Insignificant Breakthroughs

Shared culture is serious or bullshit

2012-01-19T15:42:00.000-08:00

It's not hard to imagine this in a newspaper column: "This bright idea orbits the discussion now and then." That's just a metaphor. He's making his point, and others make their points, and depending on their assumptions of the world, they'll come to different conclusions. That sounds wonderful. But it's mostly bullshit. Inspiration comes from acceptance of a whole idea the same way a group finds its strength when everything is said.

A planet orbits, fine. It reflects light, fine. But it does more. Even a kitchen table does more. So the habit of using these same facts across all writers skews the discussion. Even if we consciously try to talk about the Sun, the Sun is not the Sun because we can't possibly list everything it does or means to everyone.

Google Knows Best

2011-12-23T16:00:00.001-08:00

Tried doing a search today. I was disappointed.

Guidelines for Compsing Music

2011-12-12T08:58:00.000-08:00

Develop ideals to aim for, unless they cause so much stress that focus is lost.
Write at least two ideas per session, and have sessions as many days in a row as possible.
What you have to say is more original than what you find impressive. Aim for the closest approximation of your imagination before it begins to bore you.
Compose out of the corner of your mind's eye, in the periphery.
Be careful chasing something new for too long, when you will be tempted to save energy by replacing it with a pattern that cannot compare.
Map sounds to different parts of the body, with the head representing the highest octave and the pelvis the lowest, and experiment with imagining ideas, emotions, and melodies originating in these places, or cloning themselves with small variations in each place. Develop ideas in a small area first to see them in their entirety, then enlarge it to the whole body to work out the details.
Don't react to a feeling of uncertainty until your idea is fully elaborated. What seems dull at one moment can make sense in the end.
Listen to silence as attentively as you would listen to melody.
Extract rules from good music and try variations on them.
Listen to music you don't like, and ignore/break all the rules it definitely obeys, first in your mind while it plays, and later while sitting down to compose.
Play in a band with to learn about harmony, timing, loudness, how long or short to make notes.
Keep returning to that instant where a melody seems to begin expressing itself without any help.
When composing, abbreviate thoughts to free up all but the essential underlying emotion and style/personality, rather than the music explicitly. This takes some trust in the original idea.
Make bold changes that go against your sensibilities, or else your music will be dull and lifeless.
Represent sounds by a vocabulary (e.g. "masculine" or "dark" or "cheesy") and challenge yourself to develop the more ugly ones instead of neglecting them.
Plan your work so you are constantly switching between opposing concepts in your mind while you do it, high and low, loud and soft, simple and complex, happy and sad etc. In other words, don't try to make every part of the song have an identical personality.
The pleasure of seeing inspiration following through into form can compromise your judgement, so it takes a lot of willpower to keep polishing an idea.
Learn from videos and books that teach you the mechanics of the instrument or program.
Use shortcuts but remind yourself now and then that they aren't always necessary.
Imagine and compose from ideas more complex than you think you can remember.

How It Feels To Be Dating Again

2011-12-08T13:07:00.000-08:00

Governor Parry Isn't American

2011-08-26T16:11:00.000-07:00

Hardly any context, so this doesn't count as cherry picking (emphasis mine):

"I am also the product of a place called Paint Creek... You see, as Americans we’re not defined by class, and we will never be told our place...we’re going to stand with those who stand with us, and we will
vigorously defend our interests." -- From his announcement speech

The contradictions are as follows:

is a "product"	cannot be told his place
not defined by class	belongs to group who look out for their interests

HTML Tables

Remember when people used this word?

2011-08-10T15:35:00.000-07:00

This is a perfectly good word, and I'm not sure why it's been replaced by "added to that...."

A little more on dreams

2011-07-31T08:40:00.000-07:00

I'm usually told that Freud's theories are discredited, that Jung was more insightful. That's likely. But like his student, Wilhelm Reich, he had a knack for putting something bizarre into words. I think he deserves a closer look, especially when coming to terms with occult phenomena, which made "a deep impression."

Freud warned Jung about the occult, or maybe more exactly, superstition. He wrote about believing he could predict his own death, and then tried to figure out how he became this delusional. At the time, he said, he was convinced he had just written his life's work on the interpretation of dreams, and 62 (his projected death age) was simply the last two numbers of his new phone number! The logic of dreams spilled over into consciousness, became twisted around, and through "the formation of delusions as somatic compliance in that of hysterical symptoms, and linguistic compliance in the generation of puns," he became psychotic, seeing 62 everywhere.

But what a summary of the logic of dreams!

Dream Analysis

2011-07-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, I had a curious dream that I kidnapped someone to take sledding. The symbols in the dream were the kidnapped person, the sled, the mountain, and the snow. The person was silent, the the sled was old-fashioned, the mountain was in a neighboring town, and the snow was blinding. There are several memories that also contain these attributes. When I read about Haiti, I come into contact with an old-fashioned Noam Chomsky talking about their kidnapped president. I always imagine him with those glasses he wears. Another memory is a friend who got drunk and ran in cornfields. He related to me a story of the prison he was in where someone would hit their head on a wall to keep busy! The body's natural reaction is to close one's eyes in stunned silence.

What I am trying to show is that the dream tells the story of personality and conscience in such a way as to make them relate to one another, and to preserve the memories for our daytime reasoning, without having to sort through them one at a time. The attributes of just a few symbols are enough to set off an "aha" moment triggering a memory's recall. Further, in my experience, one can see more distant connections between these symbols. The longer the chain of analogies, the more repressed the memory! Noam Chomsky mentions protectionism now and again, and corn is one of our government-subsidized crops. This is too obscure for me, so my dream pushes it back into my long-term memory. Without the dream, these memories would haunt me more. I think one can even say dreaming is the conscience itself.

Progressive Hopes and Neoliberal Leaders

2011-07-11T21:21:00.000-07:00

Obama let down a lot of people, and now he's reportedly reaching out to Republicans through Twitter. So since this is my blog, and the older "folks" I know are shying away from this mess, I'm going to get a little serious again.

I wrote these hopes because I believed in the person of Obama, that his promises were sincere, not just some Wilsonian democracy bullcrap. They were all the hopes and dreams that a good person should fight for, someone with more wits than me. Maybe I'll find a way to congratulate him when I study this further, but I doubt it.

We flipped around from MSNBC to ABC to WGN to FOX. FOX was definitely the least excited about the election, I presume since they're all Republicans. All the analysis of what's to come really, other than people saying we need to keep at it and stay involved to keep the country moving in the right direction, was pretty dull.

I think some stations went a little overboard with their virtual pens drawing on the map. That and all the people calling swing states "battleground states," using phrases like "ground game" or "hail mary." (sic) I think the sports metaphors belittle the signifigance (sic) of the event. It's not just two teams seeing who is better, its about the future of the country.

I hope the media starts covering international issues more thoroughly now that the election is over. People need to know about what's going on in the world, and it will be so sad if we just revert to covering what food Obama is eating or whether he gets a dog or not, or what Mr Unlicenced (sic) Plumber is up to. And I hope they give a voice to the anti-war movement, and that that voice belongs to someone who can make powerful emotional arguments. It might be beneficial to have a conservative leaning mainstream media, since the conservatives want to go after Obama hard on foreign policy, which will automatically require the antiwar opinion.

I hope he goes beyond Columbia and Brazil in South America, and reaches out to the fledgling democracies down there. I also hope he increases aid to Africa and Afghanistan. I don't see how more troops is going to neccesarily (sic) help, but I think the international community will speak out. I hope he will care about public opinion in the countries we deal with, and understand that neither Iran nor Al-Qaeda is as much of a threat as the homegrown right-wing nationalists who support radical militaristic foreign policy.

It really will be interesting to see what happens to the Republican Party. Will it become more pragmatic or more radical? Will the Republican to Democrat (sic) converts negatively or positively affect the Democratic Party? I have hope, but I think in a sense we got lucky finding someone as incredible as Obama, and we might not be so lucky next time, and I think many hardcore Republicans are counting on us not being so strong in the future. So I think we have to prove them wrong, we have to organize a movement that goes beyond the republic to a true democracy. Let's hope that happens.

When We Say Security, We Really Mean Coup and Terror

2011-06-02T10:54:00.000-07:00

I don't remember reading all that much about Honduras recently in the New York Times, even though at least one Congressman was happy to warn of what a "strongman" like Zelaya might do there (if we didn't support the coup). But the "unity government" that we helped install is accused of shooting on peaceful protestors.

Reading the foreign press turns up something interesting in regards to the war in Libya. The threat of "bloodbath" which Obama keeps referencing was first stated by the government of Oman, namely, "Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs" Yusuf bin Alawi . Now I can't read this squiggly text:

وأعلنت دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي تأييدها لفرض حظر جوي على ليبيا، لكنها شددت على ضرورة موافقة الجامعة العربية، وناشدت دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي الدول العربية الأخرى «تحمل مسؤولياتها لوقف حمام الدم»، معتبرة أن القذافي بات الآن «غير شرعي».

..but Google can:

"[bin Alawi] announced that the GCC support for a ban air strike on Libya, but stressed the need for the consent of the Arab League, and appealed to the GCC countries and other Arab «carry out its responsibilities to stop the bloodbath», saying that Gaddafi is now «illegal»."

If Obama is serious about peace, he should clue in Congress about this prophetic ruler, who can even read the mind of another ruler countries apart and dictate his legitimacy. Then the Congressmen can relay their understanding to the public and we can tell the world that we shouldn't be messed with when we think about bombing for freedom.

"Hive" Culture

2011-05-10T20:09:00.000-07:00

Government nonsense:

We bombed Libya into an "Odyssey Dawn" but we "don't spike the football."
Our war is allegedly about protecting civilians (Obama). We protect them by bombing the state television workers.
The dozens of "brave" (Obama) Navy Seals who attacked Osama's house trained for weeks on a replica, and chose not to arrest him, but to shoot him in the head.

Newspaper nonsense:

Osama is "irrelevant" to others so let's write, write, write about him. (NYT editorial)
Interpersonal morality in relations to a war against the "cancer" (Obama) in the Middle East doesn't "scale up" (NYT Op-ed).
Violent intimidation is "more than justice" even if the robes are stained with blood and not "urine" (WSJ's Peggy Noonan)

I hope people will write to these papers so they are at least tempted by humane perspective. As for government, I don't have a vote "teed up" for any Democrat involved in war and assassination.

Manifesto For A New Cultural Revolution

2011-01-25T22:42:00.000-08:00

For sin is just this, what man cannot by its very nature do with his whole being; it is possible to silence the conflict in the soul, but it is not possible to uproot it.
— Martin Buber
You have taught Mogwai to watch television?! I warned you that with Mogwai comes much responsibility, but you would not listen.
— "Gremlins" (1986)

If order is good, how do we achieve it? What impairs the necessary insight into solving this moral dilemma is first and foremost within the mind. The incapacitated public's inability to approach an imposition of order of our own making, through a cultural revolution that services the spiritual needs left unconsidered or vilified by present actors.

Vilified cultures as a result only represent distracting foils for a public becoming increasingly aware of suffering caused by capitalist hegemony. They come and go. Not too many people are worried about "savage Indians" these days! "They" served their purpose to power, and have been replaced by Muslims, Socialists, homosexuals and others. As a less interesting side note, it is no coincidence that sexuality is brought into play as it can be used almost interchangeably with immorality and makes an efficient shorthand: Bill Clinton's foreign policy blunders and Julian Assange's "threat to security" are successfully left un-analyzed by the majority of the disciplined elites, absorbed in deconstructing the intimate details of their personal lives.

Since the hegemonic system appears to have no problem with unethical speculation, we must turn to those ethical welfare systems that are preserved and challenge their promised success of an orderly reality. Rallying around a flag or leader, and it follows, against another in some fashion, is frequently insinuated as the supreme good, or at least, and end to that. There are plenty of examples of this, perhaps the most recent being the "unity government" of Honduras, sponsored by us, which continues to terrorize dissidents in the name of order.

Much of this does not find form until dissidents can be seen as threatening the general welfare of the public. They are propagandistically painted as insidious, claiming "civil rights" apparently only as a veneer of nobility, covering up the self-interest power hunger (likely another egotistical projection!) That's not to say the system is completely authoritarian. To get people to agree to it, some ideological concessions were made to service businesses, so that they could be free from too much interference. Also, certain rights were put outside not only of the law, but of human reason itself ("endowed by their Creator"), and so power was structured to allow the occasional imbalance.

The large threat of flawed ideology is just as frequently approached within another cripplingly irresponsible conflation -- that of morality and power/money interests, and of course the old standard cultural/military hegemony being called "national security."

The Vietnamese were "immoral" because they wanted to become something we believed to be similar to Chinese Communists. The appeals to prejudice serve as a smokescreen for corrupted morality, and corrupted uses of tools at our disposal, including capitalism and religion, with our hegemonic power tacitly assumed as benign or even beneficial. This is evident from the perceived harmless nature of Coca-cola plants. The silliness is not so far below the surface, as it was recently claimed that obese children are a threat to military quotas being filled, and therefore, national security. Left unsaid for now obvious rationales are the government's tacit acceptance of fattening corn products through public subsidy, and the reliance on a culture of a passive, spectator population.

A strategy was developed to fool the fools, to allow us to believe that civility was important, so long as we recognized the of worship of power as an overriding principle, a pragmatic "check" on freedom. This was the culture war, and it gave jobs to the very people who possessed the analytical skills necessary for deconstructing the system. It was successful. People are sold on utopia with the rough edges of the non-modernized world used to stand as a foil for immoral socialism (in reality, the result of wealth escaping with the powerful).

Therefore, the reality of the condition of liberty in the world cannot be seen clearly through any ideology without a challenge to the traditions and stereotypes of the past. I tried to do exactly that with examples of assassinations. But while Kennedy and Lincoln led armies, Martin Luther King led peaceful marches. The evidence is there that revolutions could be started even more successfully with a an idea rather than the a gun. But many people, for example, don't recall easily that King said the U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, nor that Kennedy believed in a spiritual power of poetry, nor that Lincoln believed in moral sacrifice to such a degree that he privately excused his own assassination only a few years before it came about.

Education must therefore be a huge part of the end goal of the ethical person, as it is evident people are not always smartest or best in quite a few important and telling ways. Because of this, it should be protected from corruption in its reform. Law and order, police and elections, should not be opposed to interest in other suppressed cultures or in helping one another.

Unfortunately, the powerful people who enshrined our laws were threatened by angered masses, and created principles to "impose reason" on the population by any means necessary (which were sound enough to keep the system going despite attempted moderation by liberal presidents). And until people are brave enough, the actual faults of the Founding Fathers, as well as their most noble heirs to the presidential throne, cannot compete with the caricatures.

So as long as there is no change to this, there will always be a new game that will be called something like "a new era" and it must be continually protected from the announced new enemy.

Today, writing about Communism has become passe, and it is the Arabs in the Middle East, the liberals, and the Tea Party who are the acceptable targets. However, Chinese and South American autocrats get a passing mention, with others no doubt to come later. They are "the Bad" and we are "the Good" and we try to go about our lives unperturbed, believing our acceptance of it makes us moral.

Frequently, appeals to "realistic" -- "natural," or even "democratic" ideas based on a "free" and "Great Society" -- are conflated with appeals to traditions, to stereotypes, and to other sources of knowledge that can be corrupted by their use in violence and fraud. The ambiguous nature of the solutions proposed are telling of the deep-seated moral conflict. John Edwards ran a campaign on class antagonism and lost, while the victorious Barack Obama ran on hatred of Bush and bland, patronizing nationalism.

The enemy is required to be both a continuation of the forces of chaos and, if our system is facing threats of reasonable claims of illegitimacy, a much bigger threat to transcendental morality than ever before. Fears of global wars, even in practice involving only parts of the world (i.e. the rich countries), are not only stoked, but are brought into reality through such seemingly noble acts of intervention as "restoring democracy" and "being welcomed as liberators."

It's clearly the last thing we need, and therefore, the first thing people should discontinue in their day to day life. Challenge traditions to bring life to people.

Tracing the game throughout history to test the legitimacy of our current system is frowned upon, because it is only considered valuable if it fits within the current game of vilification. I believe this could be a sufficient explanation for the logical devices currently used to critique, as well as their failure to produce sufficient progress to keep hope alive, untarnished by the irrational despair that surrounds us. This can be no more obvious than in the life of Sarah Palin, a mother who had to raise several kids, and decided to use that to her political advantage with the authoritarian "mother grizzly" ideology.

With all this in mind, I feel no shame in wishing a long life to the revolution!

Newsweek's Alter Should Be Haunted By His Own Humiliating Failure to Conquer Delusions

2011-01-20T19:14:00.000-08:00

"Members of the suppressed class are equated with those who are racially alien." -- Willhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (p. 93)

Being one of the first-- if not the first-- to write a historical analysis regarding the recent "heinous act" in Arizona, Jonathan Alter should be commended. But the shooting of several people, including a judge and United States Representative, cannot be so simply dismissed as a victim of the country's "refusal to confront the stigma of mental illness" which is evident in the assassin, Jared Laughner,who "felt aggrieved by what he considered to be [Representative] Gifford's failure to answer a question he asked..." unless we are to read the piece as an exercise in futility. Despite the "rogues' gallery" timeline on the bottom of the page which describes some American assassins as people who either "dabbled in the occult while searching for a church," read "radical literature but never joined a political group," lived a "vivid fantasy life" or who "resembled his global peers," (a reference to the pro-slavery assassin, John Wilkes Booth), "American assassins," Alter writes, are "peculiar stalkers defined less by ideology than vague political and personal grievances." They are different in that those of "other countries" are "nearly always associated with extremist movements, religious fundamentalism, or criminal organizations." Alter's distinction is averred with no supplied evidence.

In his borderline racist conception of the world there are innocent, confused Americans on the one hand, and foreign zealots on the other, who are presumed to be too stupid to realize they are on the wrong side of mainstream American culture. We don't value "killing political leaders as a better form of self-expression," Alter writes, but instead merely must find ways to prevent the occasional violence by promoting the "funding and laws" needed for silencing what is "most likely a cacophony of voices within and without" the "sexually frustrated loners and misfits united only by their common background in social isolation" to impede a "path to mayhem."

But defending the Constitution's "[b]rilliance" of "Second Amendment protections" is not enough to overcome the "dismissive 'cowboy' critique so popular abroad" of a country "born in armed revolution, an idea not lost on Laughner." What these people disregard in error, in critiquing us, he says is that "winning the [American] West has a more winning quality than revisionists allow" even while it was "carved..with a gun" and "assumed a mythic place in America's definition of itself." Once again, the apologetics is backed up by no evidence.

Before ending the piece by quoting the President (as fascists notably do, often), he quotes Paul Schrader, the screenwriter of Taxi Driver:

"If you're filled with feelings of anger and self-loathing, you want to blame someone else. And people in the public eye are the ones that touch you.. because they're you're surrogate parents."

If Alter believes we must address a stereotypical "cartoon" and the "fear today... that copycat assassins of mentally unstable individuals...may imitate a new round of prolonged political violence" he should "focus his thoughts" on himself and his own "vivid fantasy life, turning on the topics of omnipotence and power, through which" one might "try to compensate for his present shortcomings and frustrations." He should put aside for now "what matters" according to President Obama who quite possibly is his own "surrogate parent" in this situation, along with a movie screenwriter.

