope) a sober appraisal of history... and with history as my guide I castigate the Obama administration for making a mess out of two critical areas. There is a line between pragmatism and the path of least resistance. Real pragmatism will make difficult choices if they are in the line of the best possible solution. A real pragmatist will expend political capital to achieve the best possible goal. The path of least resistance leads to a kakistocracy that is a threat to world stability. The path of least resistance will acquiesce to the entrenched powers and tremble before the intractable assault of the right wing media. The path of least resistance will rely on a forgiving populace and uses the benefit of the doubt as a crutch.
I will continue to give Obama time to work on cleaning the Aegean stables... but from now on whenever he neglects a mess or sweeps dirt under the nearest rug, I will not apologize for it. It has become obvious to me that he needs to be held accountable. The fact is that if were a nation of laws, what Obama has done by failing to hold the architects of torture policy accountable is an impeachable offense. Quite frankly, even with the threat of a rabid right wing, Obama needs to correct himself. I will not let the potential of the crazy right keep me from repudiating the weakness displayed by our leadership. I will now get off my soapbox. Have a nice day.
]]>Dick Armey and Dick Cheney
Laid a towel along the shore
They each took handfuls of figurines
and placed them on the floor
The two Dicks arranged them in a merry pretty manner
On either side two toothpicks stretched a painted canvas banner
Dick Armey used a sable brush to paint the banner white
Dick Cheney sneered that Mission Accomplished wasn't right
And so with enamel polish of the brightest red
Dick Armey scrawled Tea Party and Cheney unveiled the bread
He broke off a piece and rubbed it in his hands
then sprinkled all the crumbs across the surrounding sands
The Two Dicks compared collections
which they brought from their house
Cheney's were all Yankee north
Armey's were rebel south
Cheney brought Limbaugh with a headset and cigar
along with blue and yellow pills
in a miniature glass jar
Armey brought Newt Gingrich along with his three wives
There were other ladie dollies present that all the righties prized
There was Coulter, there was Ingraham,
There was Palin and Malkin
But all Dick Armey brought was Kay Bailey Hutchison
The dolls were all assembled in varied pretty poses
The two Dicks acted out the part of Aaron and Moses
They lamented and protested ACORN and the poor
who through perfidy and laziness laid more taxes at their door
ACORN and the poor elected a black muslim
to pay for their mortgages with Euro socalism
They're all crooks and swindlers and minorities besides
who want to drown the whites in debt's rising tide
The dollies and the bread crumbs atrracted a small group
Of pelicans with Ron Paul signs wearing hats that said POOP
A flock of seagulls landed in white pointed hoods
And bearded crab bank financiers shouted "Greed is Good!"
Holy rolling oysters spread collection plates
To bring the donations back to parishioners in red states
There were birthers along with PUMAs, objectivists and truthers,
Libertarians secessionists and Bill O'Reilly's loofa
The two Dicks toasted to their marvelous achievement
The trap they laid had worked as they precisely conceived it
They each drew shotguns and fired them away
The two Dicks bagged enough grub to last until election day.
THE END
]]>http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002651.html
http://www.foucault.info/documents/disciplineAndPunish/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism.html
I want to give credit to Oleeb, who wrote a thought-provoking post about the Obama DOJ legal push for total immunity from public prosecution. There is the very real and continuing threat against all of us from the danger of unrestricted spying.
I have included these three links to relatively old articles (ancient for the internet) because they very much pertain to not only the political problem facing us, but the social problem that is far deeper. The problem is surveillance. Surveillance as entertainment, surveillance as punishment, surveillance as defense, and surveillance as offense. The crux of the problem is that total surveillance is inevitable (if not in fact already here) and that for every legal inroad we may make in order to protect our privacy from the court of law, there is corruption in the court of public opinion that is certainly as damning.
The other problem is that we are doing this to ourselves.
There is no polite way to put the truth. The combination of an imperial government and advancing technology have made total surveillance a fact of life. Nearly all of us have a digital camera and phone in our pockets at any time which can record details and publish them. We willingly publish personal information on public forums, especially social networking sites. Most businesses can cross pollinate your personal information in order to maintain a client record. What politicians said two years ago can be rebroadcast on a web site in order to catch them in a lie. The fact that there are so many benefits to surveillance is the reason why its rapid infiltration into our daily lives has been so thorough.
William Gibson makes a point that most of us have believed in total surveillance as a comforting fact for decades. The common theme in surveillance is that the government is listening to us anyhow. the other theme is that government is protecting its citizens from evil people OUT THERE, and unless you have something to hide, you shouldn't demand your privacy. But what blows my mind is that we the people have taken the tools of surveillance and applied them to one another and then given the telecommunications industry a blank check to handle this treasury of information. And we wonder why governmnet has colluded with the telcoms in order to get their preferred piece of pie.
