A System Exists Here, But not Well Articulated

One of the problems in the aftermath of terorism is that our Western system remains non-articulated. No one has explained the system that exists here in the West. We have a system. But it is not well articulated.

A whole raft of writers recently appear, all of whom have at least one thing in common, which is that they are talking about how a person in this system of ours is, or perhaps how s /he should be, which is to say how s /he can exist as a "cosmopolitan" individual who wears a variety of hats at different times but is no one, absolute category. No one is so to speak, just black, or just white. rather, the modern person is, or perhaps s /he should be, the ultimate version of the noncategorizable. One of the writers doing this kind of work (and doing it "perfomatively," one hopes) is J. Butler.

Many others have joined the trend recently. There are books or articles or pieces that are about just what kind of modern person it is who is not gendered, or "partitioned" --as Sen puts the matter in his recent book aimed (condescendingly) at the mass audience -- not partitioned that is to say into unitary cultures or parts. No, this modern person is representative of all. This is the anti-Al-Qaeda side of the issue. One is, or should be, free of such monolithic, categorical "identity."

This is the new trend I am seeing. It is a specification of the modern viewpoint. It seems to be something like a clearer, refocused attempt at the tolerant, multi-dimensional kind of thing that is characteristic of modernity from the beginning of the capitalist, bourgeois age, when rigid identities were broken down in favor of free trade or global travel or other such modern practices. What it is, really, is merely an articulation of a certain kind of modern viewpoint, but something which perhaps was not articulated well enough in the past (although I believe that Isaiah Berlin may have tried).

You can appreciate it if you read Butler, or if you read this recent book "Identity and Violence" I think, or something like that, by Amartya Sen. He normally writes very detailed theoretical accounts of things socio-economic that are a bit beyond my capacity. He writes some very articulated argument, detailed stuff that just goes on and on (especially if you don't get it). In Butler's book on the Seagull imprint, "Who Sings...", she mentions Hannah Arendt, who speaks of the "stateless" person. A persons who has lost his or her identity as a member of a state has no exact affiliation, and would be an example that helps us understand the issues here, although that seems more from the negative side rather than seeing the universal man as a positive pattern. Butler is well-known for taken the "gender" category away in general.

So, J. Butler is trying very hard to find him, or place him ----- this stateless person who needs to create an identity. Sen and Butler both want anything except the person who is hard-wired into some identity. But where could such a person be placed? Anywhere at all, perhaps. All of these persons --now I mean the successful, privileged authors extolling the death of fixed identity in favor of some kind of universal moderniy --are basically globetrotters themselves, so it is quite natural that they should like this kind of thinking. It hardly seems irrelevant that this whole bunch have exactly the lifestyle that would correspond to the idea of the person being many things, or any----wearing many hats.

But never one. You shouldn't be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim. What you need to be is all three, with a little paganism or shamanism thrown in. Know what I mean? Pogo-stick?

Still ---- I think it is a really good idea to get a better articulation of just what being one of "us" actually amounts to. What does "developed world democratic modernist" actually mean? Just who is that?

What are you? ---- gender queer or something...?

This is a very stimulating idea on the part of Butler and Sen, and certainly one to fit the times.

Republicans Go Be(r)serk, part two

Where, then, do these guys like Sen. Coburn come from? Our system promises us freedom, individual freedom. There is a notion there that the individual is free, not because of his or her membership in a functioning community but rather something completely different from that, which is the idea that the individual is free in that he or she may be left alone to make his or her personal decisions. Actually, there are social things going on, for Sen. Coburn, as there are individual, things going on for progressives: it is just a matter of preference, opinion and emphasis.
So, what the "right" is doing is interpreting America's promise of freedom in a particular way. Notwithstanding the fact that his comments on healthcare are completely misinformed and insubstantive, such an individual does represent a legitimate point of view.

Republicans Go Beserk in Washington, Rant on Oddly About "Government Coercion" -Why?

Here is a U. S. Senator, being discussed in the Huffington Post that I get in my email box. Piece is by Benen ---- it is the first page that comes up on my screen, and he is discussing a Republican senator, who is quoted:

"... Sen. Coburn: My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues... "

What is the sexily-named Sen. Coburn actually saying here?