Wrong Mistakes and Optimism

2010-12-29T04:09:00.000-08:00

I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will. -- Antonio Gramsci

We made too many wrong mistakes. -- Yogi Berra

I think Obama as well as most other officials have fallen into a narcissistic despair (though him especially, due to the quite novel combination of stress factors he has faced and continues to face) and they have begun displacing their discomfort by attacking their base. Curiously enough, there is a general comparison between a government that distrusts its people and a boyfriend that has been dumped by his girlfriend. I feel that I say this with some authority because several of my friends have gone through breakups. Their exes will often distort reality in order to protect their egos and project their own immature shortcomings onto the other. Pardon my French, but I call "B.S." when veterans "For Peace" are arrested for "security" reasons. It is actually the irresponsibility on the part of the government and the corporate media that is endangering the country's security. Without unjust disparities in knowledge and power between people, there wouldn't be these kinds of shocks. I'm not proposing communism or a dictatorship of the proletariat, but I do believe in giving a fair chance for people to succeed, and the society is far from ideally structured for that to happen.

The most recent tax cuts package looked to me like a give-away to the Republicans, and who can be against child nutrition? Even the gun lovers supported the bill because they want a fresh crop of healthy recruits in the military (1 out of 4 children are "too fat to fight.") Obama is doing well in his policy of "change," but then again he's playing it very safe right now.

Setting aside the expected need for war, I don't think that they are worried in vain. I haven't been keeping as close an eye on politics as I would like because I am dealing with a fear of intellectual stagnation, though I suppose I should be on the lookout for emotional relapse as well. If my younger fellow nationals are going through the same thing, it doesn't surprise me that they would compensate for it with unhealthy lifestyles. However society shares a responsibility in helping them deal with the stress more constructively, preferably in less fattening and disease-causing ways. Considering that we are turning to alcohol and tobacco, I doubt serious change will happen soon without massive educational activism in some form or another, which might include changes in things as seemingly synonymous with the culture as the capitalism and consumerism.

There has been some encouraging news in these respects. The New York Times recently exposed a conflict of interest of a Congressman who supported the Honduran coup. (It has reinforced my confidence in Noam Chomsky's assertion that we tend to only support democracy when it is in our financial interest to do so and that it is generally a code-word for capitalism anyway.) Also, Newsweek is under new management and has begun printing thought-provoking articles for a change! However, I am slightly reserved in my hope because I think that the beliefs of these writers are so contorted and compartmentalized that they might be quite unaware when they appear to say something insightful. They might even do what Jon Stewart did once and walk back their criticisms of power (he retracted his allegation that dropping the atomic bomb was a crime).

I probably won't be content until the time comes when there is a massive protest in favor of civil liberties that is enough to provoke other kinds of responsible action a country in solidarity will take to protect its future and the dignity of its citizens. Now is certainly no time for our "indoor voices." Though the ruling class will certainly accuse radical libertarians of terrorism (as the earliest uses of the term come both from state officials referring to enemy nationals and internal dissidents), legitimate and responsible protest must continue if there is to be hope in undoing the harm that our nationalistic and imperialist hubris has resulted in. I don't believe that expecting Obama to fix things is a reasonable solution anymore, if it ever was in the first place.

However, as the proto-Anarchist philosopher Proudhon wrote, the state will be abolished after workers have organized themselves under their own law. The dismantling of the corporate stewardship of our economy should therefore be the primary goal of all those who seek to see the wishes of the struggling masses come to life. I feel his ideas are especially important to consider because they are being read by most of the hemisphere, though not us. The Latins have begun organizing themselves, and are achieving victories for their people that have far surpassed ours. Perhaps this will be fuel for continuing narcissistic traditions.

Moderation in Revolutionary America

2010-12-27T16:33:00.000-08:00

[A]ssasinations of public officers is not an American crime. -- Abraham Lincoln

A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers. -- John F. Kennedy

They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now. -- Barack Obama

A government that only provides candidates already groomed for power by the elites cannot be called a democracy, and therefore should not be trusted. It is an aristocracy -- a country ruled by a small group of so-called nobles. Such is the system that elections enable to exist. The elites of the past (idealized in the authoritarian phrase "Founding Fathers") were scared of losing their property to the agitated masses in debt from the revolution, and are comparable their descendants today who seek to impose a borderline-fascist "belt-tightening" to secure their wealth. And while the Fathers sought only to further a confused policy of inequality, their principles were sound enough to win the independence of the colonies from England and allow for the extension of substantial civil rights to the lower classes in years to come.

In police states, revolutions are put down with police repression (or worse), and replaced with flag lapels, "red breeches" and "brownshirts" to impose discipline on the population. What is spooking the powers that be right now is the public's incredulity toward the desire for continued involvement in pointless and expensive wars and similar distaste for the insurance sector's refusal to allow health care to be free to all sectors of the public, regardless of class.

I think the Wikileaks group being blamed for simply believing in the public's right to know and being labeled terrorist-minded and treasonous might have spooked me a bit. The fact that they are being attacked through indirect and obviously false accusations of immorality (rape) proves to me that we don't have a serious claim to justify a ruling that favors a conspiracy in the other direction -- one that maintains draconian punishment for those in the press who release embarrassing, but not dangerous information. (Several politicians have claimed Mr. Assange needs to be killed by the government.)

Mass protests against such fraud, while often overwhelmingly unstable, actually have the potential to initiate a kind of pluralism that can be more constructive than political vanguardism, which invites radical counter-revolutionaries to antagonize, buy off or kill their enemies in assassinations or civil war. In my opinion, with elections our only recourse, we are only moving around the deck chairs of the Titanic.

People who can shut down the public's agitation on these issues effectively are free to transit through the revolving door between the business sector and the government and many choose to. They are rewarded with lucrative positions of influence, wealth beyond their wildest dreams and pats on the back for a job well done. One example of this practice is the memoir -- it serves as a way to enrich the author while further legitimizing his ideas with evidence of the market's favor as a talking point, often even printed on the cover. Another example, though more sloppy in its execution is Sarah Palin hamming it up on her own TV show whose job is reinforcing the authoritarian "mamma bear" persona, while she is connecting personally to the public with a pretty face and cutesy accent. On the other side are the Dick Cheneys whose private businesses are protected and prospered in return for their service to other elite interests. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels called this the "optics" of the country, not necessary for the wars, only for the public's acceptance of them (however, instead of Indians as scapegoats, he used Jews and Communists).

Such a system was described by the German sociologist Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as relying on an archetype of an "ethical adventurer" who might be approached with "ethical indifferen[ce]" or simply tolerated as "reprehensible but unfortunately unavoidable." Such are the effects on people who are required to adapt though "the strictest conformity to tradition" until it no longer needs justification, but is "tolerated as a fact."

Clearly the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of property have been almost entirely corrupted in their interpretation due to this deep-seated prejudice against traditional values, replaced with what Weber described "an economic society which [has] known trade with the use of money and which [has] offered it opportunities through commenda, farming of taxes, State loans, financing of wars, ducal courts and officeholders". I see little reason to hope for the government to fix it, as it is and always will be complicit in the corruption. The monetary incentives can only be overcome by a public that shows its government that the trust it is trying to win is not sincere or strong enough for a dignified existence. I say this in the spirit only of human liberty. To expect our rulers to protect us is naive vanguardism. My brother pointed out to me that nobody will invest in a political party without expecting some kind of return. So in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, I say that a government that longer responds to the will of the people must be abolished. That is a radical doctrine, but it is not foreign to Americans, nor should it be.

Many if not all of the current problems facing us today can be traced back to deep-seated aristocratic bigotry in the ruling sectors of this country. At the heart of it is a narcissism that reassured the Founding Fathers so deeply that they enshrined it in the constitution. The state was also for free enterprise in name only, as it was actively encouraging the plunder of Indian land once freed from the confines of British-enforced borders, and discriminated against Blacks by continuing the savage tradition of slavery (not to mention the current occupation of several countries, with plenty of military bases around the world). The Indians were our original Marxian "red spectre" that was vividly described by the elites at the time to whip up support for the revolution, along with the scapegoating of Dutch traders in the Tea Party protest. Later on, the Black culture as well as others were found suitable for this purpose, and would continue to be vilified in a similar fashion with alarming rhetoric typical of ethnocratic conspiracy mongering.

Some of our most beloved presidents like Lincoln and Kennedy have not only died as as a result of this prejudice in their assassins (though Lee Harvey Oswald might be considered a legitimate traitor), but had governed with the very bias that people were fighting to counter-act at the time.

Kennedy was an independently wealthy liberal but even he had his shortcomings. While he felt the war in Vietnam was unwise, he was easily persuaded by his cabinet to let it continue. While some of his words suggest ambivalence towards violent means of control in the world, he permitted the murder of the president of the Dominican Republic, a failed attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (coupled with a botched invasion) and the same gambling attitude towards the occupation of Vietnam that Obama advocates in Iraq, along with suspicion of "cables" that might be dangerous to the propaganda efforts.

Lincoln was not the noble cartoonish stove-pipe-hat-wearing goodfella that we think of him as today. He was a foul-mouthed racist who didn't want to see an independent South threaten the economy of the North. While the war did "free the slaves" in some fashion, their liberty (nor for that matter, Lincoln's values of "peace and friendship") did not come without the type of civil disobedience that I think is required today to finish the job. Black Americans moved only slightly higher up on the social ladder from slavery to Jim Crow, and still do not get a fair shake even with a "brother" as president (who antagonizes by labeling them irresponsible).Lincoln was also instrumental in setting a precedent for indefinite detention of dissidents.

The unlimited spending of corporations now permitted to influence elections, along with the complete disregard (even by Democrats) of civil liberties in the name of "security" speak to the deep illegitimate nature not only of the institution, but the traditions it was founded on. One vote every several years, not only in my opinion but in the writings of greater men before me, is not sufficient to express displeasure and even furthers the complicity of those who choose to participate.

Short Poem

2010-11-30T23:12:00.000-08:00

Hegemony

Keep it down, don't rant and rave.
What is it that your love saves?
"Normal" means to be the same.
Why not try to play the game?

Growing up, don't question God.
"He exists" they say, so nod.
Parents always know what's right,
even when their grip's too tight.

When the rabble's closing in
be a Hamiltonian.
Go to war like they command:
at all costs protect your brand.

The Weakness Inside Political Ambiguity

2010-11-27T05:33:00.000-08:00

And when they have run into a blind alley, when they have compromised themselves sufficiently to be compelled to carry out their threats, they do this in an ambiguous way, avoiding the means to the end like the plague and clutching at excuses for their failure.
— Karl Marx, as quoted in J. X. Cooper's Modernism and the Culture of Market Society

Yes, it's certainly a dark time in our history. The Republicans are openly appealing to radical nationalists to win their majorities, and seem to be waiting for any excuse to use the bully pulpit to antagonize the Democrats, further radicalizing the government to impose their corporate-friendly agenda. Their puppets in the Tea Party have recently vocalized their goal: the complete dismantling of the welfare state. This is in the face of the collapse of the world economy, American hegemony, the environment, and it seems, hope in the future. Meanwhile, the Democrats, and by this I mean all of us, not just the politicians, have dropped the ball. Our party is almost as weak as the economy, yet far more hopeless.

Left and Right, these reactions don't surprise me all that much, since there is hardly any principled opposition heard in the media that would serve as a partial remedy. Most of the Left's efforts appear self-serving, and at the very least reactionary. For example, President Obama will come out every now and then and take advantage of some negative aspect of Republican politics that is undeniably visible, such as Senator John McCain's complicity in Bush's agenda or the GOP's childish refusal to compromise. This is important, as politics does involve defining the character of your opponent. But if I had to name one flaw in Obama's strategy, it would be that he doesn't give the public a clear example of what a government focused on building the kind of solidarity we need actually looks like. I believe that public trust is only won through explaining a working model that people can access, and pragmatism happens to be the one ideology that fails that test.

I should point out that this probably does fall outside the traditional duties of our form of government. Because of this, Obama might very well turn out to be a lost-cause: a flash-in-the-pan opportunist whose best instincts have been driven out by special interests (e.g. the financial sector). This is invariably what to expect should the common man stay in the powerless state he is in now, unable to influence his supposed representative in the government, the president, in a substantial and meaningful way.

The root cause as I see it is the corrupting influence of power and it manifests itself in several ways: the ever-dwindling number of responsible pundits in the corporate game, an abundance of fraud, and the overall want to feel superior and safe. Such a system can only exist because it is self-perpetuating -- the spiritual void it creates is approached only with risky solutions that usually make things worse.

I suppose I may be accused of being overly cynical. That likely depends on what your goals are. It's certainly no mindset to be in should you want to advocate for a something other than complete political Nihilism. Mild reformism is a much better strategy, and that requires seeing shades of gray. It often does include things like repeating yourself to make a point memorable and being slightly pollyannish should you decide you want to hold the ear of a wide spectrum of pundits. Even language games play a part, though they the risk of obscuring the situation further and getting mired in petty squabbles that are only justified because people believe they supposedly represent some deep seated conflict in our culture. Obviously, my cynicism extends to such tactics as well. It's my own attempt at countering the kind of magical thinking that ends up distracting us from real issues. (Ivan Illich, an Austrian anarchist philosopher called these tactics "rain-dances" -- an attempt to "domesticate" what we cannot control through the belief in action-at-a-distance.)

To explain this from a different angle, an ideology of despair is only improved through more despair, and therefore generally weakens one's ability to accept harsh realities unless it is paired with a nearly impossible ability to tolerate displeasure. Outside of artists and maniacs, this is rare. Positivity on the other hand allows for a better view of what is going on because it provides strength and skills to see and analyze disgusting and disheartening things. In not trying to shape the world into a bleak image that projects but does not explain personal suffering, the task of understanding one's opponent's position so that he can be countered effectively becomes much more probable and attractive.

A good example of this difference of mentalities was when Rachel Maddow brought up the Tea Party's support in Indiana in her interview with Jon Stewart. It prompted Stewart to go into a intellectualizing of the problem, literally with the words "What does that [even] mean?" Following that, he babbled on citing half-baked examples that were intended to show the media's incompetence. Maddow tried to pin Stewart down on a point of view, anything that can be used to promote constructive criticism, but all that resulted was more confused anecdotes that lacked any kind of overarching similarity except their depressing nature.

The deeper truth (the overall hugeness of the problem) was briefly touched on and the two tried to grapple with it without taking it apart. This accomplishes nothing more than evidencing of their knee-jerk logic while they distract themselves with a game of "Hot Potato," which is usually where the opposition finds weakness. One commenter on Maddow's page summarized Stewart's mantra as this: "let's talk in inside voices and not [catch ourselves] saying anything disagreeable." He politely asked Maddow to not encourage this behavior.

I must admit that I share the blame that I see myself so easily putting on Obama, Maddow and Stewart. I can always define myself as the opposite of what I consider evil, but I'm not really contributing much if I don't try to understand the intricacies of the situation, a task they take on every day. A part of understanding this, I believe, also takes away some blame one might put on them. They face immense amounts of pressure because of problems with their institutions, which they have limited control over. Obama may sound quite harsh in blaming the Republicans for the economy, but unless he wants to be called a hypocrite, can hardly be expected to criticize Bush's heinous abuses of power. Maddow and Stewart (it seems) see themselves as cogs in a system of sane, rational people responding to the craziness of the world. At most though, they fill the role of a comforting presence to us and an irritation to power. That is the most you can expect from a leader in a crisis. It's something, but not everything.

Were they to step outside this system, they might snap, or they might transform into a beautiful enlightened butterflies from their cocoons of mildly informed propaganda. I don't really expect this second option to happen because of the institutional problems. As Stewart put it "As a satirist, I can always criticize, but I can't actually do anything. We have an advantage in terms of loose rules, in terms of language hyperbole and sarcasm, but what we don't have at the end of day is what the lowest ranking member of an organization that builds things has." Maddow termed this "responsibility." Stewart went on to explain quite rightly in my opinion that there was no "real honor" in the "deflation" of a "toxic" things, (a term which I consider Newspeak for the side effects of imperial capitalism). He explained that in his role, unfortunately, truth and authenticity are minimized to the role of something that smooths over the finished product, rather than a moral obligation of an intellectual.

Maddow is substantially different, or at least, she presents herself that way. She is unabashedly partisan, and this is a good thing. She does not engage in the kind of immature dissociation that you find in people facing a spiritual crisis (who happen to look a lot like Obama and Stewart). I think this is reflected in her cheerful and energetic demeanor, and in her attempt to approach issues in an intimate but balanced way, using humor when possible but not as a defense mechanism. I think the bigger picture that must be painted must come from this kind of positivity, not just despair. Still, she works for a corporation that will try to squeeze people out, as Olbermann almost had been.

While it is important to understand their weaknesses, I must admit that they do have their moments -- times when their abilities are exactly what is called for. Maddow has a serious approach to things, which I presume is meant to further the cause of journalism. Stewart's ability to intellectualize and provide comforting distractions are also important. It's good for the Left to recognize and encourage such traits, even if, in the end, they do not result in the type of "responsibility" (as Maddow terms it) that we need.

All I ask of Maddow and Stewart is to recognize that the task likely requires us to avoid the the attention-seeking behavior that Stewart ironically projects only onto FOX. We need a type of enlightened approach that is ultimately beyond the abilities of the talking heads and elite intellectuals on TV. Were they up to the task, it would probably not even survive the format anyway. As Noam Chomsky likes to point out, commercial breaks have a way of hampering any kind of meaningful discussion.

Still, I think it's important we should hope for some reality to break through, and for some success to come with fighting fire with fire, because what is good can never be put into a totalizing dispassionate system of analysis. We must do our best to organize, but if our despair and cynicism are too overwhelming to be hidden, we should at least express them the best we can. We are human after all, and it's no coincidence that the greatest minds in history have found comfort in this simple fact.

Ironic Threats: A Look At The Left

2010-10-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

(Note: I plan to come back to this and add the sources, but I think you can find most of these quotes very quickly with a Google search.)

It may just be the hunter/gatherer in me trying to spot the stripes on the tiger before it eats me, but I'm confident there is something of a pattern to the way the Western press (and perhaps others as well) deal with ideological threats. I have only a few direct examples, but technology today allows another interesting way to approach this, which I'll get to later on in this post.

The first example is an opinion piece written by one Flora Lewis on the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. She reported how he conceptualized society as having the "civil" and the "political" realms, and considered it ironic that a Communist, or perhaps a jailed Communist, should be the one to "bring the notion into modern political usage." She then went on to excoriate his descriptions of American society by paraphrasing the 10th Amendment:

The American experience offers little help in analyzing the dilemma because Americans started with a different concept of the state. Gramsci got the U.S. approach all wrong. He said it hadn't ''emerged from the economic-corporate phase which Europe passed through in the Middle Ages - in other words [ it ] has not yet created a conception of the world or a group of great intellectuals to lead the people within the ambit of civil society.''

He failed to see that in the American concept, society reserves for itself all that is not expressly delegated to the state, not the other way around. Government is to be defined by its limits; it has only the powers conceded to it.

This is only half true. The 10th Amendment states that the powers are to be given either to the state governments or the people.

I'm going to stop here to say that I hope to get through all my examples before I attempt to deconstruct the disagreement, for the sake of coherence. However, I'd like to come back to this article later because I feel the same way about Lewis as she feels about Gramsci, and I think I understand her about the same as she does him. When I understand it more, I'll post about it.

The next example also involves the New York Times, and another prominent leftist: Emma Goldman. As described in the book Emma Goldman: Life in Exile, she denounced Bolshevism as "rotten" and

the American press reveled in reports about her disillusionment; [...] the New York Times, for example, regularly printed squibs about her alleged change of heart, while gloating editorially that "it does add a bitter vividness to our conception of the horrors of the dictated proletariat to think that even she finds them intolerable."

Though the word never appears, it's probably safe to say that we are to understand that it is the irony of her statement that adds the "vividness... of the horrors of the dictated proletariat." This treatment was enough for her to warn her friend "not to believe what she read in the newspapers." It is not mentioned in the book whether the Times was polite enough to note that she had the chance to witness the horrors because of the U.S. government's policy of deporting radicals.

Gramsci's alleged failure to see the true workings of American society and Goldman's descriptions as mere additions to "vividness" of a picture that was already known suggest an unspoken rule that reporting leftist's opinions as ironic and incomplete is preferable to calling it truth.