First comes out enemies. We track suspected terrorists throughout the world, monitor any and all communication, and keep the dragnet perpetually fishing. We accept this because this keeps us safe. Surveillance allows us to live our lives in peace and not be troubled with the nigglesome details of WHY exactly these terrorists are trying so damned hard to attack us.
Next we apply the rules of surveillance to public figures. Politicians must watch what they say and do because joe and jane citizen can air their lies for all to see. Police officers must curtail their violence or risk being exposed. Celebrities mustn't flash their naughty bits, drive with their kids inappropriately secured, or heaven forbid walk into a speciality clinic. No one complains because they are kept in check and tongues can wag in delighted gossip.
Then we apply the rules of surveillance to one another. Photos we save in our phone can be used against a spouse in court. If someone disagrees with you online, you can google their info and publish it on your blog. Everything you have written online can be used against you in order to promote ridicule or rejection.
Then, maybe, we can begin to see the fruits of total surveillance. Desires fulfilled, justice dispensed, fear delivered, and control achieved. We are now engaged in the correction and discpline of one another every day. We are all prisoners and guards at the same time. Citizen and Spy.
So, when the Obama administration, and other administrations before him, continue to up the ante on powers of surveillance, please realize that it is a trend that begins and ends with Joe and Jane sixpack. Our government is a reflection of ourselves. Our desires, our fears, and our wisdom or foolishness. For every rational fear that the government is unaccountable, realize that citizens can be equally unaccountable, because everything we say and do is becoming public record.
By choice.
]]>This is reposted from a comment I made... I am putting it out in the blog for discussion. Not that I am right, but as an opinion to be weighed:
This bill is a stimulus bill. The goal is to stimulate the economy as soon as possible and stabilize it over the next several years. The bill represents a pendulum swing away from the failing private sector into public sector works.
That being said, it is easy to get mad when items get removed from an omnibus bill. You remove a piece of the pie, and that piece's special interest will cry out loud. Those of us that believe in and fight for education in this country are aghast over the GOP intent to "compromise" by knifing away education. Can the progressives effectively argue for its stimulus power, however? Further, can these very agenda items be passed on to another piece of legislation, say one that is geard towards education overhaul and reform?
We are in a different era, and there are choices. We can define this era. This era can be one where we continue to attack the government where on one side are effective lethal Republicans and the other side are wimpy Democrats. We can analyze every slashed budget item as a call to arms, and view every scandal as the next Watergate.
In effect, we will be behaving exactly as our masters desire. Reagan said the government does not work... and here we are as progressives reinforcing that meme every single day. The Republicans want an aura of power... and here we are as progressives granting them that illusion every single day. When a budget item (that can be added on another bill) gets slashed from this stimulus package, we say it is because the GOP is so powerful and all over the airwaves and the Dems are caving. We are confusing the process of checks and balances with GOP might. Thus we are lending to the image of Republican power. Then there is the reinforcement that every scandal is dooming Obama... and that only makes the first two points stronger.
We are engaging in a circular firing squad. Our republic has always behaved in a spirit of compromise, brokerage, and negotiations. Many of these negotiations are unpleasant because there are a host of interests vying for the spotlight. I can tell you this: if the slave state compromises did not destroy this country, then the current stimulus compromises will not destroy it either.
If you as a progressive view progress as "my ideas, my spending, my needs, right now," then you are in the wrong place at the wrong time in history. There is an opposition based on ideas that are finally losing their lustre. But it does not happen immediately, and certainly not when there is a crisis to be managed. As far as I am concerned, the GOP can demand cuts on a host of items that can not be argued as pure stimulus. If the economy gets stimulated and funds begin coming back to the treasury, then we can afford to tackle education and health care. Then the GOP will look like fools for stepping in the way in a time of crisis.
You can see it happening now. A gang of four is busy building the consensus necessary for a brave surrender from the GOP. Instead of seeing this and celebrating it, we are attacking the natural state of governance...
What did you all expect? A mirror image of Bush? A bizzaro world where Obama can push whatever progressive legislation he desires and we can through fiat become a utopia? Seriously?
Bush was a tyrant who was slowly drained by the actions of a heroic few. But while he governed, he was most certainly a tyrant and the Congress were a bunch of rubes. History may one day reveal what actually happened to allow our Republic to temporarily become a tyranny. But now... now we have the first strains of a real working representative government. And to me it is beautiful. (End Rant)
]]>