He has been a physician for 25 years. He claims that the government "attempts to practice medicine." What does that mean? Why would the man say that? The next line helps to understand.

The man is concerned with "government coercion." He is talking about a coercive relation between government and doctors that, he claims, may exist somewhere.

The final point that I notice is that Coburn says that such relationship between government and doctors or such interference with the work of doctors causes a disruption to the relations between doctor and patient.

The type of progressive intellectual elites that write for Huff Post are always going to point out that these kinds of statments do not pertain to the the substance of the bill up for debate. That is entirely correct, and so the Huff Post's writers mainly stress that, as Benen puts it, the man was "absurd, wildly misleading, and ... detached from the substantive reality of the debate..."

But what I myself am interested in is the question of where this ideology that Coburn's statements reflect comes from and why it is important to these persons.

What Coburn is saying essentially comes down to a statement of ideological concerns. It is quite true that it is detached from the substance of the debate and, hence, boring --- to a writer from the Washington Monthly, but, not so if you happen to be turned on by Right-wing ideology.

But that ideology is important. It has a grip on these peoples' minds... [t.b.c. -I hope so!]

O'Reilly T. V.

---
When you're criticizing liberals you're criticizing persons that've used their lives --- persons who have sacrificed their body, speech and minds to serve the people --- while you, the smartass, serve the
market.

(heard Bill O. on t. v. taking potshots at Whoopi; and Chuck Shumer, etc.)
---

Right Wing View

What is the Right wing view?

More like something abstract. The left and liberal views are pretty abstract too, but the difference is that they presume to be having deep, probing discussions. Conservatives, on the other hand, remain at the level of the knee-jerk reaction. I am going to give my thinking on this. Look at my post in this blog about the original Geek word for economics (oikonomos or something like that). Proceed to reason things out, and you end up thinking about the "household," which is a word that comes up in that discussion.

OK; so, economics is about the household. That sounds an awful lot like the Right-wing rantings-on about "the individual," etc and bla bla bla.

But then we further reason that: if it means household, and if a conservative was using the concept of "economics" in that light, the issues that would arise would involve individuals vs. households, since households have individuals in them. There should be a certain kind of discussion, then. And that discussion would be: how we define household in its relation to this famed and dignified individual. The idea of "the individual" is usually there in Right-wing thought, isn't it? This seems to me to be the case. It is true that there is a discussion about "the traditional family." OK; that's true. This is what Right-wingers talk about. Well, they used to, anyway...

There is no such discussion: there is no discussion of what we mean by "family," where the family is the "individual" unit under consideration as regards economics. The question is that of where we to draw the boundary that would define what the family is. There is no discussion either of the relationship of two concepts: that of "individual" as compared to that of "family". They went as far as the phrase "nuclear family." So is it the family or the individual that they are obsessed on?

It very much seems to be the case that Right type thought is based on this notion of an individual. Also, the "nuclear family" is supposed to be the seat of the individual. And Rousseau in an easily-internet-accessed but rather obtuse explanation of "economics" seems to agree with this "family-as-basic-unit" stuff. So let's have a discussion! Who is the family? Who is the individual? Now we are set for a discussion of the relationship between "family" and "individual," perhaps in the context of a discussion about what "economics" is.

But there isn't one. (Insert descending pitch effect) It's a great set of topics: The original Greek word for "economics;" the individual; and the family --- would be a great set of topics to expound on. Apparently, the Right never thought of it?

When thinking about Right-wing thought, I have to ask --- where are the details?

I don't see any. That is why I tend to think that Right-wing thought, as it relates to voting behavior, is always a mere abstraction --- or it is always painted in extremely broad brush strokes.

Today's Sermon

It is clear to progressives that the Republicans are blocking Obama from going forward with his policies. Everyone wants to just sort of sweep the Right out of the way - the Right themselves do not of course. But others do even as the Right have always been an important force in American affairs – so, in my view, we should come to understand our fellow Americans a little better instead of responding to our situation in the sort of way that progressives generally do.