I have one more example of this. Relatively recently, The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg, a man A Tiny Revolution's Jonathan Schwarz calls "America's preeminent propagandist," interviewed Fidel Castro. He told Goldberg that even his model was not enough to deal with the situation at hand, that Iran was not to be expected to back down, and that he was not given much more than anti-Semitic opinions as a description of the Jewish religion as a child. It seemed that one of the most notorious "Latin" Communists had just denounced Communism and taken the side of the Jews (that's a weirdly worded sentence, it is not as severe as it first seems). This prompted "surprise" from the Jerusalem Post, and widespread gloating in the rest of the press, causing Castro to comment further that Goldberg missed the irony of his remarks. It was not that capitalism will save us, he said, but that capitalism is so destructive, it will take more than the Cuban model to save humanity.

If these examples don't at least hint at a stark divide in ideology and a petty game of one-upsmanship, then I really don't have anything to say. But I see that here. What I think we are witnessing, dare I say ironically, is cultural hegemony in practice. Seeing a threat as ironic allows one to see humor, and therefore to not be afraid. Laughing at others, and even oneself, can be seen as an expression of superiority.

I'd like to finally get to the other way to look at this rule -- using the Google News Archive timeline-search function. Adding "ironic" to "communist" and "terrorist" highlights certain times of ideological upheaval in the West. You can see the Red Scares and Reagan's presidency lining up with "communist" and his declaration of the "war" against terrorism, the First Gulf War and the World Trade Center attacks prompting the understanding of that particular threat as ironic as well. On top of that, it seems that the term actually highlights these dates much more than the ideological labels by themselves. The task at hand, along with understanding these differences of opinion, might be to anticipate who the next bogeymen will be. It will be easy -- just look for someone being called ironic.

The Wyrd vs Nihilism

2010-10-07T21:36:00.000-07:00

artalien;    I have read no Chomsky. He does not appeal to me.
ChicagTao;    well i'm only using him to illustrate a point
artalien;    I may be wrong but this is all about religion (again)
   ChicagTao;    "The first principle guideline, if you like, is that we ought to, I will try and I think that we should, bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States government whenever it's possible. So, that if there is any dispute about how to interpret something, we will assume they're right."
    ChicagTao;    http://www.chomsky.info/talks/200202--02.htm
    ChicagTao;    "weakness" was not back then what we would in the vulgar sense call weak
    artalien;    back when?
    ChicagTao;    when the tao te ching was written, sorry i'm getting ahead of myself
    artalien;    well, I don't care about ancient religious systems, so I should shut up.
    ChicagTao;    the tao is more of a philosophy than a religion
    ChicagTao;    it doesn't command fasts like buddhism does
    ChicagTao;    and that often passes for a philosophy
    ChicagTao;    here's a prof from alabama giving the goods vcas.wlu.edu/VRAS/2005/Pynn.pdf
    ChicagTao;    all it is is empathy, what rashi called the whole torah
    artalien;    what other tools do you have in your box, apart from reason?
    ChicagTao;    intuition
    ChicagTao;    reflex
    ChicagTao;    you know, muscle memory
    ChicagTao;    useless without reason
    artalien;    indeed
    ChicagTao;    but reason is quite evil without empathy
    ChicagTao;    "cold, cold eyes, upon me they stare..."
    artalien;    what do you mean by evil, very bad
    ChicagTao;    "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.—Samuel Johnson"
    ChicagTao;    ^ i mean this
    ChicagTao;    henry kissinger was smart... had no integrity
    artalien;    but weakness is beautiful, you said
    ChicagTao;    in my opinion, set peace talks back
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    it's certainly not dangerous or dreadful
    ChicagTao;    so i find it beautiful
    artalien;    weak and useless
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    like a piece of art
    ChicagTao;    a doodle
    ChicagTao;    more like it
    ChicagTao;    the first sounds a child says don't mean much, but the parents may cry
    artalien;    I dread being weak, since it makes me a danger to myself and my family
    ChicagTao;    how so?
    artalien;    we have opposing conceptions of weakness
    ChicagTao;    yes
    artalien;    If I am weak others take advantage. My family needs me to be strong.
    ChicagTao;    sun tzu - let your opponent move first, he will show his weakness
    artalien;    weakness is more terrible term to me that evil
    artalien;    *a
    artalien;    weakness is a more terrible term to me than evil
    ChicagTao;    do you like socrates?
    artalien;    Yes, what little I have of Plato.
    ChicagTao;    i would consider his method a type of utilization of weakness
    artalien;    how so?
    ChicagTao;    he would not simply first say what is wrong
    ChicagTao;    he would bend and give and let the other person lead
    ChicagTao;    until the truth was shown
    artalien;    no, he always seems to be leading
    artalien;    he is the puppeteer
    artalien;    pulling the strings
    ChicagTao;    yes that is why his weakness is not weak
    ChicagTao;    it is only thought weak by his pupil
    artalien;    shit, dude!
    ChicagTao;    to the untrained eye, he questions because he is stupid
    artalien;    that is probably why they killed him, he was stupid.
    ChicagTao;    "If you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them."
    artalien;    a follower is weak?
    --;|    GhostFrog has joined #philosophical
    ChicagTao;    yes
    artalien;    I cannot really make much sense of this conversation. That is as much my problem as it is yours, we are tied together in it.
    artalien;    what do you want to say to me, anything?
    artalien;    I want to say to you that reason is the base, weakness is not beautiful or to be desired.
    ChicagTao;    i would say i failed as a taoist
    ChicagTao;    i'm pushing you and that is causing you to resist
    artalien;    nope
    artalien;    ask me anything you like
    ChicagTao;    but even reason embraces caution, not jumping to conclusions... this is often seen as weak
    artalien;    defend weakness as beautiful, if you will
    * GhostFrog    nods
    ChicagTao;    The first sounds a child says don't mean much, but the parents may cry. "Because he has given up helping, he is people's greatest help."
    ChicagTao;    your muscles are weak before you work out, but with practice they become strong
    ChicagTao;    the cells you had before are added to the cells you have after
    GhostFrog;    Creationists see Science's tendency to hedge their statements and conclusions with probabilities and buts as a weakness. It isn't, it's Science's strength.
    artalien;    that makes no sense to me CT, that of course does not mean it is senseless. Only that I cannot hear you.
    ChicagTao;    thank you ghostfrog
    ChicagTao;    point proven
    GhostFrog;    (have you seen a Creationist computer?)
    artalien;    so if I define caution as weakness it is then beautiful
    artalien;    wtf!
    GhostFrog;    why do you want to link caution with beauty or weakness????
    artalien;    I don't
    GhostFrog;    tfft
    artalien;    CT does
    GhostFrog;    did he?
    artalien;    oh yes
    GhostFrog;    I'm just butting in at the middle, so I didn't see that
    ChicagTao;    can a fruit have beauty? surely the most beautiful ones are the ones without the spikes
    artalien;    hehe
    artalien;    sorry

    ChicagTao;    it is not meant to be a unifying theory, it is only a mode of thought
    GhostFrog;    wait. so a gay punk with a mohican isn't as beautiful as one with a skin head?
    ChicagTao;    de gustibus non est disputandum
    artalien    googles what may be German, or Latin, or French
    GhostFrog;    on the whole, many eastern philosophical traditions see the reliance on reason of western traditions at the expense of other means of thought as a weakness, arty
    GhostFrog;    thought
    ChicagTao;    is it beautiful when an older brother lets his younger brother wrestle him to the ground and pretend he is powerful?
    GhostFrog;    "your taste is not in question", arty
    * artalien    "Latin maxim. It means “there is no disputing about tastes.”"
    ChicagTao;    yet here i am
    ChicagTao;    i am going off of the principle that pity brings out beauty
    ChicagTao;    that is simply an aesthetic choice of mine, but it would be a cruel world would it not exist
    artalien;    pity can bring about anger in the one pitied
    GhostFrog;    the more interesting point on this is how eastern thinking presages western discoveries about quantum mechanics, arty.
    GhostFrog;    western thinking to a very large degree remains stuck in the classical, newtonian, paraigm.
    GhostFrog;    paradigm.
    ChicagTao;    GhostFrog - quantum mechanics is one of the only ways we are exposed to eastern sounding ideas like paradoxical truths (schrodinger's cat)
    GhostFrog;    to *really* get qm, you need a bit of eastern thinking!
    artalien;    qm is a closed door to me. I have no desire to open it (yet). This rules me out of this.
    ChicagTao;    yes yes... pity can make people mad
    * artalien    afk
    ChicagTao;    but those people aren't beautiful to me
    ChicagTao;    "Love and art do not embrace what is beautiful but what is made beautiful by this embrace" - Karl Kraus
    ChicagTao;    am I being too pedantic?
    Mnemomeme;    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLNlSKugHw
    GhostFrog;    perhaps he is expressing his taste rather than a profound philosophical point, ChicagTao
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    well loving what i think is probably my downfall, it puts the logic behind the ideas into a stricly aesthetic paradigm
    ChicagTao;    it makes me want to stop talking about taoism
    ChicagTao;    *pout* i am weak
    ChicagTao;    :D
    GhostFrog;    Is that news, Mnemomeme ? It has always baffled me why *anyone* would put their lives up on such a site.
    GhostFrog;    but then, we old frogslearnt these privacy lessons back in the early days pre browsers etc
    ChicagTao;    i use facebook for philosophy, that's about it
    ChicagTao;    no personal data
    ChicagTao;    does the cia want to know about my theories on antonio gramsci? probably not.
    GhostFrog;    yes. so they can tag you as a potential terrorist when they discover you're living on top of an oil field.
    artalien;    They don't have to search or "invade" my privacy, with a door step interview, I give them what they need. Information is a great way to have power over the subject, of such information.
    ChicagTao;    i can feel the fight or flight response right now
    ChicagTao;    the fight is this: hey cia! bring it on! facebook is milliions of users strong!
    ChicagTao;    flight is this: omg, guvvment gonna take mahh bayyyybeee!
    artalien;    How can I serve you if I don't know what you need ------- justification
    ChicagTao;    hide yo wife
    GhostFrog;    and what of the space outside of that, ChicagTao ? the space of satire, parody, cynical humour?
    GhostFrog;    arty, no bee knows enough, but the swarm does.
    artalien;    you want "security", then I must gather information on possible threats ---- justification
    ChicagTao;    ahh, that is simply faking a threat to make defense mechanisms feel real
    ChicagTao;    see: colbert report "threat down!"
    artalien;    in a word, control.
    ChicagTao;    yes, humor requires mastery over people's expectations
    ChicagTao;    the laughter is the rejection of the fight response
    ChicagTao;    true laughter stops fear in its tracks
    ChicagTao;    for you
   ChicagTao;    if the joker has tied you up, his laugh might not feel too good
    ChicagTao;    the joker would love to laugh at batman because that is his greatest fear
    ChicagTao;    too bad wesley willis beat him to it
    artalien;    reason allows me to overcome my, "fight or flight" response. Humour is anything which makes me laugh. I can laugh in the face of danger. It won't make the tiger go away.
    ChicagTao;    never said laughter is superman
    ChicagTao;    might help you with your heart, but the tiger's just gonna eat that too
    artalien;    it can make me feel less afraid perhaps, but when in fear, it is hard to be, or register, humour.
    ChicagTao;    why would you say that is?
    ChicagTao;    is your brain saving all the dopamine for the first bite?
    artalien;    when I have been afraid, it is like a loop, it can be a paralysing feeling.
    ChicagTao;    and humor requires a certain flexibility
    Ap4ch3;    you live in scotland, i can understand that :P ... i'm jokin :)
    ChicagTao;    who wants to see things as they aren't when a tiger is staring them in the face?
    ChicagTao;    unless it is you standing over the tiger, victorious
    |--    GhostFrog has left undernet (Ping timeout)
    Mnemomeme;    everything doesn't need to be about dominance
    Mnemomeme;    you could rise above that animal, if you wanted
    --;|    GhostFrog #philosophical
    ChicagTao;    couldn't have said it better myself, master M
    Mnemomeme;    mornin ghostfrawg
    |--    glitch_ has left undernet (Ping timeout)
    ChicagTao;    ;)
    Mnemomeme;    Tao, you are using the metaphor to identify an irony that isn't present
    ChicagTao;    yes, i'm being a douche
    Mnemomeme;    I knew before I said it that you would react that way
    ChicagTao;    happy to have your trust
    artalien;    I confess to slight distaste for you ideas CT.
    Mnemomeme;    so infact, I am responseible (sic) for your actions, because you are easy to manipulate and I intentionally caused you to behave that way
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    i am like a clock you have wound up
    Mnemomeme;    quite
    ChicagTao;    scary
    Mnemomeme;    if I wanted it to stay that way, I wouldn't play these games with you
    ChicagTao;    goes quite against my humanist ideals
    artalien;    they are anti religion, I looked them up. Waste of time.
    Mnemomeme;    the more aware of it I can make you, the more likely you'll develop self-control
    ChicagTao;    the more i submit, the more power you gain
    Mnemomeme;    submission and dominance aren't the nature of everything
    Mnemomeme;    that's the animal talking
    ChicagTao;    what, do you want me to call you an asshole?
    Mnemomeme;    well, I am an asshole. There is no shame in the truth.
    ChicagTao;    ah
    ChicagTao;    at least you admit it
    ChicagTao;    there are plenty still in the dark even to themselves
    ChicagTao;    sad and funny at the same time
    ChicagTao;    slightly unsettling when powerful
    Mnemomeme;    What an asshole is, is not judged by individuals, it's a societal standard, and society gears all standards away from self control.
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    noam chomsky is an asshole
    ChicagTao;    my favorite
    ChicagTao;    i like his shit
    Mnemomeme;    Do you actually study Taoism?
    ChicagTao;    in soviet russia, taoism studies me
    Mnemomeme;    So, no.
    ChicagTao;    what is studying taoism
    ChicagTao;    i read it
    ChicagTao;    i practiced it before i knew what it was or believed in god
    Mnemomeme;    You look at it, but do you really read it?
    ChicagTao;    as best i can
    ChicagTao;    i'm a sinner you know, a no good sinner
    Mnemomeme;    Have you heard of the right and left hand paths?
    GhostFrog;    mornin Mnemomeme
    ChicagTao;    push me to be consistent and i will break down in tears
    Mnemomeme;    o/
    ChicagTao;    no
    ChicagTao;    don't worry, i trust your judgment
    ChicagTao;    and there is always the little X button
    Mnemomeme;    The right hand path is that of the sheep, the follower, he who believes that ultimate truth comes from outside the self. The right hand path looks inward to find the truth.
    Mnemomeme;    oops
    Mnemomeme;    left is the second one
    Mnemomeme;    left hand path
    Mnemomeme;    left looks inward
    ChicagTao;    isaac and esau?
    Mnemomeme;    off the top of my head I can't remember that fable
    GhostFrog;    Isn't that more one of bumbling idiocy vs avarice and greed?
    ChicagTao;    isaac is very meditatative, raises two sons... jacob and esau
    ChicagTao;    tries to give the birthright to one but jacob steals it
    GhostFrog;    yup
    ChicagTao;    this is off the top of my head too its 4 am i could have the names wrong
    Mnemomeme;    the bible is a right-handed guidebook of how to be a proper sheeple
    ChicagTao;    yes
    GhostFrog;    esau was robbed.
    GhostFrog;    but then, he was a bumbling fool.
    ChicagTao;    it is taoism with a penis
    Mnemomeme;    A Brahamin (sic) is a Taoist monk, right?
    ChicagTao;    hmmm
    Mnemomeme;    Abrahamin is a Taoist mon, right?
    ChicagTao;    what does google say
    ChicagTao;    abraham was schizo
    Mnemomeme;    Abrahamin
    ChicagTao;    he reminds me of the story of the wandering greek cynic looking for an honest man
    ChicagTao;    ah
    ChicagTao;    brahamin is hindu
    Mnemomeme;    he followed the path of the dragon
    Mnemomeme;    it went west
    Mnemomeme;    so he went west
    ChicagTao;    yeah he was supposed to be the michael jordan of the torah in school
    ChicagTao;    never could identify with a guy that miserable
    Mnemomeme;    which is quite ironic, considering he was a Taoist
    Mnemomeme;    almost everything about the guy is ironic
    ChicagTao;    well remember this is in my highly idealistic school days where i was yelled at by shellshocked israeli nationals
    Mnemomeme;    Are you from Israel?
    ChicagTao;    SHLOMO STOP DRAWING AND LISTEN!
    ChicagTao;    no chicago
    ChicagTao;    we imported
    Mnemomeme;    Then why were you studying under Israelis?
    ChicagTao;    to learn the accent, to love the great holy state of israel, praise netanyahu!
    ChicagTao;    he is our glorious leader in these trying times
    ChicagTao;    i was atheist and the torah meant as much to me as the back of a cereal box
    Mnemomeme;    jews are why christianity doesn't claim the world was created in 1883
    ChicagTao;    the only story i really liked was saul/samuel because it was clear these guys were in over their head
    Mnemomeme;    I'm not very good with names
    ChicagTao;    and y'know, they had lots of power
    Mnemomeme;    I've read the bible half a dozen times, but being as bad with names as I am, referencing names like that leaves me standing around wondering what you're talking about
    ChicagTao;    saul is the father of ish-boseth, who david overthrew to gain power