So: Who are they? Who would be adamantly opposed to any sort of change whatsoever, even to the extent of denying that global warming exists, only to see it overwhelmingly confirmed by all our best scientists? That never makes them change at all, though --- nothing does. So, why are they so durned insistent on being who they are? --- I’ll put it like this: why insist on views so alienated from the real facts? --- from the real facts of life, in the world that has grown up around us in the past two centuries?

I would argue that like ‘em or not, lib’s shuld get that Rightists represent a reality. They are a real part of the society. They represent a real force. Progressives or liberals are not going to bring about change if they, like the Rightists themselves, do not understand what is really going on in their own society. Send the Right to Siberia and you’re going to send America to the cat house, basically.

Why do these persons exist? Which underlying social realities and human forces do they represent? What is called "modernity" is a kind of compromise always accompanied by the dissenting factions: both the Right and the Left. Today, without understanding our real situation as human beings, the actions of reformers are going to be neither successful, and, in the final analysis, not really very compassionate. Ordinary Right wing types are nice persons; I have known them. I have lived in their house. There isn’t anything wrong with those people.

So, before you supposedly sweep the Right out of the way with your activism --- why cain’t you unnerstan’ ’em a leetle bitter? It is better to understand who they are: then you become more human ---- perhaps more respectful. That is what you don’t want to do, Mr. Divisive Lib’ral Now do you understand how frustrated the Right feels?

The grassroots regular type folks, I mean. I don’t mean the “straights” – the corporate conformists. I don’t mean the rich lobbyists, the elite freaks. I just mean reg’lar folks. I thought this was a democracy. So --- wouldn’t you eventually gather some respect for the ordinary folks out in the countryside? --- if yours was a democratic method?

It is in the middle where we find the ordinary location of the democratic method: it is a middle area between the extremes. It is not acceptable, to me, to totally lack comprehension of your own people even as you "liberals" all hew to the same narrative or the same old MLK jr. embedded narrative. Boring.

What is distinct about this middle, democratic area? The distinction is that there is some sort of tolerance.

Progressives, however ... can be just as intolerant as Right-wingers.

Just for you, My Dear Reader: Kings and Peoples, rewritten

**
Of course: persons are social. Sometimes they socialize only across their borders, while, within, they torture people. The Shah of Iran, for example did this. Here's an essay for you.



...the historical change in world politics came. It happens when the human species shifts from a political framework in which there exists a simultaneous separation and fraternization to something else, and this second framework is that of a technological possibility of more control. This possibility arises as science and technology progress. Now Kings have options of control that they did not have before. First, there is a a period of politics characterised by the duality of fraternization of kings (e.g. marriages from one royal family of one country to another royal family in another country)...(t.b.c., dears)

Oikonomicos

The word Economy, or oeconomy, is derived from oikos, a house, and nomos, law, and meant originally only the wise and legitimate government of the house for the common good of the whole --- the whole family. The meaning of the term was then extended to the government of the greater family, whatever that may be. It seems to make good sense that the word "economy" relates to some defined sub-unit, and not to the open space of international trade. My theory at this time is that there is no theory of what on earth we mean by "economy" in the first place. This is simply not something that people ask.

My final comment:
There will always be a great difference between domestic government, in which a father can see everything for himself, and civil government, where the chief sees hardly anything save through the eyes of others.




**

Kings and people(s)

**
Of course persons are social, and they socialize even if it is only the kind that is transnational. They torture and imprison their own people while hobnobbing with foreign dignitaries. Here's an essay of mine.

...the historical change in world politics came when the human species shifted from a politics in which there existed a simultaneous separation and fraternization to a technological control possibility. There is at one time a period of politics characterised by the duality of fraternization of kings (e.g. marriages from one royal family of one country to another royal family in another country) occuring at the same moment with the practical and physical separation of king (an ultimate singularity) from people. The people/persons (I find the two terms ambiguous) are of course called the "subjects" of the government, which has control over them. A period of simultaneous fraternization and separation now shifts to a period of a technological control possibility.

We can now begin to understand what "progress" is. Progress involves the elimination of a physical separation that had at one time existed, as a matter of practicality and low technology, between the rulers and the people (peuple, if you like French). But now that we are so close to them, the rulers reason, what can we do? Shall we oppress them, or give them some kind of system in which they can have human dignity, human rights, freedoms, opportunities, possibilities, etc.?

In other words, advances in technology or science make it possible for rulers to have direct control. The observation is one that our history books confirm. These history books explain this. At a certain point security apparatuses are placed over the masses. Historians also say that the modern state comes into being as physical possibilities of communication and connection increase. The result is that we sometimes act as if roads and highways and rail lines are good, per se. Is this necessarily so? Why then do we always say it is good? It seems to me that this is ideological. The actions of intellectual hacks grow out of ideological decisions that get made. These fundamental decisions of what the ideology must be then help the intellectual hacks of this benighted world "voluntarily" say the right thing according to the ideological "turn" that has been accomplished --- for example that roads and connections are good things, necessarily. The writers know to repeat the basic formula. They know what ther are supposed to say. It is all ideology. This is why we are saying that (big) pipes, roads and (internet) highways are good. We articulate what the 'ideological superstructure' wants us to. Why should they necessarily be good? They could do various types of harm as well. The modern world has its city folk, and its country folk as well.

No one could stop the change. The emergent possibilities are that either the rulers could attain absolute control - almost certainly they'd then oppress the subjects - or the persons involved could acquire some control themselves. That is a kind of shorthand version of our situation. The modern option we generally endorse (because we are so "nice" and well-trained) is that they should be able to control their own lives.

Generally speaking our awareness is focused on the case of western Europe, where eventually it was the concept of democracy and not something like fascism or totalitarianism that seems to have emerged the victor. (Western Europe is also where they had some wars, killing many). Capitalism helped rather than hindered in the pro-democracy process (1). At this point, then, democracy is taken by the (nice) historians as that which triumphs. The powers of kings are limited. That part I think is indisputable: and, semblances (at any rate) of democracy took root.
Telling the truth is always dangerous. But I'll do it. I think I might make so bold as to say that today we are seeing a reversion away from this general trend towards democracy --- and it's not because of the people of Gabon or something. In other words it is not at all because of a lack of capacity on the part of people; they are still people after all, and the persons forming the human collective or human race are not the problem: my experience is that there's nothing wrong with the masses. In fact, we have got them pretty well educated as a result of all this progress and technology. (I also could say that I know them personally, I've met them, and I can guarantee that they are OK.) Rather it is because powers such as China and Russia and indeed the U.S. and indeed Britain, are unable to commit--they can't commit. They are unable to make a real decision in favor the well-being of this population whom they govern. They are now proving unable to commit themselves to this tradition they are themselves part of. They fail to understand the choice. They fail to definitively commit themselves to this basic choice we outlined above. There are two possibilities for the more technological sort of nation, but the choice to uphold our own hard-won democratic traditions is not made.
Democracy is in danger as the U. S. turns its back on, for example, the world poor. Why not help them? Why not talk about them? For God sake! It seems very ominous not to even talk about them. They are not sufficiently aided --- I guess. I do not feel we are getting any information. That's ominous. These large numbers of persons are not only not sufficiently aided but, ominously, not even discussed in the media (hence we need to "guess" as to their level of material well-being or else hide from one another what the facts are). Media, government and corporations all fail the cause. The cause is the option of democracy, and the intellectual elite in general are failing to protect the population of their countries --- and therefore of the world, since those two are connected. The ordinary people can carry out their human tasks. However, in order to do so, they need the minimal level of support from elites, a class which, after all, does indeed still exist. Those elites ought to do their job.

(1) here, the author has very specific ideas, found elsewhere

C.I.A. program under Bush regime

" Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, called the failure to inform Congress "illegal." "

Everything they did was illegal.


-

Comment on Scott Horton's Writing in Harpers Mag

"Outlaws", by definition, are those who go around breaking the law, basically. I think I can safely say that that’s the definition of “outlaw” but elites rarely call themselves or their own by the term outlaw. This, conversely, also explains why the outlaw tends to become glorified/valorized in the culture. If they cannot be elites, then what can they be? Michel Foucault has something in the book he wrote (“The Politics of Truth”) that is a bit relevant: if Mr. "B" is not “that” kind of outlaw --- then which kind?