    Mnemomeme;    which david, there's like five of them
    ChicagTao;    hmm idk, to be honest right now i've only got the creation myth lighting up in my head
    ChicagTao;    it will be really interesting to take a higher biblical criticism approach and see who likes the taoist parts of the torah
    Mnemomeme;    odd approach
    Mnemomeme;    I don't see a constructive purpose behind it
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    i don't either
    ChicagTao;    i like to be surprised
    ChicagTao;    my creative drive does because it can
    ChicagTao;    nihilist in most respects still
    ChicagTao;    i don't know if i explained that part to you before.... seeing the the anti-totalitarianism around me caused me to question my self in a very bakunin kind of way
    ChicagTao;    but enough post modern gibberish
    ChicagTao;    what's it matter what the bible writers thought anyway
    arcus;    anti-totilitarianism?
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    anti-school, anti-god, anti-parents...
    Mnemomeme;    when you make references to names, you really might as well be speaking swahili
    Mnemomeme;    I'm that profoundly incapable of understanding the point
    ChicagTao;    put it this way
    arcus;    ChicagTao: you mean: people who have a problem with authority :]
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    bakunin was an anarchist
    Mnemomeme;    doubtful
    ChicagTao;    the russian kind
    ChicagTao;    anywayy
    Mnemomeme;    then he wasn't an anarchist, he was a subversive
    ChicagTao;    their thoughts were so unconscionable to me, i assumed they ignored their conscience
    arcus;    hi, Mnemomeme
    Mnemomeme;    hi arcus :)
    ChicagTao;    if i'm not mistaken he was exiled to siberia
    Mnemomeme;    that's like being put into the KGB's witness protection program
    Mnemomeme;    they tell everyone you're in siberia, when you're realy in Palm Beach
    ChicagTao;    ah well, he grew up rich, of course he's going to be a big phoney
    ChicagTao;    just with a fire in his belly
    ChicagTao;    chomsky loves the guy, he seems to be chomsky's go to asshole
    ChicagTao;    surely you know chomsky master m?
    Mnemomeme;    you're doing it again
    Mnemomeme;    nope
    Mnemomeme;    I don't know names at all
    GhostFrog;    mornin arkoo
    Mnemomeme;    I live in a world where names are meaningless
    arcus;    hi, GhostFrog
    ChicagTao;    oh right
    ChicagTao;    animist wyrdism?
    * Mnemomeme    chuckles
    ChicagTao;    :)
    GhostFrog;    the question under the clutter is the role of reason in philosophy - or rather the relative weight given it in the west compared with the east
    Mnemomeme;    "Name that pidgeonhole"
    ChicagTao;    yes, master m... hook line and
    arcus;    thinker?
    ChicagTao;    ghostfrog - well put dood
    GhostFrog;    thank heavens for boxom blondes with lisps, huh, arkoo.
    ChicagTao;    there's a baseball diamond by my house called "Thillen's Stadium"
    ChicagTao;    and my dad asks his friend how to pronounce it
    ChicagTao;    "Is it THHHHHillens or TTTTTTTTTThillens?"
    ChicagTao;    his friend replies: "It's TTTTThillens.... I tink"
    Mnemomeme;    I wonder why names are so damned important to you
    ChicagTao;    because once i can name everything, they will go away
    ChicagTao;    and become one
    ChicagTao;    like the notes of a scale harmonizing
    Mnemomeme;    the genesis story attempts, failingly, to point out that god created stuff, and let man go about the frivolous work of naming it all
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    god named it with his eyes
    Mnemomeme;    no
    ChicagTao;    yes
    Mnemomeme;    no
    ChicagTao;    "and he SAW that it was GOOD"
    ChicagTao;    now maybe its all bullshit, but thats how the text goes
    Mnemomeme;    that wasn't written in a language where "saw" meant "looked at with his eyes"
    arcus;    it also doesn't imply he named anything
    arcus;    realising that something is good doesn't require naming
    ChicagTao;    he called it good
    arcus;    when?
    Mnemomeme;    he didn't call it anything
    arcus;    exactly.
    arcus;    my cat relising the new catfood is good doesn't require my cat to name anything.
    ChicagTao;    he didn't have to name it, it was a part of his spirit
    arcus;    'he tasted that it was good'
    ChicagTao;    his level of consciousness is not the same as ours... we require naming things to sort through them
    arcus;    it would be strange to say my cat 'named it with her tongue' :]
    Mnemomeme;    we don't require it
    Mnemomeme;    it's convenient for a specific mode of operation, it isn't necessary
    arcus;    sometimes we require it. I don't think you can think about 'thursday week' without some kind of symbolic language.
    ChicagTao;    it isn't necessary to walk upright either
    arcus;    maybe it doesn't have to be a language per se
    Mnemomeme;    'thursday week' doesn't mean anything even WITH a name
    Mnemomeme;    and therein lies the problem
    arcus;    are you not familiar with that expression?
    Mnemomeme;    rhetoric doesn't have to contain meaning, and names are the least meaningful aspect of rhetoric
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    names, like i said before, are the mailman. they did not make the newspaper.
    Mnemomeme;    they aren't even that
    Mnemomeme;    they're extraneous memorization of facts that overlays, and often obscures, the message
    ChicagTao;    true
    artalien;    Ghosty, how do you come to your reading of this conversation as the role of reason in philosophy, or the relative weight given to it, by different philosophical cultures. I thought the conversation was firstly about, what concepts mean: weakness. hm,
    ChicagTao;    so maybe my whole quest to name everything is just shifting stuff around in my head giving me the illusion of becoming more knoledgable
    Mnemomeme;    fill it up
    Mnemomeme;    leave no stone unnamed
    Mnemomeme;    name every pebble of sand in the ocean if you like
    ChicagTao;    naming is natural at the end of creation
    ChicagTao;    don't do it before or you'll spoil it
    * Mnemomeme    raises an eyebrow
    ChicagTao;    a name can add meaning just as it can take away
    ChicagTao;    it can never encapsulate the whole
    Mnemomeme;    no it can't
    ChicagTao;    but it can suggest it
    Mnemomeme;    offer an example of a name adding meaning
    ChicagTao;    i am named after my great grandfather
    Mnemomeme;    so?
    ChicagTao;    i find meaning in the tradition
    arcus;    great granddady ChicagTao
    ChicagTao;    yep
    Mnemomeme;    if your great grandfather's name was cupcake, it would be the same meaning. The name isn't what gives the meaning
    ChicagTao;    ah okay
    ChicagTao;    say no more
    ChicagTao;    ""We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want."
    Mnemomeme;    sure, something like that
    Mnemomeme;    even so, it can be a pot, a bowl, a cup, a barrel, a house, a boat, or any other vessel
    Mnemomeme;    a name is, by itself, utterly meaningless
    Mnemomeme;    infact, it's an operand
    Mnemomeme;    it's the letters in algebra
    ChicagTao;    if you look at my archives of electronica music i composed, i named it A1, A2, A3.... z1, z2, z3
    Mnemomeme;    a stand-in that only has value in context
    ChicagTao;    usually i would pick a random letter for whatever mood i was feeling and then stay on that for a few weeks
    ChicagTao;    how is that for algebra
    Mnemomeme;    what does "+" mean?
    Mnemomeme;    Amy + Charles; 4+7; Nihilism + Depression
    artalien;    I see words as the sounds that accompany my pointing to x.
    ChicagTao;    we're coming closer... + means forget these two things and remember what they are together
    Mnemomeme;    + is significant of a relationship, yeah, it says "together"
    ChicagTao;    well atoms connect through electrons
    Mnemomeme;    "four together four identifies eight" --- this is unwieldy
    ChicagTao;    why shouldn't numbers have the same privilege
    ChicagTao;    with repetition, the name grows into itself
    Mnemomeme;    that's advertising technique, not meaning
    ChicagTao;    meaning is subjective, as is seeing a reebok commercial
    Mnemomeme;    HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric!
    ChicagTao;    hmm... i think to improve my rhetoric, i need head on!
    ChicagTao;    can you head on too?
    ChicagTao;    let's all head on
    Mnemomeme;    What is communication?
    =-=    Mode #philosophical +l 37 by X
    ChicagTao;    you got me
    ChicagTao;    ;)
    Mnemomeme;    How is communication different from propaganda?
    ChicagTao;    communication could all be an illusion
    ChicagTao;    hmm... these words are so intertwined in my mind i can't differentiate them easily
    Mnemomeme;    the hive hates it when I do this skit
    Mnemomeme;    expect disruption
    Mnemomeme;    I'll give you a helping hint. Communication is a subset of the greater set that is propaganda
    ChicagTao;    a wyrdist i would think would have quite a hard time taking a normal definition of communication
    Mnemomeme;    Communication has extra rules that propaganda doesn't have
    ChicagTao;    qed
    ChicagTao;    communication is coercive according to the french socialist proudhon
    Mnemomeme;    names again
    ChicagTao;    names are handy, don't diss names
    ChicagTao;    every word is a name
    Mnemomeme;    every, is, a?
    ChicagTao;    you're being pedantic about this wyrdism stuff to no good end
    ChicagTao;    as i am about my taoism
    Mnemomeme;    I haven't even touched the wyrd today, you're chasing ghosts like a cat on hallucinogens
    ChicagTao;    the name has a tail for a name and many mouths - associations... put out the right food and you're begging for a bite.
    Mnemomeme;    The difference between propaganda and communication is simply that communication requires feedback in order to be successful. Propaganda does not carry specific meaning ro a specific audience, communication does.
    ChicagTao;    perhaps your name has less mouths, but that requires you to ease up, or me to stiffen
    Wilf;    the swans fly high over the land of Vesta
    Wilf;    it is that was yet is not that which may be
    GhostFrog;    then why is the swan on my box of vesta's sitting down?
    Wilf;    bs is like the glimmer of the sun on the waters of time
    Wilf;    GhostFrog it is resting
    GhostFrog;    ahhhh
    GhostFrog;    it's been resting for a very very long time
    ChicagTao;    bs is the bait for the hungry truth seeker, the noose to the cynic, the great trap of a con artist
    Wilf;    that is because you are not one with its wings
    GhostFrog;    I seeeeeeeeeeeee
    Wilf;    ChicagTao I met monks in China. they are as full of that which in the west is termed crap as the well of life is with lost souls
    ChicagTao;    yes
    ChicagTao;    they are called rabbis in america
    Wilf;    no they are called those of dead brains that post forth shit
    ChicagTao;    same dif
    ChicagTao;    you say tomata
    ChicagTao;    i say tomata
    ChicagTao;    like master M says, the name isn't the most meaningful thing anyway
    ChicagTao;    we are discussing an archetype
    Wilf;    no I say you are to ignore land because you have yet to post anything interesting.
    Wilf;    so much for that. two fillings makes me cranky and impatient
    ChicagTao;    yeah
    ChicagTao;    am i my brother's keeper?
    arcus;    are you saying you've killed someone?
    arcus;    what have you done with Mnemomeme?!
    * arcus    rushes around in a mad panic, looking under desks and chairs
    ChicagTao;    no i'm stalling so i can find a kierkegaard quote
    * Mnemomeme    drops down from the safety of the rafters
    ChicagTao;    "I begin with the principle that all men are bores. Surely no one will prove himself so great a bore as to contradict me in this. "
    arcus;    *phew*
    arcus;    I thought ChicagTao had killed you and buried you in a shallow river-side grave, Mnemomeme
    ChicagTao;    no, i don't drink that much
    Mnemomeme;    nah, he's too dense to defeat me
    ChicagTao;    probably right master m
    Mnemomeme;    ;)
    ChicagTao;    i'm more of a isaac than an esau
    ChicagTao;    blind and tricked
    * Mnemomeme    scribbles a note "sentences are getting shorter and choppier, losing coherence"
    ChicagTao;    off to room 101 with me
    ChicagTao;    then i shall rebell
    ChicagTao;    speak of it and you know less
    ChicagTao;    i'll be dumb as a doornail at this rate
    ChicagTao;    daiiiisyyyy...... daiiiisyyyyyy....

Two More Poems

2010-10-02T01:34:00.000-07:00

Tao

Truths are close to lies, we feel,
when they don't let us feel secure.
Lies live on through comforting.
Most happy truths do not endure.

Honest Men we think care not
the way we feel when we converse.
Compliments then feel quite good,
but bad news ends up being worse.

Symbols lie more oft than not,
but by themselves they are not bad.
Use them to suggest what is,
save truths to make a soul less sad.

Better not to know at all,
you'll be more social in the end.
Truth feels better when it's fresh
and spoken by an honest friend.

Small things

Were we once God?

This thing might have once been us.
Perhaps it was and we were not.

This little thing:
I suppose it's flammable.
but what good could its fire bring?

Me, it can't trust.
I would rather stub my toe
than grieve over a piece of dust.

Perhaps I will
make a garden for the speck
and see if it tries to rebel.

Confucius Say: "Man Who Think About God Feel Awesome"

2010-10-01T02:06:00.000-07:00

ChicagTao: Any free thinkers up this late?

Brood^: it is 9:30 am here ChicagTao

ChicagTao: ah

ChicagTao: 2:30 in IL

ChicagTao: AM

Brood^: do you stay late every night?

ChicagTao: generally yes, its a product of my mood disorder

ChicagTao: fun times

Brood^: :)

ChicagTao: So are you up to shoot the bull a little?

ChicagTao: I have a burning question on my mind.

ChicagTao: it's about the bible, but all the #bible rooms are [filled with] pedants (sic)

Brood^: sure, I'm not sure Im knowledgable (sic) enough, but shoot

ChicagTao: *filled with

ChicagTao: Well first let me ask if you've ever analyzed your creative process

ChicagTao: Say, writing poetry, composing music...?

Brood^: hmm, maybe, not very seriously though, but probably I have given it a thought or two

ChicagTao: Alright

ChicagTao: It's a very tricky thing to describe with words

Brood^: I think for me a part of it goes like - do an iteration (in imagination mostly), then transfer yourself to a vantage point of a viewer, judge what is missing, and repeat it

ChicagTao: Ah I like that

Brood^: of course there are other parts of how to decide how to counter what is missing

ChicagTao: right

Brood^: because to say that osmething (sic) is missing doesn't tell you what is missing

ChicagTao: what do you have right before the imagination?

Brood^: that is a good question too... I guess there is either some motive - something you want to create, and that might have been there for a long time, or maybe you just roll combinations (sic) and variations in your head until you find one that you like

Brood^: I mean, probably it is not same for everybody, and not same for one person at all times... but..

ChicagTao: keyword there is motive

Brood^: yes, motive , maybe inspiration, sometimes it might be that you get the whole thing in a dream, and you just want to put it on paper :)

ChicagTao: and what would be the main difference between this motive and the output on paper?

Brood^: ChicagTao: the motive , I would say is abstract. and what is put on paper is concrete.

ChicagTao: And how would you differentiate between experiencing the motive and experiencing the concrete product?

Brood^: ChicagTao: and when the second starts developing (through imagination or on real paper), it either starts getting closer to the motive, or to the idea ; or it may go different ways

Brood^: ChicagTao: well, the motive or the idea, might be an emotion or set of emotions you want to express (or impress or somebody), or it might be an abstract message or more specific message that you want to express

ChicagTao: You just touched on what I'm getting to almost exactly, but as W. F. Buckley once said, "let's suspend it for a moment"

ChicagTao: bingo!!

Brood^: ChicagTao: however the abstract in this abstract form can exist only in the mind :)

ChicagTao: Okay

ChicagTao: I think we're up to speed now

ChicagTao: I'm going to say something crazy

Brood^: ok

ChicagTao: don't take it the wrong way

ChicagTao: I don't mean to push any religious beliefs on you, I'm largely (sic) athiest for the most part anyway

ChicagTao: So we've established that emotion is a source of imagination, that it's (sic) mental product can be manipulated abstractly on the mind or concretely on paper

ChicagTao: Am I following you right?

Brood^: yeah, something like that

Brood^: I was just juggling ideas as we go too

ChicagTao: Alright, well I want to try one more thing then I'll tie this into my main point

Delflorio: ChicagTao No, emotions are the result of hormones and neurotransmitters

Delflorio: ChicagTao It's not a "source of imagination"

ChicagTao: Thank you Deflorio, but we're in the realm of metaphysics here

ChicagTao: moving on...

Brood^: yeah, just ignore him :)

Delflorio: ChicagTao Why? Emotions are hormones, no metaphysics. As physical as hammer and nails

Brood^: ChicagTao: you don't have to go around btw, you can say your main point even [if] (sic) you think it is crazy

ChicagTao: if you were to use a metaphor to distinguish the mental environment for abstract manipulation of imagination from the concrete environment of the piece of paper, what would you say?

ChicagTao: i'm not trying to avoid my point for sheepishness

ChicagTao: i want to see how well this fits without jumping the gun

Brood^: ok

Brood^: ChicagTao: no metaphor comes to mind

Brood^: what would your metaphor be?

ChicagTao: dark and light

Brood^: hmm

ChicagTao: chaos and order

Brood^^: Brood^: ok, dark and light makes some sense to me, as the first is kind of private when in the mind, and the expressed form is outthere (sic) in the light

Brood^^: as for chaos and order... I don't know. ideas can be chaotic but also organized, and what you put on paper might become chaotic :)

ChicagTao: Well not only that but as an emotion, how it will manifest itself is hidden

Brood^^: it might diverge from the neat and ordered idea that you head (sic)

ChicagTao: You manipulate it more with your spirit than with your mind

ChicagTao: Since it is an emotion primarily

Brood^^: well, yeah, you think about things, usually in vague and abstract way, and it is not readily visible to others

ChicagTao: yes

ChicagTao: okay now I'm ready to take this metaphor one step further

ChicagTao: please don't groan

Brood^^: ok

ChicagTao: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And on the earth there was chaos, and darkness on the expanse. [...] (sic) And God said let there be light. And there was light"

Brood^^: ah, ok

ChicagTao: there's plenty of other similarities

ChicagTao: how his "spirit" drifts over the water

Brood^^: so the dark/light as a metaphor for the creative process, and the word as a metaphor for expression there

ChicagTao: exactly

(Edit: The "word as a metaphor for expression" I realize now I find a little clumsy. I think the more fitting metaphor for expression is the act of creation itself.)

Brood^^: ChicagTao: sure, but I think those things are so abstract (dark/light, word, spirit drifting over the water) that you can use them as metaphors for lot of things

ChicagTao: that's true and it's not

ChicagTao: you supplied quite a lot of what i was refusing to quote from the bible

Brood^^: where do you go from there? is it just an interesting thought or insight that you have, or you want to pursue it further?

ChicagTao: Well I think it really begs the question as to how our consciousness was understood back then, and how we related it to the universe

ChicagTao: if you take the higher biblical criticism approach to things, it helps even more, but i don't consider it neccesary (sic)

ChicagTao: The primary question is...

ChicagTao: Is our notion of God the projection of our own human processes onto the outside world?

Brood^^: *nod*, philosophically it seems to me as a very open-ended, and that it can't rise over the level of (wild) speculation.

Brood^^: that was comment on your previous comments

Brood^^: as for God... I don't know, in some cases it might be so, in some cases not

ChicagTao: "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man" - Samuel Johnson

ChicagTao: so ra ra wild speculation

Brood^: ChicagTao: yes, it is hard to provide hard and precise arguments for the kind of analysis you provided, no?

Brood^: ChicagTao: you may say - you may look at it this way, or this seems as a metaphor for this other thing, but then how do we choose between multiple such interpretations?

Brood^: ChicagTao: all those would be speculations

ChicagTao: True

ChicagTao: but I don't think comparing the human drive for creativity to the act of creation in the bible is too much of a stretch

Brood^: I didn't say it is a stretch

ChicagTao: ah

ChicagTao: sorry, I'm used to reading into euphemisms and so I assumed "hard to provide hard and precise arguments " was one

Brood^: lol

ChicagTao: it's the result of talking too much inside my own socioeconomic status

ChicagTao: i find the working class is not afraid to be direct

Brood^: what I'm thinking is this - how far can we build on this kind of speculation? let's say that we accept the first specuation (sic), but that being vague, how far it is worth to go, when we don't have hard aguments (sic) for each following one?

ChicagTao: Well that's what I'm really trying to answer as well

Brood^: ok

Brood^: but yeah, I'm not against speculating really, that itself is kind of creative process

Brood^: and at least one may end up with interesting stories, might be fictional but interesting nevertheless

ChicagTao: well here's the other part that i'm going with it

Brood^: ok

ChicagTao: What are the emotions of God that we will now assume the heavens and the earth represent?

Brood^: oh

Brood^: eathly (sic) emotions, heavenly emotions

Brood^: so many choices to read it metaphorically ChicagTao :)

ChicagTao: what other one's come to mind?

ChicagTao: any brand spanking new?

ChicagTao: i'd find those most interesting

ChicagTao: but also

ChicagTao: what is a "heavenly emotion" and what is an "earthly emotion" ?

ChicagTao: ay there's the rub!

Brood^: well, emotions like love, would probably go to heaven for example. as for earth - first idea might be e.g. to put there the needs like hunger, thirst, sexual drive

Brood^: but then, in this context those doesn't seem much fit

Brood^: how would you read it as a metaphor ChicagTao?

ChicagTao: i really can't say

ChicagTao: i don't think they would be actual human emotions

Brood^: aha, nice :)

ChicagTao: i think we wold (sic) only relate to them in symbolic ways

ChicagTao: one way to approach it might be that the sky is male and the land is female

ChicagTao: so you can have a yin and a yang thing going

ChicagTao: but i think that's too reductive (pardon my post-modernism)

Brood^: oh, but then you are not going much furhter (sic) than the abstract dinstinction (sic) of there being two things

Brood^: right

ChicagTao: well what about this

ChicagTao: the earth is chaos

ChicagTao: the sky is order

:Delflorio: ChicagTao Nonense

ChicagTao: we can accurately predict meteor showers, but we can't predict what color hair the person will have across the street

ChicagTao: sounds like order and chaos to me

Brood^: haha

ChicagTao: one more thing that I haven't been able to really tie in

ChicagTao: God commands man to rest exactly as He did

ChicagTao: which is a very Taoist thing to do after doing your job

Brood^: haha

ChicagTao: So are you opposed to me saving and publishing this convo?

ChicagTao: For no profit

Brood^: no, no

Two Recent Poems Of Mine

2010-09-30T22:39:00.000-07:00

Wrote these over the last few days. Was meditating on hate vs. understanding and ignorance vs. hope.

The Con-Artist And The Cynic

The con-artist's trap is a noose to the cynic
who will try it on safely while he stands on two feet.
To understand his position is all he is after,
but his enemy measures the price of deceit:

"If you admit that it fits, you can have it for free,
though we'll both profit more should you choose to jump."
All he wants to know is what size will fit all,
and to do this he must find out whose neck is most plump.

The cynic defies him by heaving a sigh,
keeping hidden inside him his very last breath.
Without any air, his neck loses its size,
and he feigns a display of disgraceful death.

The con-artist watches the cynic go pale:
"How easy it is to fool those with false hope!"
But the cynic's alive and more happy than ever
since he knows he has shortened the con-artist's rope.

I Once Thought...

I once thought I swam with sharks
while I did laps in the pool.
I once thought that every teacher
lived right there at the school.

I once thought magicians were mean
when they asked "Is this your card?"
I once thought I could use The Force
if I just tried real hard.

I once thought I was a Nihilist
but I only fled remorse.
I once thought I'd ignore my conscience
but it got confused and hoarse.

I once thought that "hammiedowns"
described the clothes I wore.
I once thought that my parents
never ever swore.

I once thought that watching Barney
was the pinnacle of shame.
I once thought to tease a red-head
was only just a game.

I once thought that my pen-pal was
just one more piece of ass.
I once thought she'd wait some more
for us to meet at last.

I once thought the best sound there was
was my own dad's guffaw.
I once thought that all Republicans
loved to chew on straw.

I once thought all drug users
should be told what to do.
I once thought that cannabis
was really bad for you.

I once thought that teenagers
all lived life to the max.
I once thought The New York Times
could only print the facts.

I once thought that "lip-to-lip"
was more heartfelt than a "kiss."
Guess that proverb's mostly true in saying,
"ignorance is bliss."

Israeli Ambassador Exonerates Prime Minister Netanyahu (By Praising Him Like A Fascist)

2010-09-27T16:05:00.000-07:00

A couple posts back I put up the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Nazi Germany's propagandist Joseph Goebbels side-by-side. In retrospect, the comparison highlighted the differences between the two countries: Nazi Germany had a very coordinated effort to purge and censor innocent Jewish artists, while Israel's program was more of a knee-jerk punishment of innocent Jewish artists. And while Netanyahu and Goebbels both complained of the boycott that ensued from their country's actions, Goebbels was the only one with the opportunity to brag about cracking down on internal boycotts, claiming internal boycotts "had been made impossible" by his party's seizure of power.

The question becomes: would Israeli censorship resemble that of Nazi Germany if they had comparable power, and how does that factor into who wins the Joseph Goebbels lookalike contest? Maybe we can use the a recent article by Michael B. Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States to settle this. Because when you can't force Israel to suddenly become Nazi Germany, the next best thing is to wait for peace talks and let the politicians brag about their power.

He cheered on Israel for its high-tech economy (yet does not credit it for the preservation of the "democratic system"), and spent some time early on contrasting the Good Guys with the Bad. "Bereaved mothers on Israeli television," he wrote, were "urging [Israeli] leaders to persist in their peace efforts" while "Palestinian mothers praised their martyred children and wished to sacrifice others for jihad." While Israel is so democratic that it allows Arabs to serve on the supreme court and in parliament, the Palestinians apparently can't even muster up enough votes to prove "enthusiasm for living side by side in peace," which Israelis strongly support despite the fact that if you were to imagine being an average Israeli you would have "fought in several wars, as have your parents and even your grandparents, ...you've seen rockets raining down on your neighborhood and have lost close family and friends to terrorist attacks." In summary: Israelis - a hardy and noble, yet desperate bunch.

Would Netanyahu find any of these factoids disagreeable? Perhaps not. So why am I so quick to shift the label from him to Oren? It's the second-to-last paragraph of the article, wherein he heaps praise upon his leader's glorious "yearning" for "a peace that will last for generations — our generation, our children's generation and the next" which he expresses despite having to put up with "great improvements in [Israeli] society." Or as Goebbels put it, "Our children and their children will erect monuments to their fathers and mothers for the pain they suffered, for the stoic steadfastness with which they bore all, for the bravery they showed, for the heroism with which they fought, for the loyalty with which they held to their Führer and his ideals in difficult times."

Frank Caliendo Gets the Demoralization Treatment

2010-08-31T22:31:00.000-07:00

Quite a few people out there are knocking Frank Caliendo. You might disagree, but there are people who are not impressed with the man or his humor. Some sing his praises. It seems to me these are the sarcastic Democratic party members who enjoy ripping on the GOP. (1) ("Annoying Republicans is not just patriotic, it's fun.")

Personally, I was never all that impressed with his humor, but I was definitely in the camp that stood in awe of his knack for mocking President Bush's arrogant posture:

Others similarly admit to liking his impressions, but not much else. (2) But his fiercest critics seem to have been primarily annoyed by an advertising blitz on a TV network hosting his show. (3) ("I can’t stand this guy or his lame DirecTV commercials. He is NOT good and not even remotely funny.")

He himself finally admitted that they got a little carried away, though he teased the critics back a little (4):

I say to those people, 'I'm sorry, but watch the show and maybe TBS wouldn't have to promote it as much,'

Why does a man who can mock the style of powerful people with exactness, with no threat of violent repercussion, get himself into a position where people are hating him? (I hope I didn't just answer my own question.)

It's probably because our media function similar to that of imperial France as described by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (5), who found attempts at controlling public opinion to be common in "the period in which 'private' energies in society were most plentiful." He described "[t]he 'normal' exercise of hegemony" in these words:

Between consent and force stands corruption/fraud. This consists in procuring the demoralization and paralysis of the antagonist (or antagonists) by buying its leaders—either covertly, or, in cases of imminent danger, openly—in order to sow disarray and confusion in his ranks.

DirecTV and whatever other stuff Rupert Murdoch owns not only have succeeding in buying off the antagonist, but have made him the subject of intense hatred.

I suppose I can write about this as crudely as I want because I really don't see him much of an antagonist to the ruling class to begin with, considering his bizarre rewriting of history (see embedded video above or go here):

[Bush] could never get himself out of the things Clinton got himself into.

Oh really? So it was Bush that got impeached, and Clinton that got off scott-free? In Gramsci's words (I believe Orwell is credited for saying nearly the exact same thing) "[t]elling the truth is always revolutionary." (6) By those standards, Frank Caliendo's fall from grace wasn't too far (that is, in his professional life).

In fact, he might not ever have been much of a source for grace at all, considering he mocked those in power, but also those who complained about his advertisements. And regarding jokes at the expense of power, Joanne R. Gilbert, associate professor of Communication and director of Women’s Studies at Alma College, had an interesting comment. In her book Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender, and Cultural Critique (7) she channels the white male in such a situation as fearless and confident:

Indeed, men appear to laugh appreciatively at jokes that attack them, often overtly. Perhaps by laughing a man is saying, "I'm a straight, white male - I am hegemony - hear me roar. No amount of joking no matter how well done, is about to unseat me from my power position any time soon.

With the example of Bush still not being in jail, I believe this is much more accurate than the laughter being "because he is threatened." Backing me up on this is Stephen Colbert, who doesn't just imitate, but relentlessly satirizes white male hegemony on his show. To him, laughter makes fear impossible (8):

When you laugh you're not afraid. And sometimes you laugh because you're afraid, but when you laugh the laughter (sic) [fear] goes away and its not just whistling past the graveyard. It actually just goes away when you're laughing.

There's still a chance to redeem yourself, Frank, by telling that Bush-loving idiot Murdoch to scram!

Citations:
1. "Frank Caliendo" Onegoodmovie.org. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/01/frank_caliendo_1.html.
2. "Official I Hate Frank Caliendo thread" Prosportsdaily.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278401
3. "10/20: Frank Caliendo's "Frank TV" is back" Dayton Daily News. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/accessatlanta/radiotalk/entries/2008/10/20/1020_frank_cali.html
4. "Frank Caliendo Apologizes ... While Still Shilling for His Show" MLB.Fanhouse.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/10/07/frank-caliendo-apologizes-while-still-shilling-for-his-show/
5. Hoare, Q. & Smith G.N. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (p. 80 fn. 49). International Publishers.
6. "Antonio Gramsci Quotes" from ThinkExist.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://thinkexist.com/quotes/antonio_gramsci/
7. Gilbert J. R. (2004) . Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender, and Cultural Critique. (p. 163) Wayne State University Press.
8. "The Real Stephen Colbert (Out of Character)." Youtube.com. A clip of him on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNvJZCFpdp8

Goebbels and Netanyahu

2010-08-30T21:47:00.000-07:00

You can read here about the latest in boycotts against Israeli's settlements. Some "theater people using their positions in the theater for a political struggle against Israeli citizens" have decided to limit their acting to behind the "Green Line" which I assume is another way to say "the international border." The Israeli government is reportedly cutting funds and encouraging their replacement.

It has the effect of a purge of undesirable artists. Although not exactly the same, a comparison to Nazi Germany is quite adequate. In his book, The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, Alex Ross writes about the Nazi's purging of Jewish musicians:

Hitler took power in January 1933, and by the end of the year most of the German cultural apparatus had fallen under the control of Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry. But music did not become a direct instrument of the state. Hitler wanted the ministry to serve the "spiritual development of the nation," and Goebbels agreed...... The Reichskulturkammer, or Reich Culture Chamber, had departments for each artform, including a Reich Music Chamber.... Musical life was not merely Nazified from above; to a great extent, it Nazified itself. Even the anti-Jewish clause in the Kulturkammer laws neglected to mention the Jews by name; cultural bureaucrats were left to decide which artists lacked "aptitude" for cultural life. Not surprisingly, all leading Jewish musicians were deemed inept.

It's a bit of a stretch. But as I found to be the case with CNN and cop-killers, it's the apologists who end up looking much more similar than the acts.

Goebbels (from a 1933 rally in which he attacked Germany's critics):

The boycott and atrocity propaganda they made in other countries was an attempt by International Jewry to accomplish by means of public opinion in other countries what had been made impossible by our takeover in Germany. They attempted to cause difficulties for Germany’s rebirth through a worldwide boycott campaign, and to render it ineffective.
.... Our country still faces a world boycott by International Jewry, even if it is not as open as it was earlier, and we are still threatened by a cleverly thought out and systematically executed world conspiracy.

Netanyahu (from the article):

The State of Israel is subject to a de-legitimization attack on the part of different elements in the international arena, including attempts to launch academic and economic boycotts," Netanyahu said. "The last thing we need now is an attempt of boycotts from within."

When Brains See-Saw

2010-08-18T02:46:00.000-07:00

Of course I'm going to have to talk about the Ground Zero mosque. The level of sensationalism reached by the media is something I can only imagine, as I really haven't turned on the television. I have however had a back-and-forth over certain social media platforms, including one with an ex-marine who favored a ban.

His conception of media bias was not very calculated and didn't seem to move past the "they are big fat liars" concept that is quite widespread. Along with that, he really did not seem too literate: his spelling and grammar were quite poor.

He also had a bad habit of extreme hyperbole akin to a politician. This was exhausting. That is why I have added poetry of Lewis Carroll to spice up the story. and illustrate with vivid humor, the shortcomings of a picture of reality stood on its head.

I was thankful for the opportunity to bounce some ideas back and forth, and he said he enjoyed it as well, so I didn't really get too personal, though he dropped subtle hints that I was an elitist liberal. For example, I was stereotyped as an uppity college kid using a laptop sipping Starbucks. (I don't drink coffee, and am not in college.) I became a defender of a genocide, even after criticizing our support for it. So you can see that I wasn't in for a principled debate.

The beginning started off great. Replying to a quote from one Jason Mustian pointing out that "in all fairness we've been creating ground zeros in Iraq since 2003," I pointed out that that our CIA bombed a mosque in Beiruit, Lebanon in 1985 killing some 80 civilians and injuring hundreds, and so therefore, our ground zeroes go farther back than 2003. He retorted by claiming that I had no direct experience in the mater, that the media are untrustworthy, insinuating that mosques are used for military purposes, and that people over there have been killing each other for hundreds of years, from which I was to infer our bombings are okay.

I alleged out that I was well aware the media were untrustworthy, considering how much they value the access to the army and other government sources. I argued that considering such bias, the reporting of our crimes should suggest a certain empirical truth. I also argued that the life expectancy of military people who go against the party line is not too good. ( A reference to Pat Tillman, who many suspect to have been assassinated for planning a public dissident posture against the war).

I also challenged him to prove that his statement that "they have been killing each other for hundreds of years" was consistent with his claim for extreme empiricism as a first principle.

His response was rather vapid. He didn't seem to get my point about the media, but once again only would go so far as to repeat that the media cannot be trusted. As he seemed to not have studied the bias as seriously as I did, I merely pointed out to him that I included the bias of the New York Times in my anecdote, namely that they left the guilt of the bombings up in the air with the qualification that "it is thought" that we were behind the bombings. They did not source the statement. This seems to be a standard way to report our crimes. He also explained that though we did not experience dinosaurs, the Roman Empire and the Revolutionary War, we have documentary evidence for such occurrences.

He later supplied the names of some presumably terroristic Arab/Muslim states, over half of which we have supported, as claims for their sides' immorality. This was the Bush dynasty's claim to fame: allowing the reaping of profit from the Middle East, and suppressing development. When Bush Sr. failed, Bush Jr. brought democracy! How could a tyrant like that have existed, he must wonder.

"You are old," said the youth, "and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak --
Pray, how did you manage to do it?"

On top of that, 9/11 was a spiritual awakening for his generation akin to the Kennedy assignation, which I am supposed to connect with and use in favor of our wars somehow, as it caused him to want to join the marines. Vengeance is morality?

His examples of verifiable history set him up for quite the rebuttal. Following his logic, another country might be allowed to invade the de-choclafied city (New Orleans) simply because, counting the Revolutionary War, we too have been fighting for hundred's of years, and becauase such a place was the home of much cruelty and racial sectarian warfare.

"In my youth," father William replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."

I also asked him to recognize that my empiricism is balanced: "[T[here's two degrees of separation either way. The reporters are there too, only they are checked by editors and readers. And in their defense, they only tend to lose their jobs when they step outside the party line, not their lives, as a marine or army soldier might."

I then went on to explain that the party line was the support of an illegal act of aggression, that we were expected to believe that Bush & Co. (as some like to say) finished up some loose ends to protect some kind of sovereign soil, (as many imperial powers allege, dating back to World War 2 and the European Colonies). The regulation, by a government to go against the first amendment was comparable to discriminatory dress codes, according to my friend, who asked that we conceptualize the distinction between the concepts of the religion, Islam, and the military strategy of terrorism.

I alleged it was fascist, I would say now about as logically sound as the taxes imposed on overweight Japanese.

Finally, I tested his faith in European institutions maintained originally by Christians, with a stance principled in the vein of Thomas Jefferson's liberalism. I was not sure he was a Christian, but seeing I was Jewish on my profile was an area where he "didn't want to go" and if that doesn't say American Christian political correctness, etc.

He gave no reply to my pointing out Turkey is losing its NATO cred because of their quite literal bleeding hearts as they approached Gaza. I didn't get into the theology of it, but considering that such an act can be excused by a god, one that values land as sacred as I believe I heard Obama decree, (hyperbolic-ally enough, in regards to ground-zero ), then my original point of criticism: of a paper hiding our own crimes disregards the very soul of the bible, the one document quite a few of our founding fathers believed in, the ones who enshrined the first amendment, because of which many a military vow actually happened, some genocidal according to history and even examples in the bible. The press is generally not so open about it.

He memorized the Good (NATO) and the Bad (Arab Muslims) and himself (a patriot) and me (a snooty Obama fan) and seems to place all of history into these arbitrary categories not unfamiliar to even historians mentioning Lenin's imperial/non-imperial divide. Such thinking bears little resemblance to the promotion of democracy.

"You are old, father William," the young man said,
"And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head --
Do you think, at your age, it is right?

In the end, it became tiresome to unpack some of the obvious lies, half-truths, and double-standards he used. As an illustrative example, he jeered me on for possibly supporting sending aid to Haiti, with no mention of our not-so-wonderful history of that country. He also went straight from attacking the building of the mosque to the crimes of Saddam and various other Arab/Muslim countries. It was clear he was oversimplifying with a black-and-white portrait of the world. (I call it the "they bomb because they hate us / we bomb because we love them point of view").

I mentioned the threat of bombs as being a factor in starting a war after he cited alleged intelligence of Saddam being convinced he had WMD's, which, it was decided, he could attempt to use against us in a suicidal mission. However, he scratches his head when given the opportunity to explain that we have supported Saddam in the past, only later wondering at the horror of it when a war was about to begin.

I figured that its really up to New York to decide. if we are using his standards, and I might add now that using biblical standards we shouldn't empower local feudalism, similar to how the kings were poor managers of ancient Israel, as Samuel pointed out. Which would leave the only option to be the one supported by the supreme law of the land, which includes a provision specifically for such a situation, in opposition to his interpretation.

I personally do not believe in collective punishment because it serves to create martyrs and reactionism. The one way to game this situation to our near certain security is to welcome Muslims in New York and prove to Al-Qaeda that their propaganda was wrong. Such an argument can only be understood after realizing the utter failure of the media to report responsibly about serious subjects during times of conflicts of interest, as there has been a very powerful effect on the mind our government once trusted with a gun.

Claiming to have felt a spiritual calling for the army is one thing, but twisting one's religion around for either dramatic rhetoric, as our presidents and presidential hopefuls do, or to have learned naturally from military indoctrination, as presidents and certain New York Times reporters are often caught to be guilty of as well, is another enterprise. They sell a product, and that is usually shared hate, not shared love.

"In my youth," said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
"I kept all my limbs very supple
By the use of this ointment -- one shilling a box --
Allow me to sell you a couple?"

I put nitpicky dents in his rationales for war as we went along, with him finally erupting into the bold accusation that people may be in "tediclous (sic) outrage" "where bad things can happen!!! Things like people making threats and using violence!!!"

Dull sensationalism triumphs again.

Sometimes the Jeffersonian tree of liberty must be shaken . If America can hold to this, we can prove to the world, whatever race or creed what liberty and justice means.

The provocative act, I believe must be said, will always be the first-blood, which seems to be where this entire contrived nationalistic ignorance benefits him: "they" are murderous nazi-esque criminals while "we" are doling out humanitarian liberties to the world left and right, proving our superior doctrine of republican oligarchy, so much so that I should be ashamed of it! This is simply taken for granted by him from the start

As you may notice, there isn't really a steady rise of contrivance, the lies are simply extended to whatever area they are needed, draping the entire appearance of what our enemy looks like (a distgusting monster), without seeing us possessing some of our own.

"You are old," said the youth, "one would hardly suppose
That your eye was as steady as ever;
Yet you balanced an eel on the end of your nose --
What made you so awfully clever?"

I'm for a general strike of police to oppose the enforcement of any ban enacted, if we are to believe in our country at all. They can go get a donut, and I will wonder what has become of them should they enforce such a threat to our constitution.

We Must Love To Hate Snooty Movies Together

2010-08-17T05:00:00.000-07:00

Certain forces in my life are pushing me to new lows, and my snob filter is not really working right. I'll tell you a story of one example of this.

A friend of mine posted a famous quote from the movie "The Sandlot" (1993) on her Facebook:

"Anyone who wants to be a can't-hack-it pantywaist who wears their mama's bra, raise your hand."