What is more than likely the case is that "b" (let's help him hide by switching from upper case to lower case at random) and company did not give a rat's ass about the law. They just wanted to do their own damn thing I guess. That's horrifying --- that kind of disregard. And, yes, it means that they are "outlaws." Really. But then, I just used scare quotes again.

And why is that? Why don't we get to call them outlaws… First of all it's because they are actually worse than outlaws, and secondly, it's because b.b. gunn and Cheney, who ride shotgun together, or something, and shoot turkeys, are not outlaws --- not exactly. They aren't hiding in the rocky valley --- or up on Sugar Mountain. They aren't lame ducks anymore, or sitting ducks, although "sitting duck" sounds like the hunting partner Cheney got to torture by shotgun that fine day. If they are "outlaws" in what sense? -nobody is looking for them. They are -for some reason -not even in demand for those interview or “feature” thingies newspapers do. They aren't hiding, and they aren't on law-enforcement's "(Most) Wanted" list: not at either the local, state of national level. And anyways while we're at it why not make the people who voted for them the outlaws? You'd have to round up 12 or 15% of the population. What kind of a country do you think this is?

It's a democracy and I guess that means the president gets to do whatever he wants. I am sure B. and Cheney are sitting around somewhere and feeling proud – I should say smug, sorry. They certainly are proud and smug at having broken the law. They would like to break more. ("Hi. Are there any more laws I can break?") The guy is clearly an outlaw. These people are perverts and they should be in mental hospitals and they're dangerous. But --- to say, as the Harper’s mag article does, "they waged war against the law itself" ??? What does that mean? They waged war against another state --- the state of Iraq. They attempted to kill, and did succeed in killing thousands of soldiers of the country of Iraq. But who, pray tell, is guilty of that? The United States of America is. Scott Horton may as well say that he wants to put the entire U. S. military in jail. No: kill them. I don't think the Marines would appreciate that and I don't think it would work.

Now, if I was a magazine writer, I would have to say something definitive here. Make some kind of conclusion, you know? But I’ll just leave you with this.

The law was something that got in the way of these persons. What Bush loved was power and his own sense of self-importance. That is typical of any egotist.

I'm on a roll!

President Bush initiated a war against the country of Iraq. Perhaps it was based on some kind of animosity towards Saddam Hussein. He well may have had no reason. That's possible. We'll never know, will we? Eventually a half million persons perished although, admittedly, I stopped counting about three years ago. As the newspapers stopped publishing numbers. We all lost interest. What's done is done. But that is background, for the present post.

Where was the president's big failure? ...Of course, killing people is pretty standard stuff ...the powerful of this world do it all the time... Arguably his real failure is in what we so far have not been able to properly digest. We have not been able to draw our lessons. Again. We need to understand. The nation I mean. When do we go to war and when not? For example --and we'll just focus on the elites and intellectual classes --these two groups need some kind of a theory. But ---- and this is my point ---- after our nation's experience Bush's presidency and his practices or his behaviors we not been able to draw a message. We have not been able to draw a message, as we need to due to the consistency that foreign policy requires. So, there's my gripe.

What happens therefore is that we have no clear precedent for future behavior. Of course, other countries are just scared of us. Big deal. But what about how America or the U. S. thinks of itself? How should we conduct ourselves in the future? Did Bush clarify what we should do in the future? I do not think so.

A few comments about Mr. G. Bush now. G. Bush seems like someone that really went off on his own tangent in life. That is very individualist. Isn't it?. He is a great individualist: Connecticut to Texas. A real self-made man. But that kind of individualism does not tell us what to do now in Iran. And where are these perps now? One may assume that persons like B. and Cheney will just continue saying "I am right," which does not help set an example for the identity of a nation. Saying only that one is better/righter entails refusal to participate in the life of others - of the nation. Hmmm … sounds a bit like the diagnosis would be dementia, related to a strange case of American “Individualism.” “I am right, and if you do not agree – screw you.” That is however not 1) how democracy works, it is not 2) how modernity has proceeded up until now and, also, not 3) really how the capitalist system functions either.

Need I say any more? The president of a modern democracy has an obligation, and this part Bush knew – an obligation to contribute to that particular nation’s role in history. Bush tried and failed, and it is because he never did identify with nation but in a case of demented American Individualism syndrome thought history pre-empted nation. He was clawing away at (or trying to efface) the existence of the group. This is the trap that the conservative tradition leads to.