That made me want to watch the movie again, because although I couldn't place it, I thought it was a fun taunt. In all seriousness I believe some part of me could remember the quote and that was enough to make me ~~Google the movie and find somewhere online to watch it~~ go to my nearest movie retailer and rent it. (I believe some call this "NLP")

I had my standards low, but obviously not low enough. I wasn't expecting much acting, but the plot was very, very corny. The nerd meets the good-looking boy who takes him under his wing and they have all kinds of wild adventures. That's fine. Any movie should have an adventure, and whether it involves someone coming or going is one of the only other variables you have to consider.

But then all these warning bells started going off in my head. These are neighborhood kids we're seeing, and yet they rarely curse. I suppose, considering the audience, that's excusable, but I was then expecting it to be tempered by some kind of drama that would compensate. Some kind of scene that would be beautiful and powerful. Where would this have come from? That's for the writers to decide. The dad isn't supportive of his son. Okay. But he's just kind of a busy dad. Let's give him an alcohol addiction or something. Hint that his mom is still working out problems with her job. Make the lifeguard who one of the kids steals a kiss from lesbian. I know that's kind of a lot to expect from a kids movie, but the plot was about as saccharine as a Family Circus cartoon and had the same kind of humor as a comedian trying to get pre-schoolers to laugh - it needed some kind of spice.

All I was given was one sentence in the epilogue-type part of the movie that I thought fit that, but it was so subtle it just didn't cut it: while various other characters fulfill ironic (or expected) dreams of theirs, "Bertram" is never heard from again after getting "into the '60's."

What the director seemed to have decided on was a forced spiritual transfer from the love of childhood ignorance with some eyeball porn of fireworks. This was the proverbial nail in the coffin for the movie for me. Keep in mind the title of the post and follow Walter Chaw's lovely breakdown of the scene:

When an annual Fourth of July sandlot game unfolds in slow-motion against a backdrop of fireworks and Ray Charles' "America," all you need know of Evans' love for the easy manipulative gimmick is revealed in one broad stroke.

I hated the scene for the exact same reason. It was nothing more than nationalistic kitsch. It was like someone tried to make a steak better by wrapping it in those sweatpants that say "JUICY." In fact, that would have been more entertaining. I propose that the writers of "Sandlot" raise their hands.

CNN Has Double-Standard for Cop-Killers, But Apologists Fit The Same Mold

2010-07-05T02:43:00.000-07:00

Last month, as reported by CNN, Maoist rebels in India, called the Naxalites, "ambushed" and "assualt[ed]" Indian police, in addition to previous "ferocious attacks" against the paramilitary.

The death toll of the attacks, over 900 people, counted over the course of an entire year comes close but does not exceed the toll of the 1,417 slain Palestinians in Gaza who fell victim to the "ongoing fighting" in 2008-2009, which lasted less than 30 days. But in that case, unlike with the story about the Naxalites, CNN went out of its way not only to withhold judgement, but to hide the exact location of the killings and the identities of the perpetrators (emphasis mine):

We are monitoring this developing story out of Gaza City right now. That black smoke that you are looking at, according to our producers in the area, the building holds building holds offices for Reuters and other media organizations. It's been hit in all of the ongoing fighting in that area.

Again, Gaza City, these live pictures coming in from -- we are learning from -- you hear the explosions there right now as we are live on the air. We continue to follow this story very closely.

I want to point out that Reuters is telling us all of its employees are uninjured but two employees for Abu Dhabi Television which is also housed in that building you're looking at, were injured and were taken to an area hospital for treatment.

That's the latest information that we have in an ongoing and very violent day once again in Gaza City. You're live right here on CNN.

It will require more research to really prove the use of the term "ongoing" by itself is intended to imply a certain back-and-forth in the violent occurrences, and thus, deserving of tip-toed reporting. But I think this example is enough to show that there is an inherent bias: When non-state actors do it, their actions are reported, they are labeled (aptly) "ferocious." Similar courses of action that are taken by a state we support, however, are merely part of "ongoing fighting," and the state doing the killing deserves the benefit of the doubt when reporters are bombed.

I found it an interesting exercise to extend the parallel further, and to look not only at actions but at words, namely, those of the apologists for the killers. It especially brought to mind an email forwarded to me last week. It was a summary of a long speech delivered in February by the Spanish ex-politician Pilar Rahola. I hypothesized that she was a "immature apologist for imperial power" (like there can be a mature one?) who "seems to love a good, righteous tirade more than checking reality" and who also seemed to think that "the Jews are too weak to defend themselves properly, so the defiant, heroic goys like her can save us."

Unsurprisingly, I found the Naxalite apologists to fit the same mold. An Indian reporter for the Hindustan Times reported on the defenders of the Naxalites Maoist insurgency in India and had this to say (emphasis mine):

It is also undeniable that Maoism elicits a kind of snobbery, especially among the well-off, where support for the rebels is intended to stress their superiority via an overt empathy with the downtrodden.
[...]

The pro-Maoists believe that their case is ethically foolproof. There are occasional muted murmurs about the violence perpetrated by the insurgents, such as the killing of policemen in Dantewada. But, as the more vocal among the apologists point out, such incidents are unavoidable where the Maoists have to defend themselves.

Apologists for Israel's terror such as the Spanish Rahola and the American Friedman (of the NYT) certainly fit the profile of "well-off." They similarly justify the attacks as necessary for "defense." But I'm not naive enough to think the similarities stop there.

Such examples suggest bias, yes. But what does that mean for future reporting and discussion? Well, believing that state-terror-apologetics is a superior position to calm discussion and analysis is certainly not going to encourage accurate reporting. If you consider yourself superior to your critics, how critical will you be of yourself and your yes-men? Advocacy is then hurt as well, because how can one talk about what actions should be taken in reality without knowing what that reality is? The only solution I see is to recognize that the road to peace means calling out crimes when they are crimes, regardless of your religion, nationality, or ethnicity. Because if you come to believe somehow that "inferior" people are not only those who criticize terrorist acts, but those who criticize the defenders of such acts, you are now a cold-blooded fascist.

Fawning over soldiers in occupied Afghanistan

2010-05-23T05:22:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, Jon Stewart interviewed an journalist who was embedded with a group of soldiers on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He put on his usual display of brown-nosing, attempting to show he "supports the troops." His cluelessness was depressing.

After imagining the troops philosophizing ("you sort of imagine there would be one part of it where they sit around in the tent and they think 'what does this mean?' ") only to find out that they "mumble" in the heat quite literally hoping to get attacked, he is informed that the troops are "professionals." (It goes without saying that that translates to "they didn't question orders").

After a brief mention that one of the soldiers reads "Harry Potter" (eliciting sober laughter from the audience), he goes on to ask about a practice that is well-known to us on this side of the pond as being "jumped in."

To join a Southern California street gang. The term denotes the ritual beating one receives to gain membership.
[Example:] That wasn't a fight in the parking lot---a peewee was getting jumped in to the gang.

STEWART: "It's funny, you write.. this very eccentric practice that they have to greet soldiers returning from leave, or soldiers about to go on leave, or soldiers who are coming back from a walk

(audience laughter)

STEWART: and its called a beat in?

JUNGER: A blood-in

STEWART: blood-in / blood-out

JUNGER: The only way to leave Restrepo without a beating -- a group beating -- is with a bullet in you.

(laughter)

STEWART: so a lot of people did this (Stewart mimes weighing options with his hands with a high-pitched whinny) but you say it was a sign of respect in a lot of ways.

JUNGER: It was a sign of respect. I mean, they were in combat, they all depended on each other for their lives. They needed a way to show that the group was the most important thing. If you were willing to undergo a beating by the group, it meant your if you were willing, your interests were not as important as the groups interests, and they showed that, they demonstrated that kind of symbolically with these beatings...and so what happened, if you're gonna go on leave, you're gonna go home for eighteen days you're gonna see your girlfriend, whatever you're gonna do, you're gonna watch Jon Stewart

(laughter and applause)

STEWART: Nobody clicks the remote when I'm on without blood-in, blood-out

(laughter and scattered applause)

STEWART: I'm glad you provide context. Because we're focusing on some of the more sensational aspects of the behavior. But what you come away with is the respect, the integrity that these guys have, the physical endurance that they have, and what they sacrifice for each other. It is an incredible feat of human sort of endeavor, even though it sort of also deals with the toughest parts of us.

I don't come away with that at all.

Source: http://www.zimvi.com/?p=4417 ret. May 23 2010

Gun lovers don't mind porky legislation

2010-05-23T02:47:00.000-07:00

A group of retired officers are pointing out that "over a quarter of young adults are too fat to fight" and "the group is urging Congress to eliminate junk food and high-calorie beverages from schools, put more money into the school lunch program and develop new strategies that help children develop healthier habits."(1)

Now, it's been a little while since the claim has circulated that the military could not get enough recruits, though I read that the goal was lowered(2), and in fact, "all branches of the military now meet or exceed recruitment goals."

Taking both into account, there is a slight contradiction. Officially, the U.S. Army doesn't need more people, yet when it comes time to pass a bill, there's a report saying they're having trouble, and schools need to change.

Sounds fishy, no?

But that's not even the half of it. The bill slashes conservation (3) and a congressional proponent of the bill had also had wanted to open more land up to hunting. (4)

Who knew the whole "anti-obesity" angle has a real ugly side, namely, that its primary advocates in power are those with guns and their friends!

Sources:
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197832/
2. http://www.wciv.com/news/stories/0410/727585.html
3. http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-18-blanche-lincolns-dismal-school-lunch-bill/
4. http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kirsten_Gillibrand#Gun_rights

My preccioousss (...blog entry)

2010-05-18T21:46:00.000-07:00

Looking back at my longer posts, including my half-assed analysis of the Israel-Palestinian negotiations (which I posted last December), my pseudo-scientific look at the prosperity index (last September), and my rant on the American dream (this January) I'm no stranger to zealous writing. With only one essay multiple-sourced, I come off as quite the amateur.

And I am.

I didn't know that Google hated my eyeballs so much.

2010-04-18T08:19:00.000-07:00

This has to be the ugliest logo in the world.

Could Reagan read the signs on the road to peace?

2009-12-14T09:10:00.001-08:00

In October of 1982, only a relatively short time after Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June, President Ronald Reagan and U.S. officials held a conference with delegations from the Arab League, a political organization that claims in its charter to “promote sovereignty and independence”1 of its member states, and Palestine under a “special circumstance” since its “outward signs of independence” had been seen as “veiled” at the time of its admittance in 1945.
Reagan called his meeting with King Hassan, the head of the League, "an important milestone along the road toward a... just and lasting peace in the Middle East." He said that the "mutual goal of peace and the road to it lies through a negotiating process," meaning one of the Arab League delegation and U.S. and Israeli representatives, and described his meeting with King Hassan as one representing “good will, understanding, and mutual respect.” He held up United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, King Hassan's personal vision, and the Arab League Delegation's "decisions at the Fez conference," also called the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, as answers to the question of how to achieve peace.
Any person's opinion may shed light on the situation, but who is to say if their ideas are always necessarily applicable and to be taken as completely matured plans of action? It's all very nice to gush about “justice” and “security”and brag about your best friend's idea of creating and supporting these powerhouses of repression that we call states, that we include in our wonderful phrase, “two-state solution” while you hold up pieces of paper called resolutions. But neither party has a reputation for being very resolute at all about peace. Did the astoundingly immense Grand ol' Party blood-transfusion in American foreign policy give him a vision of the future to bring an end to these nationalistic squabbles? Or was he a false prophet and a fool?
To know this, we must start by asking one question: Did he make good on his pledge to try to bring the conflict closer to a resolution (or at least his conception of it) by increasing security in Arab states and Israel, and a sense of identity for the Palestinian people? In other words, did he pursue these objectives "rigorously, thoughtfully, and with close consultation with all [there]" as he promised?
Starting with Security Council Resolution 242 which was put into effect in 1967, Reagan has already betrayed one of his values: understanding. The Resolution, labeled aptly by Georgetown University scholars as “a case study in diplomatic ambiguity,”2 called for “[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and stated the Security Council's decision was to be that negotiations should take place along with a cease fire. All parties seemed to agree that the “recent conflict” referred to the Six Day War, however, questions were raised as to what other parts of the text meant; the resolution ended up having several interpretations.
The Resolution was rejected originally by members of the Syrian government, who later accepted it, interpreting it to mean unilateral withdrawal,3 as did the Palestinian Liberation Organization,4 a member of the Arab League representing the Palestinian people.
. The official Israeli interpretation is virtually identical to one that was recommended by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: that the Resolution was not to mean a unilateral withdrawal but one based off of a negotiation process.5 It cites the lack of the word “all” before the word “territories.”
The similarity between the opinion of Israel and the U.S., is likely due to a fateful conversation between the Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1973 the day before she was to meet in front of the official Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to discuss the Resolution. She asked Kissinger what the word “negotiations” meant without the word “direct” in front of it, and asked for clarification on the entire phrase following it. He replied that it meant “nothing,” though three days later, he spelled out the meaning of the word: to relate “the concern for the sovereignty over the territories to the Israeli concern for secure boundaries.” Taking place within what must had been within mere seconds of this utterance, Kissinger quipped that the phrases “just and lasting peace” and “secure and recognized borders” in the Resolution were a joke to him. This is curious to say the least because of the fact that he appears to have wielded enormous power over the text, claiming sole authorship over some sections of it.6
The Resolution also reiterated the U.N. Charter's rule on “the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” which one would think should apply to the territories gained in the Israeli Six Day War. However, Israeli President, Shimon Peres, denounced the application of this to the West Bank, saying that there were no international borders at the time.7 One might be tempted to say that this is simply a disagreement of definition, but in the same interview, he went to say that “you cannot go to war, lose the war and then say pay me a price,” which contradicts the main thrust of the Resolution's argument against territory gained through war to have legitimacy.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 has a similar story. The original text, 8 (without the bolding of the main verbs), is as follows:
The Security Council
1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
The weight of each statement in actuality is not based on their order, or their format, but the specific verb used. The third statement, being the one with the verb “decide” and not “call” is the most powerful, and the other two are simply recommendations. However, no matter the semantics, or possibly because of them, the resolution was not effective in brokering peace. Another more strongly-worded resolution was passed within a couple days, “confirm[ing]” its predecessor's statements and calling for international observers to be dispatched. Even after the cease-fire was officially declared, Israeli forces continued to advance and threatened the Egyptian army.
President Reagan's final offering, the Fez conference, is not an example for mutual respect or understanding at all, but perhaps is the one most likely to bring a certain kind of agreement, because the proposals there were rejected by both “hardliner” states of the Arab League and by Israel. The talks fell apart when King Hassan called the meeting to a close.9 He seemed to have been pushing a synthesis of the aforementioned U.N. Security Council resolutions and President Ronald Reagan's personal plan, but could not overcome a “boycott” by states who had strong feelings against a plan that implicitly recognized Israel as a legitimate state. This was evidenced by the Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi labeling of such actions as “traitorous.” These countries also showed their disapproval by only sending low-level representatives. Israel rejected the plan because it did not want to recognize a Palestinian state nor withdraw from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The reason I believe this conference and its aftermath to be the thing most likely to bring an agreement is not only the old maxim about a good compromise being one that leaves everyone unhappy, but because the disagreement here is only over actions to be taken and not differences between interpretations of various phrases.
The question remains as to what actions President Reagan took during his presidency to promote “peace” and to boost morale to Palestinians. During his presidency, Israel and Syria engaged in a series of acts of military brinksmanship, in violation of international law, yet in 1985 he fanned the flames of the conflict after he signed a bill designating billions of dollars of aid to Israel, ignoring the opinions expressed at the Fez conference and without publicly consulting with another country. In a question and “answer,” (he actually avoided answering most of the questions) he declared that the United States representatives would “not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.”10
To this day, the questions raised regarding the meaning of the resolution of 242 have not been settled between the parties, Israel continues the illegal expansion of settlements, and has even asked reporters to stop using the word “settlements” in favor of “neighborhoods.” Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians recognize one another's legitimate statehood, and acts of goodwill are overshadowed by ongoing reports of the continued human rights law violations on both sides of Israel's border.11 Throughout all this, the U.S. continues complicit support of Israel's illegal occupation of occupied territories through massive aid.12
If negotiations, after years and years were not able to clear up questions surrounding the wording of Resolution 242, how can we expect them to clear up people's understanding of what a settlement or a neighborhood is? If negotiations have failed thus far to deliver on understanding, what hope is there for an act of mutual respect, such as recognizing statehood, or of goodwill, such as seeking to integrate the two societies together?
Perhaps the solution lies altogether outside the boxes of Reagan's four examples, three values, two political alliances, and his one definition of “peace” as state-enforced security and national identity, and even outside of official negotiations altogether. The benefits of an open and honest debate, and more importantly, actions, among non-state actors have yet to be proven unproductive.
One of the loudest voices outside of the “mainstream” is Uri Gordon, a self-proclaimed Anarchist-sympathizer, though he also suggests people contemplate a two-state solution in his book, Anarchy Alive!. 13 He justifies this recommendation, one that seems to contradict the traditional abhorrence in Anarchist theoretical writings of nationalism and governance by accepting a two-state solution as either a strategic decision designed to enlighten more people, as a lesser evil than the current occupation, or as a simple, non-ideological stance of solidarity. However, his strong Anarchist sympathy shines in an article in the Jerusalem Post calling for a dismantling the systems of oppression, both physical and social,14 and gives an uplifting message:

We can still break out of the vicious cycle of drawing the justification for present atrocities from the living memory of the horrors of the past - if only we realize that in doing so we are playing into the hands of all those who mean to rule us''.

Anarchism, started as a tradition of worker self-management and solidarity soon to encompass passionate critiques of state power, seems to contradict any possible stance on Middle East peace other than either apathy or total antagonism to all parties negotiating through governments. To resolve this he points out that one may work to resolve the conflict without going through governmental means, such as supporting things like the rights of workers, women, and other minorities of participation who have a reputation to be more peace-oriented.
He has also expressed frustration with the abuse of language, which is becoming a pattern at this point. He called out the editor of the Jerusalem Post's article on Anarchism for writing “a rhapsody of belittling rhetoric designed to brand anarchists as irrelevant” followed by “well-rehearsed cheap shots, stock phrases and smug moralizing alongside harangues of abuse and dehumanization of the enemy.” Though they are unlikely to agree, this kind of debate is much more revealing and thoughtful than any of the scripted and evasive language of a governmental secretary or president. It is for that reason that Reagan's hope for peace is likely misplaced in negotiations.

Citations:

1. Acharya, A. (Ed.), & Johnston, A. I. (Ed.) (2007) Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective (p. 191) Cambridge University Press
2. Caradon, B. H. F. (1981) U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, a case study in diplomatic ambiguity. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
3. Drummond, W. J. (1975, Nov 25). Syria Reportedly Insists on Palestinian-Golan Link. Los Angeles Times
4. Gelvin J. L. (October 2, 2007) The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (p. 223) Cambridge University Press
5. Gelvin, J. L. (2007) The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. Cambridge University Press
6. Gazit M., Rodman P. W. (1973, October 22) Memorandum of Conversation. declassified national security document. Retrieved Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 from the George Washington Universtiy website at: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-63.pdf
7.Stadlen, Nick (2007, June 4) Transcript of Nick Stadlen interview with Shimon Peres part I. Retrieved Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jun/04/4.
8. Original text of U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 retrieved Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 from http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/288/65/IMG/NR028865.pdf?OpenElement.
9. Goldsmith, M. (1981, Nov 27) Failure of Arab summit produces no real losers. The Spokesman Review
10. Hunt, T. (1982, September 2) Reagan: West Bank Jordan's. Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette
11. LaFranchi H. (2009, November 4th) UN General Assembly to take up Goldstone report on Gaza war crimes. Christian Science Monitor.
12. Annonymous (2009, July 8) Despite splits, U.S. still arms Israel. Retrieved Tuesday, December 8, 2009 from http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2009/07/08/Despite-splits-US-still-arms-Israel/UPI-35901247076940/
13. Gordon, U. (2007) Anarchy Alive!: Anti-authoritarian Poliics from Practice to Theory. Pluto Press
14. Gordon, U. (2007, June 12). Right of Reply: Anarchy in the Holy Land! Jerusalem Post

We're Stalking "Enemy Children"

2009-11-09T09:17:00.000-08:00

From the leaked "Tracking" Guide for U.S. Special Forces:

1-5. As a tracker follows a trail, he uses the above-mentioned skills to build a picture of the enemy in his mind while asking himself these questions:

How many people am I following?
Are they male or female?
Are they adults or children?
What is their state of training?
How are they equipped?
Are they healthy?
What is their state of morale?
Do they know they are being followed?

Leave no rock unturned!

2009-10-23T09:12:00.000-07:00

....except that one. Yeah, the one that paid off a House representative, the one that has a big spider on it that is responsible for polluting our air. No need to look there.

Using Logic Against Fascists

2009-10-22T10:29:00.000-07:00

From ACLU's blog:

Yesterday, I argued in Maricopa County Superior Court about whether Sheriff Joe Arpaio, “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” can block inmates’ access to abortion. The specific issue is whether the sheriff can demand that inmates who seek abortion care prepay $300 a day in transportation and security costs. If an inmate can’t come up with the money, she will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Of course, Sheriff Arpaio doesn’t require inmates seeking other medical care to prepay for transport and security costs. We argued it is unconstitutional to make access to the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy conditional on the ability to pay hundreds of dollars. Fortunately, the judge agreed.
Ruling immediately after the arguments, the court held that the defendants are prohibited from demanding prepayment for transport and security costs. The sheriff has an uphill battle given that just a couple of years ago the Arizona Court of Appeals held that his policy of demanding a court order from inmates seeking abortion was unconstitutional. As the judge yesterday recognized, the issue of prepayment for transport costs is only a “slight extension” of the court order issue, and demanding prepayment is possibly more onerous than requiring a court order.
But the most telling part of yesterday’s argument came when the judge asked us to do some math. He asked both parties how many hours since June each of us worked on the case – we agreed it was at least 40 hours each. He then assumed an hourly rate of $250 an hour and asked us to calculate the total. The answer? A lot of taxpayer money is being spent on a policy that may cost the Sheriff a few hundred dollars a year given how few women request abortion access.
Then the judge asked the question that sums it all up – he asked the sheriff’s attorney to explain “the real reason” behind the policy. Clearly, it can’t be that the sheriff is really worried about $300 a year.
The sheriff’s attorney didn’t really respond. I suppose it was a bit of a rhetorical question. Sheriff Arpaio has repeatedly acted on his animosity to abortion by denying inmates their constitutional rights. All told, he will spend thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting over $300 a year simply because he wants to impose his moral beliefs on others. The courts have repeatedly stopped these unconstitutional tactics. And we will be prepared to deal with whatever Sheriff Joe does next.

Numb3rs teaches you that Jews love money and Anarchists love prison

2009-10-19T05:53:00.000-07:00

"Kai Kragen"

From the third season we get this wonderful guy:

Detective Sinclair: We saw your old house on Mulholland. That must have been hard to give up.
Detective Granger: Not to mention all the money
....
Kai Kragen: Whether someone is puting a gun to someone's head or a bunch of people are eating cow testicles on an island, it's all entertainment right?

"Kai" by the way is often short for "Cornelius," which comes from the Latin word for "horn."

"Tyson"

Tyson: It's a better ending this way: three people that ripped me off are dead, the force is going to go down in total humiliation...
Detective Granger: What about what happens to you?

Tyson: Me? (laughs) Are you kidding? Starting tomorrow I top the A-list. There's not an agent in town who won't be scrambling to sign me.
Detective Sinclair: Too bad you'll be writing from prison.

Tyson: Locked in a cell with no one to bother me? I can crank out five, six movies a year.

So Transparent It's Opaque

2009-10-17T04:44:00.000-07:00

Obama has promised several times to have the most transparent government in U.S. history. So much so, in fact, that he'll do anything to keep us from seeing torture photos and transcripts.

Glenn Beck's Priorities

2009-10-08T22:30:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck, Aug. 24, 2006: "[Braille on walls used to identify rooms for blind people] drives me out of my mind."

Glenn Beck, Sept. 24, 2009: "So the progressives, step by step, let you believe that you have a right to healthcare. It's a right to healthcare. It's a right to have a job. It's a right to have Social Security so you can retire. It's a right to have a house."

Who cares if people are living on the street? Who cares if oodles of people die each year for treatable/preventable diseases? Who cares if one in ten Americans are out of work? Who cares if Grandpa spends his time saying "Hello, welcome to Wal-Mart" because he doesn't have enough to retire? What's more important is getting rid of those tiny god-damned bumps that are only used so the blind can find their way around without the privilege of sight.

"Dear FOX News, It's not me, it's you"

2009-10-04T20:50:00.000-07:00

News Item: Waitrose dumps Fox News in protest over remarks about Barack Obama

Well a lot of companies have cut funding from the racist show of Glenn Beck. But they continued to purchase advertising from FOX. This is the first I've heard about where it is someone actually cutting all funding.

My Message to Stefan Molyneux.. And his response

2009-10-04T14:58:00.000-07:00

So I found out about this guy looking for a debate with an anarchist. He was debating a minarchist and advocated no-state capitalism (You can find it on Google, I really don't feel up to getting this guy much more of a chance of positive publicity). I think he did rather well but even at the get-go his personality made me uneasy. The minarchist did too but now I think his is even worse. It turns out he advocates something similar to Scientology in regard to families: that ideology trumps family ties. This is very cult-like. So here's my heart-felt plea to him and his replies. Please note: I used to have up actual words he said but he asked I take them down. I then asked if he would sue. I have yet to get a reply. So until then, my summaries of his statements will have to do. They are filtered through my subjective worldview and may not reflect actual words said.

I know you're likely to completely and instantly disregard this message but in the slim chance you will read it to completion, I'm going to lay out my pity for you as best I can.

Let me first start with a little about myself. I'm basically a typical 19 year old except for the fact that I have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. This has been a double-edged sword my whole life. On the one hand I have relatively high functioning ability and intelligence but on the other hand I have severe difficulty in many parts of my life - far worse than the average person.

This year I had a psychotic break with reality and was hospitalized twice and snowed with medication. Eventually I snapped out of it. I am not currently medicated and the risk of a relapse is very real. I plan to see my doctor soon to work this out.

This leads me to you. I believe you have many outward characteristics of a manic-depressive. Your extreme enthusiasm in your work to the point of obsession, your difficulty in taking criticism, your rapid speech are some of them. The most disconcerting one is the absolutism about your beliefs that you hold. This black-and-white thinking paired with your formation of truly wacky ideas about a parent-child relationship show true signs of psychosis.

I believe it would be in your best interest and those whose lives you affect to look into a psychological evaluation and to follow the resulting conclusions to help yourself in the best way you can. This hopefully will involve some version of individual therapy, group therapy and/or medication.

If you choose not to follow any of my above advice, I then advise you to at least read up on cognitive distortion and the potential problems resulting from an ingroup bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup_bias

His response (in summary form):

I'm really happy for you sending me your email. That was very nice of you. I disagree because two people I know have never told me I might be bipolar. Also, I don't think so. I claim to understand the problems of cognitive biases and group thinking, but provide no evidence for such. Please tell me more about your problems so that I can manipulate you into joining my cult.

Love,
Stef

Wow. All the smoothness. And in all of it, he says that he has concluded that he doesn't fit the symptoms of a manic depressive, so he doesn't need help! Now the whole point of a psych evaluation is to prove whether you are right or wrong - it is a third party, not me or him. So I think it is sort of lost on him. But oh well. I'll try one more time:

I appreciate your gracious reply. I'd like to point out two more things. I'd like to say upfront that they will appear substantially less considerate than my previous statements, as I have not yet learned how not to do this as an argument progresses. I have however restrained from a full-on attack on your ethical code and restrained myself to the points I made in my original posting. So please bear with me, and after that if you want to tell me to piss off, I will.

1. The psychological evaluation would be preferable to your own opinion as it would be more objective. The same goes for your wife. She cannot exactly be called an impartial observer or even the right "match" for you - in terms of therapy (not romance). If you would rather gather more evidence on your own, I would suggest asking the unbiased layperson if you display any of those qualities. Perhaps people you work with or dear family friends.

2. the "wackiness" I referred to has actually been documented. People have refused to hug their parents and have cut all contact for good after embracing your ideas. Whatever reason you may use to justify this, you are not a trained psychologist yourself. I've read that "Defooing" (not the term psychologists etc. use but its the same principle) should only be used as a last resort after a very hard attempt at reconciliation. If you continue to provide advice, I think when doing so, you should mention to people as a disclaimer each time that you are not officially qualified to give such advice.

His reply (in summary form):

Thanks but I'm going to interpret "asking for feedback" as making an official diagnosis. This straw man will allow me to believe I am still right. My therapist told me so. Don't listen to anyone else's comments on my work because they are evil.

Love,
Stef

Oh well. Can't say that I didn't try. Maybe I've planted a seed of doubt but I don't think so. I'm gonna give it one more go:

I wonder why you believe that while your friends are unable to make a diagnosis, you yourself are. You may believe this to be an unfair characterization considering that your therapist did not diagnose you. But you should keep in mind that symptoms can often wax and wane. If your therapist saw you today she may very well diagnose you. Seeing her again, even if she didn't diagnose you would still be good considering she would be an impartial observer, unlike your wife.

I can tell you right now that the symptom probably bigger than anything else is the sense that you believe you are the first to have unified diverse disciplines together into one - something that people have been trying to do for thousands of years. This fits into "grandiose beliefs about one’s abilities or powers."

I was not asking for your friends to make a psychological diagnosis. I was asking for you to ask them if they saw any of the characteristics of a manic-depressive, which you could name to them.

This is often what doctors ask their patients. The friends are not the ones who put together the diagnosis, but merely contribute experiential information.

Here are some:
Mania:
    *   Feeling unusually “high” and optimistic OR extremely irritable
    * Unrealistic, grandiose beliefs about one’s abilities or powers
    * Sleeping very little, but feeling extremely energetic
    * Talking so rapidly that others can’t keep up
    * Racing thoughts; jumping quickly from one idea to the next
    * Highly distractible, unable to concentrate
    * Impaired judgment and impulsiveness
    * Acting recklessly without thinking about the consequences
    * Delusions and hallucinations (in severe cases)
Depression:
    * Feeling hopeless, sad, or empty.
    * Irritability
    * Inability to experience pleasure
    * Fatigue or loss of energy
    * Physical and mental sluggishness
    * Appetite or weight changes
    * Sleep problems
    * Concentration and memory problems
    * Feelings of worthlessness or guilt
    * Thoughts of death or suicide

Again, self-reporting is a no-no in diagnostics.

Wish you the best!

His response (in summary form):

Somebody ratted you out. Your correspondence with me has been embarrassing so I am going to use the threat of legal action against you to silence you, even though I call myself an anarchist.

XOXO,
Stef

NYT Ignores Latin America

2009-10-03T07:47:00.000-07:00

Today I read today's New York Times cover-to-cover and found no article on Latin America. The closest I could find was one about gay marriage in Texas (which used to be part of Mexico until we punked them out of it) and an op-ed about how the rest of the world doesn't like us because they "envy our power."

Capitalizing certain words

2009-10-01T06:07:00.000-07:00

I miss the days when it was considered Proper to capitalize certain words. Things like "Providence" and other words that seem to have fallen by the wayside.

The "Security Threat" Of Inter-Racial Love

2009-09-28T19:46:00.000-07:00

From DissidentVoice.com:

Israel’s Fear of Jewish Women Dating Arabs

Team of Pyschologists to "Rescue" Women

by Jonathan Cook / September 25th, 2009

A local authority in Israel has announced that it is establishing a special team of youth counselors and psychologists whose job it will be to identify young Jewish women who are dating Arab men and “rescue” them.

The move by the municipality of Petah Tikva, a city close to Tel Aviv, is the latest in a series of separate — and little discussed — initiatives from official bodies, rabbis, private organisations and groups of Israeli residents to try to prevent interracial dating and marriage.

In a related development, the Israeli media reported this month that residents of Pisgat Zeev, a large Jewish settlement in the midst of Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, had formed a vigilante-style patrol to stop Arab men from mixing with local Jewish girls.

Hostility to intimate relationships developing across Israel’s ethnic divide is shared by many Israeli Jews, who regard such behaviour as a threat to the state’s Jewishness. One of the few polls on the subject, in 2007, found that more than half of Israeli Jews believed intermarriage should be equated with “national treason”.

Since the state’s founding in 1948, analysts have noted, a series of legal and administrative measures have been taken by Israel to limit the possibilities of close links developing between Jewish and Arab citizens, the latter comprising a fifth of the population.

Largely segregated communities and separate education systems mean that there are few opportunities for young Arabs and Jews to become familiarised with each other. Even in the handful of “mixed cities”, Arab residents are usually confined to separate neighbourhoods.

In addition, civil marriage is banned in Israel, meaning that in the small number of cases where Jews and Arabs want to wed, they can do so only by leaving the country for a ceremony abroad. The marriage is recognised on the couple’s return.

Yuval Yonay, a sociologist at Haifa University, said the number of interracial marriages was “too small to be studied”. “Separation between Jews and Arabs is so ingrained in Israeli society, it is surprising that anyone manages to escape these central controls.”

The team in Petah Tikva, a Jewish city of 200,000 residents, was created in direct response to news that two Jewish girls, aged 17 and 19, were accompanying a group of young Arab men when they allegedly beat a Jewish man, Leonard Karp, to death last month on a Tel Aviv beach. The older girl was from Petah Tikva.

The girls’ involvement with the Arab youths has revived general concern that a once-firm taboo against interracial dating is beginning to erode among some young people.

In sentiments widely shared, Hezi Hakak, a spokesman for Petah Tikva municipality, said “Russian girls” — young Jewish women whose parents arrived in Israel over the past two decades, since the collapse of the former Soviet Union — were particularly vulnerable to the attention of Arab men.

Dr Yonay said Russian women were less closed to the idea of relationships with Arab men because they “did not undergo the religious and Zionist education” to which more established Israeli Jews were subject.

Mr Hakak said the municipality had created a hotline that parents and friends of the Jewish women could use to inform on them.

“We can’t tell the girls what to do but we can send a psychologist to their home to offer them and their parents advice,” he said.

Motti Zaft, the deputy mayor, told the Ynet website that the municipality was also cracking down on city homeowners who illegally subdivide apartments to rent them cheaply to single Arab men looking for work in the Tel Aviv area. He estimated that several hundred Arab men had moved into the city as a result.

Petah Tikva’s hostility to Arab men mixing with local Jewish women is shared by other communities.

In Pisgat Zeev, a settlement of 40,000 Jews, some 35 Jewish men are reported to belong to a patrol known as “Fire for Judaism” that tries to stop interracial dating.

One member, who identified himself as Moshe to the Jerusalem Post newspaper, said: “Our goal is to be in contact with these girls and try to explain to them the dangers of what they’re getting themselves into. In the last 10 years, 60 girls from Pisgat Zeev have gone into [Palestinian] villages [in the West Bank]. And most of them aren’t heard from after that.”

He denied that violence or threats were used against Arab men.

Last year, the municipality of Kiryat Gat, a town of 50,000 Jews in southern Israel, launched a programme in schools to warn Jewish girls of the dangers of dating local Bedouin men. The girls were shown a video titled Sleeping with the Enemy, which describes mixed couples as an “unnatural phenomenon”.

Haim Shalom, head of the municipality’s welfare department, is filmed saying: “The girls, in their innocence, go with the exploitative Arab.” A police representative also warns that the Bedouin men’s “goal is to take advantage of the girls. There is no element of love or an innocent friendly relationship here.”

In 2004, posters sprang up all over the northern town of Safed warning Jewish women that dating Arab men would lead to “beatings, hard drugs, prostitution and crime”.

Safed’s chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, told a local newspaper that the “seducing” of Jewish girls was “another form of war” by Arab men.

Both Kiryat Gat and Safed’s campaigns were supported by a religious organisation called Yad L’achim, which runs an anti-assimilation team publicly dedicated to “saving” Jewish women.

According to its website, the organisation receives more than 100 calls a month about Jewish women living with Arab men, both in Israel and the West Bank. It launches “military-like rescues [of the women] from hostile Arab villages” in co-ordination with the police and army.

“The Jewish soul is a precious, all-too-rare resource, and we are not prepared to give up on even a single one,” says the website.

Yad L’achim’s founder, Rabbi Shlomo Dov Lifschitz, is quoted on the site saying: “People must understand that Jewish-Arab marriages are part of the larger Israeli-Arab conflict. … They [Arab men] see it as their goal to marry them [Jewish women] and ensure that their childen aren’t raised as Jews. This is their revenge against the Jewish people. They feel that if they can’t defeat us in war, they can wipe us out this way.”

The degree of general opposition in Israel to interracial marriage was suggested by a government-backed television ad campaign earlier this month that urged Israeli Jews to inform on relatives abroad who were in danger of marrying a non-Jew. The ads were hastily withdrawn by surprised Israeli officials after many US Jews took offence.

In her book Birthing the Nation, Rhoda Kanaaneh, a Middle East scholar at New York University, points out that “politicians frequently attack ‘peace’ or ‘dialogue’ programs for promoting miscegenation” in fear that it will lead to Jewish assimilation.

She also notes that Israel’s adoption and surrogacy laws require that adoptive parents be of the same ethnic group as the biological mother.

Three Videos That Show Without A Doubt What A Loon Glenn Beck Is

2009-09-28T19:06:00.000-07:00

Ignoring The Obvious

2009-09-27T19:49:00.000-07:00

There's a lot of hullabaloo about Iran's newly revealed ~~diabolically evil~~ uranium enrichment facility. Some are claiming that we have caught Iran "red-handed." That would be true.

If we had discovered the site that is. But its location was disclosed voluntarily by Iran to the IAEA. So much for "pre-empting a conspiracy."

Stunning Blinders On NYT Writers

2009-09-27T12:31:00.000-07:00

Opened todays NYT. What did I see? An Article entitled: Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Advisers.
Working from beginning to end, these were my reactions:

As President Obama weighs sending more troops to Afghanistan, one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency...

...a war that he inherited but may come to define his tenure...

This seems to assume that something is riding on this war. Which it is, don't get me wrong. If we can't whip the Afghan people into letting us use their country for an oil line, our oil companies won't get that much richer. But we are fighting a home-grown, grass roots, yae even organic insurgency. Those people don't lose. They're super mountain people who have probably genetically adjusted to the lack of air density. I'm guessing that's why Russia failed. And don't you think that how many jobs he creates is going to define it? I wonder if that argument is being used.

Moving on...

General McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 40,000 additional troops for the eight-year-old war

Moving tens of thousands of hard-working and healthy people into the black hole of the military-industrial complex in a recession. Brilliant.

Mr. Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and an Army veteran, has not ruled out supporting more troops but said “the burden of proof” was on commanders to justify it.

Wow! Way to stand up for some values, Mr. Reed! Not like when you voted for the bailout, even if you did give it some teeth. Anyway, let's get to the interesting stuff.

In the West Wing, beyond Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has advocated an alternative strategy to the troop buildup, other presidential advisers sound dubious about more troops, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, according to people who have spoken with them. At the same time, Mr. Obama is also hearing from more hawkish figures, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Well, well Clinton and Holbrooke. You really outdid yourselves. You both have out-hawked Rahm, someone who bullied anti-war Dems out of jobs, and James L. Jones, the guy who loves NATO so much he wants to marry it.

[Obama's] decision to send 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan early this year, which will bring the number of American troops there to 68,000 this fall, was made hurriedly within weeks of coming into office to stanch the tactical erosion on the ground and provide security during Afghan elections.
But with those elections now marred by fraud allegations, the latest troop request is forcing Mr. Obama to decide whether he wants to fully engage in Afghanistan for the rest of his term or make a drastic change of course

Oh was thaaaat what was wrong with the elections? The ballots got tampered with? That was what went wrong? I thought it had more to do with, oh I don't know, maybe schools being attacked for being used as polling stations?

Parenthood And Gay Marriage

2009-09-26T16:27:00.000-07:00

It is a tragedy, I feel, that people of a different sexual type are caught in a world which shows so little understanding for homosexuals.

-Emma Goldman

Yay! .....Crap!

2009-09-25T19:49:00.000-07:00

From ACLU.org:

News reports today indicate that the Obama administration will not seek legislation or issue an executive order to institute a system of indefinite detention without charge or trial...

Yay!

(continued):

...According to the reports, the administration backed away from seeking legislation because it believes the federal government already has the power to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely...

Crap!

France, Brazil Have Biggest Bang For Euro, Real

2009-09-23T15:39:00.000-07:00

Out of the 6 countries that have passed stimulus bills and clawed their way out of a recession, Brazil has the highest trade surplus totaling $286 billion, or about $1,400 dollars per person. However, in terms of trade surplus gained in proportion to infrastructure spending, France dwarfs them all. France spent only 1.3% of its stimulus on infrastructure yet has a trade surplus of $998 million. That could mean that France had the best infrastructure program. Or maybe not. It's still a long way off considering that only amounts to about $6 per person.

My Favorite Firefox Plugins

2009-09-22T14:52:00.000-07:00

These are my most-used plugins for Mozilla Firefox:

Adding custom search engines to the search bar

How to do it: Click the drop-down button where you can choose the site you want to search and then go to Manage Search Engines. This is a good time to delete the ones you don't want. After you've done that, click the little blue underlined link Get more search engines...(here's the direct link if you don't like going through those steps) In the text field where it says search for add-ons type in the search engine you wish to add. I added Isohunt.com and Crackspider.net.

BugMeNot

This is an add-on that will save you unmeasurable trouble. Basically, it is a collectivized login database where users share usernames and passwords that they have been forced to create to access content online. You can go to their website every time you want to find a login or you can just install this nifty little plugin. Once installed, just right click the login field of almost any website (be sure to fill in the CAPTCHA if there is one) and click Login with BugMeNot. Voila!

Mouse Gestures Redox

This plugin is pretty simple. Install it and you can right click and drag different combination of lines on your screen to do different commands. Be sure to add a visible line in the settings so you can see what you are doing. It's also fully customizable too. The ones I typically use the most are: Close Tab, New Tab, Zoom in, Zoom out (Except now I use Ctrl + and Ctrl - for zooming).

DownThemAll!

This plugin allows you to:

1. download multiples files (such as videos, mp3 or the extension of your choice) at once, in one click

2. increase your download speed immensely.

Chatzilla

Just an IRC Client that is easy to use. Accessible through the Tools menu.Can be great if you wish to get in an argument with idiots over politics or to download books on Undernet's "#bookz" channel.

Read it Later

This is a plugin that allows you to save a web page to read later, recall a web page that you have saved and remove a web page that you have read - all in one click.

That's it! Enjoy!

Boss of factory occupiers tried to sell and move plant

2009-09-15T23:56:00.000-07:00

You may have heard a while back about the workers at Republic Windows and Doors refusing to allow their plant to close for 3 days without concessions. They eventually won compensation for the plant closing.

Well now, the boss who wanted to close the plant actually wanted to illegally move it:

Gillman allegedly diverted money from Republic and laundered stolen money through fraudulent bank accounts and shell companies. He alleged Gillman highjacked manufacturing equipment and concealed it in ten semi-trailers — transporting three of the semi-trailers to Red Oak, Iowa and hiding the remaining semi-trailers in a trailer park. He also allegedly removed business equipment, destroyed documents, created phony receivables and engaged in computer “hacking.”

The factory has since reopened but only 15 people have been re-hired, thanks to the stimulus bill not being big enough.

3 Ways to download entire books online

2009-09-15T18:47:00.000-07:00

Three ways to download books (including textbooks):

1. IRC channel #bookz on Undernet (Try Chatzilla, which runs with Firefox, which is an awesome Indian name, or something else as an IRC client, )

2. isohunt.com (need a torrent client? try utorrent, ported for mac and pc)

3. google.com use search commands like filetype:txt, filetype:doc, filetype:pdf, filetype:zip and filetype:rtf

QWERTY < DVORAK < Colemak < QGMLWY

2009-09-15T16:11:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not going to try all of those keyboard layouts. I'm going to switch over to Colemak and see where the 193% greater efficiency takes me. Yes QGMLWY is better, but I'm not going through the steps of reading command line after command line to run in Perl. Colemak is easy to install.

Democrats pick the wrong boogeyman

2009-09-15T10:09:00.000-07:00

A lot has been done recently to make Joe Wilson the scapegoat for the trouble with passing good health care reform. Yes he's received $56,200 from the industry, but the real bad guys are the insurance companies. The ones who make money by denying people care.

Self-censorhip to carry on?

2009-09-15T08:21:00.000-07:00

Reading this article about the failure of journalism schools to teach people how to be real journalists, I got to a part where a man suggested a pretty common sense notion: that journalists should be unbiased and not let big corporations control what they say:

I proposed a new mission statement to my faculty colleagues in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. I argued that by stating bluntly the nature of the crises we face in today’s world and breaking with our longstanding subordination to the industry, we could offer an exciting alternative to students who don’t want to repeat the failures of our generation.

But here's how people responded:

Some disagreed with my assessment of the crises we face, while others thought it politically ill-advised to criticize the industry and corporate power so directly.

Obama Breaks International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

2009-09-14T09:04:00.000-07:00

Ever heard of Bagram prison? It's Guantanamo Lite. First I'll tell you what the ICCPR says, and then how we're breaking it:

...everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
...to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
...To be tried without undue delay;
...to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
........ Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

"legal council of his choosing" huh? "undue delay" huh?

Take a look at what we're doing in Bagram. The Pentagon is about to assign

...military officials to each of the detainees to help to collect evidence and witnesses to support any case they may have to be freed.

So no lawyers. Just military officers. Seems very just. Now let's see how "undue" their delay is.
And about the right to not confess.

According to the best available estimates, at least 600 prisoners are held at Bagram,.... where they have been held for up to seven years.

...a vast amount of the government’s supposed evidence consisted not of verifiable facts, but of "confessions" made by other prisoners – or by the prisoners themselves – under unknown circumstances.

"Energetic" Apathy

2009-09-13T19:03:00.000-07:00

Here are the six things we can do for the Honduran people (short of regime change):

1. Legally define the coup in Honduras as a military coup
2. Publicly condemn human right violations
3. Impose trade sanctions
4. Recall the American ambassador
5. Freeze the bank accounts of the coup leaders
6. Revoke the diplomatic and tourist visas of all the coup leaders

Have we done #1 yet? Nope. It is so simple, yet we have not done it, probably so that we can continue to supply humanitarian aid to the country. How we know it is getting in the right hands is beyond me.

#2 yet? Nope. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights doesn't count, even though it contains a U.S. citizen as a delegate. Who by the way condemned the human rights abuses:

“Since the events of June 28, the widespread practice of arbitrary detentions, the excessive use of force against protesters, and continued interference with freedom of expression in Honduras all contradict those responsibilities of the state.”

#3. Of course we're not going to do this are you crazy? By the way, I wrote that sentence before I even Googled the facts. But I was right. Why do they say this? They make ridiculous claims.

The first:

A letter from the State Department to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, states that the U.S. "energetically" opposes Mr. Zelaya's June 28 ouster. But the letter also expresses the harshest criticism yet of Mr. Zelaya's own actions that preceded his removal from office, including trying to change Honduras's constitution to potentially stay in power.
"We energetically condemn the actions of June 28. We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal," Richard Verma, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in the letter, reviewed Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.

Seems like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth. On the one hand we oppose his ouster, but we also say that he had it coming, and continue to let the crooks who supported it trade illegitimately. Oh - and about changing the constitution, look it up, it was a non-binding resolution. And suppose it was binding: unless I missed the part in civics class where democracy is less important than a piece of paper written by elites, it still doesn't justify a coup. Oh - and let's see what else. Zelaya's own vice president was going to run for president, and Zelaya was not (he said he would if he could, but if the constitution was amended, it would go into affect after his presidency ended). Some way to stay in power!

#4. Nope
#5. Nope (see number 3)
#6. Somewhat. Only 16 people so far.

So far we've barely done one of these things. Some "energy" huh? And yet people think Obama is sympathetic to socialists.

How to stream music and basically any audio through IM clients

2009-09-13T18:12:00.000-07:00

Most people know that with a microphone and a program like AIM, MSN, Yahoo! Messenger, Skype or something else you can stream live from your microphone. But did you know that you can actually stream music over them too? I have used this to play beats I have made in FL Studio for my friends without having to go through the usually long process of exporting it to a file and then sending the file somewhere.

Here are the steps>
1. Open your IM software
2. initiate a "call" or "talk session"
3. Go to Start > Run > type in sndvol32.exe > "OK"
4. Go to Options > Properties
5. Click the radio button next to "Recording"
6. Under "Show the following volume controls" make sure that there is a check next to "Stereo Mix" or possibly "Wave Out Mix" Press "OK"
7. Under the slider of either "Stereo Mix" or "Wave Out Mix" select the check box. Close Record Control
8. Open your mp3 in an mp3 player or open whatever program you have that plays audio you wish to send.

That's it!

One word of warning!!! Don't - under any circumstances - try to record something through an audio recording software that plays back as it records, as you will get an enormous amount of feedback!!!

Do you think of yourself as a compassionate human being?

2009-09-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

If you do, you have to read this report and find out just who is making your products (are they children?) under which conditions (involuntary?). I tried copying and pasting the text from the PDF into a spreadsheet but it wasn't formatted right.

Alan Dershowitz = Pharoah?

2009-09-13T12:20:00.000-07:00

From a debate between him and Noam Chomsky:

I do not support the right of return, that is, the idea that 700,000 or now 4 million Palestinians can demographically destroy Israel.

From the book of Exodus (Ch. 1, vers 8-14)

Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

New Chomsky article on Latin America.. disses Obama's plan for US military bases in Colulmbia

2009-09-13T06:19:00.000-07:00

Suppose that UNASUR, or China, or many others claimed the right to establish military bases in Mexico to implement their programs to eradicate tobacco in the US, by aerial fumigation in North Carolina and Kentucky, interdiction by sea and air forces, and dispatch of inspectors to the US to ensure it was eradicating this poison -- which is far more lethal than cocaine or heroin, incomparably more than cannabis. The toll of tobacco use, including "passive smokers" who are seriously affected though they do not use tobacco themselves, is truly fearsome, overwhelming the lethal effects of other dangerous substances.

The rest.

Libertarian Capitalism vs. Libertarian Socialism

2009-09-13T06:01:00.000-07:00

==================
Masebrock (6 days ago)
One of the underlying themes of the concept of "wage slavery" is the idea that some contracts are acceptable and others are "slavery", even if they are accepted on a voluntary basis. When Libertarian Socialists talk about eliminating "wage slavery", how do you suppose they want to go about doing such a thing? By assuming a position of authority to determine what voluntary contracts are "slavery" and what voluntary contracts are fair.
Chomsky is a supporter of taxation as well, like most LS
.==================
ZiggyZen (6 days ago)
By offering an option that isn't wage slavery, IE by directly controlling the means production by workers. Not the state, not some corporation, but the workers. He never said people couldn't still choose to work for a wage, just that most probably wouldn't want to when a better option presents itself.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
actually no law outlawing wage slavery would be needed. you just would have no law saying workers can't take over the means of production themselves.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
A group of workers enter the boss's office and tell him that they have just taken over the factory. "You can't", says the boss. "I own it"
"And how did you come to own it?" ask workers.
"It was left to me by my father", says the boss.
"How did he get it?" asks the worker.
"He got it from his father", says the boss.
"And he?" asks the worker.
"He fought for it", says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride.
"Well", say the workers, all together this time, "We'll fight you for it".
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
If the someone who runs a factory acquired it by violently taking it from someone else, it cannot be said to by owned by him. It is stolen property.
But it would be unjustifiable to assume that every factory was obtained through violent means. You cannot assume guilt.
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
A more likely response from the boss would be:
"'He BUILT it' , says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride."
.==================
Tuppington (19 hours ago)
1. If stolen property is not ownership then most of the U.S. is not legally owned by people.
2. The most likely case: "He had OTHERS build it for him!"
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
1. I agree. Do you think that stolen property IS ownership? But once again you can't just assume guilt...
2. If it was built by others, and he STOLE it, then he does not own it. If it was built by others under contract that he retains ownership of the building, then it is legitimately owned.
.==================
Tuppington (16 hours ago)
1. according to Karl Marx, stolen property is ownership.. but he put it the other way around... "property is theft"
2. libertarian socialists would say he doesn't legitimately own it unless the workers are paid for the full value of their work. as most people were not paid the full value, that is, the capital generated from their construction, then no he doesn't own it legitimately. a fair wage would be to pay someone a wage for their work and then give them stock and executive decisions

.==================
Masebrock (15 hours ago)
To say that failing to pay wages equal to the capital generated would negate ownership is ridiculous. Only force or fraud can negate ownership, not failing to make contracts that fit your standards of "fair".

People don't lose their rights because they fail to abide by your definition of "fair".
1. Do you really believe that might makes right? So if I posses the means to steal a resource, then I rightfully own the resource?
2. If the laborers were not paid the "full value" of their work as specified in the terms of the contract, then they would have a case. But there you go again assuming guilt. The "value" of their labor is whatever someone is willing to pay them, not the capital generated.
.==================
Tuppington (15 hours ago)
might doesn't make right. workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it. and why does might make right when the so-called owner of a factory uses his power to bend the contract in his favor?
if the planet were filled with only ugly people, would the best looking one be beautiful? no. value, like beauty, is absolute. from the so-called owner's point of view, the worker is only as valuable as the cost of his replacement. but from the universal point of view, value is production
.==================
Tuppington (14 hours ago)
failing to abide by my definition of fair would not make anyone lose their rights, since having power doesn't give you the right to steal. however, contracts written free from courts and regulations could force workers to forfeit rights.
by withholding from workers the true value of their work, a so-called owner is defrauding them and therefore forfeits his ownership by your definition.
"Originally, all things were common and undivided; they were the
property of all." - Hugo Grotius
.==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
A contract that uses force is not a legitimate one. Legitimate contracts must be voluntary accepted by both parties. I'm glad you've decided to not invalidate contracts because you don't deem them "fair'.

"Defraud" implies a falsehood. That would mean someone said one thing but acted another way. If in the contract it specified that the workers would not be paid equal to the amount of capital generated, it cannot be said to be fraudulent. "Unfair" does not equal fraudulent.
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
Hugo Grotiius apparently has no clue how property is justified, or even where it comes from.

"workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it."

This implies that the means of production in question was originally owned by the workers. You don't know that. And even if you found a case where it was, it also implies that it was taken from them through force or fraud. And you don't know that either. So many assumptions...
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
The boss has the right to make contracts by virtue of his right to be free from violence. So you don't think people don't should have the right to negotiate contracts? Just what sort of violent means do you suppose to use to keep people from making these contracts?

Value is not based on production. Proof: No matter how much time and energy someone spends making mud pies, they will still be worthless. And if someone stumbles across a diamond on the sidewalk, it is worth millions.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Contracts are only de-legitimatized through force or fraud, not your personal definition of "fairness".

==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
i'm assuming you extend the right to be free from violence to the worker. yet the boss can use the threat of violence to get a job, such as a private security company who wishes to be hired to stop an invasion or one who exploits a starving man to keep him free from mother nature's wrath.
mud pies are not valuable to society. they still wouldn't be even if people paid money for them. and about diamonds, you are forgetting that nature is doing most of the work. it doesn't just magically appear.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
You got me: I should have specified that everyone (boss, worker) has the right to be free from the INITIATION of violence. I am not at all for pacifism. Private security companies stopping invasions if fine by me. I don't understand the starving man example though...who initiates the violence here, Mother Nature? I guess I also should have specified that I think non-human objects don't fit into any system of morality.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Re mud pies: I was just going by your claim that value is based on production ;) So now what inherent characteristic of the object do you say value based on? We've already knocked production off the shelf...

Re property is theft: I'm talking about justified property, not "legal" property. "Legal" property is whatever the hell the government declares. Do you really want to follow that precedent of property though theft?
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
"as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud."

You have some understanding of the labor theory of property, and that is good. But he would only be a fraud if he was claiming UNOWNED property that he didn't apply labor to. Once property has been claimed, you can exchange it and become the new owner, even though you didn't apply labor to it. Example: If I own a shirt, I can give it to my brother, and the shirt is then legitimately his.

==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
if all you are making is a mud pie then you really aren't producing anything. but i do stand corrected. what i meant to say is that the true value of your creation is the benefit it gives society at large. most people agree with this system, even if they don't know it. it is why we have high taxes on cigarettes.
marx would probably have a good laugh reading your sentence. it's like saying do you really want to follow that precedent of theft through theft?
==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
someone controlling a factory can be indirect violence, so its a good analogy. say the private security firm has extra guns but will not give you any, and decides that you are not worth saving. do you have the right to steal a gun to protect yourself? is it even really stealing? or say they bought a piece of land that gives good protection, and if you are anywhere else you will be killed. do they still own the land? why should taking a factory from a boss be any different?
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
hunter-gatherers stole animals from their families.. yet they believed in repayment, albeit a very kooky kind involving animal and sometimes human sacrifice... anyway, we got an assload of trade secrets from Germany after WW2, most land in America was stolen from Indians. and then there's the stolen profit taken from the workers and given to the capitalist who did nothing but sit on his hindquarters handing out pieces of paper. so there's a precedent of people possessing property through theft.
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud. therefore the factory "owner" cannot make a legitimate contract under your own definition.
if a boss decides to use someones desperation (such as starving if he cannot find work) as a means to further his own selfish goals by haggling a lower wage he is taking advantage of the forces of nature, therefore de-legitimizing his contract. regulations would prohibit this.

In Defense Of Full Employment

2009-09-12T09:21:00.000-07:00

While it is usually the case that lower unemployment leads to higher inflation, it is not set in stone. Yes, countries without full employment are 10% more likely to have acceptable rates of inflation. But there still remain 24 countries that have had full employment in the last 5 years that have also had acceptable rates of inflation. In other words, there are 24 exceptions to the rule! That's a full 28% of countries that have had acceptable rates of inflation in the last 5 years! And what about the countries with unacceptable levels of inflation? What are their unemployment rates? 66% of them do not have full employment. In other words, a country with unacceptable inflation is twice as likely to not have full employment.

Here is a list of countries/provinces that have had full employment and acceptable rates of inflation in the last five years:, Macau, San Marino, Vanuatu, Hong Kong, Northern Mariana Islands, Japan, Norfolk Island, Singapore, Brunei, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Gibraltar, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, China, Monaco, British Virgin Islands, Taiwan, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Lithuania, Palau, Australia, Bermuda, South Korea, Bhutan, Malaysia, New Zealand, United States, and Iceland.

Another large hole in the theory is that countries with full employment actually have lower inflation on average.
Average inflation rate of countries with unemployment below 5% (considered full employment): 4.52%
Average inflation rate of countries with unemployment above 5%: 5.34%

Sources:
http://www.phrasebase.com/english/countries/fin_inflation.php?variable=fin_inflation
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat-labor-unemployment-rate

What this blog is for

2009-09-12T06:34:00.000-07:00

This blog will be an experimental combination of news aggregation and original research (forbidden on Wikipedia), as well as links to stuff that appeals to my lowbrow sense of humor and possibly even original lowbrow humor. Expect great things, people!