The Beautiful Ugly Palin Report

She's also threatening the press if they repeat rumors about the construction of her house:
“
To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week … to address such… [defamation].
“
[Andrew Sullivan, July 05; on S. Palin]

There is just this little bitty moment of recognition in my autistic mind when I read that bit. It is from A. Sullivan, July 05. It’s called “Lady Ga Ga Update III.” As soon as my mind reads just a few words – probably “She’s…threatening the…” – I get both the thought that these people lie, and also that when they do, they then cover up. And, if she was lying, and wanted to cover it up, the best way of covering it up would be to accuse others of lying.

People do lie. And I’m not talking about “liberal blogger S___ M____.”

blog of June 30 (entered July 02)

The progressives and activists understand the Republicans to be standing in Obama’s way. Personally I don’t believe in activism. Everyone wants to just sort of sweep the Right out of the way - except the Right themselves of course - but the group represents something that has always been an important force in U S/American affairs. We should come to understand the situation better instead of responding in this way.

Who are the Rightists? Who are these persons, adamantly opposed to any sort of change whatsoever? They even deny that global warming exists only to have it proved so, by their society's own scientists. That never makes them change at all, though --- why are they so insistent on being who they are?!! --- They insist on views that are alienated from the facts of life and the world that has grown up around them – and us -- for two hundred years. But it's all part of society.

I would argue that Rightists represent a reality or a part of the society and therefore, they are a force, like it or not. Progressives or liberals are not going to bring about change if they, like Rightists themselves, do not understand their society.

Why are these people there? Which underlying social realities and human forces do they represent? The "modernity" we live in has a history of being a compromise that includes dissenting elements of Right or Left. Without understanding our real situation as human beings the actions of reformers are not going to be successful - nor in the final analysis really very compassionate. So, before you supposedly sweep the Right out of the way with that activism of yours, guys, it is better to understand who they are. Then you become more human, and, perhaps more respectful.

In the middle, between extremes, is the democratic method. So, the democratic method is a middle area between extremes, and what is distinct about this middle, democratic area is that there is some sort of tolerance.

Progressives, however can be just as intolerant as Right-wingers.

Looking back at Bush

President Bush initiated a war against the country of Iraq based on some kind of animosity towards Saddam Hussein, and in which eventually a half a million persons perished. His big failure, arguably, was/is that what he did has not been properly digested and understood ---- for example by the intellectual elites. And so there is no clear precedent that has been set; he simply went off on his own tangent. This does not tell us what to do, now, in Iran. He acted in isolation, ourside of the life of the country. It was very demented. One may assume that, if anyone cares, persons like B. and Cheney will just continue on saying what they always have: "I am right." But this does not help set any example that is helpful in regard to the identity of a nation. Saying simply that “I am right” is to refuse to participate in the life of the nation. It sounds like a case of a dementia, related to a case of American Individualism. “I am right" entails too much individualism. "If you do not agree with me, screw you.” That may be a perfectly good thing to say in certain contexts, but it doesn't work for government. It is not how democracy works; it is not how modernity has proceeded up until now; and, finally it is not in the real sense how capitalist methods of social organization work. Is it really necessary for me to say any more? The president of a modern democracy has an obligation, as Bush knew well, to contribute to that particular nation’s role in history. Bush failed, because he never did identify with nation but, in a case of demented American Individualism syndrome, thought history pre-empted nation. Nation, of course, implies group, and he was clawing away at the existence of the group. This is the trap that the conservative tradition leads to.

Neda

Unfortunately, this situation is not acceptable. What we are getting in now is just bullshit ---- from all sides, in reference to very important foreign policy matters. The only political leaders that we can elected are basically fools, it seems, and I say that because Obama appears not to know what is at stake. I may be somehow out of date or naive but I have long thought that the country's only distinguishing strength as well as most important feature was a belief in human rights. Some say "democracy," and Liberty and so forth. The U. S., however, does not uphold these values, even though we somehow have been able to have them internally to a certain degree, for some time now. But the first thing I think someone in Obama's position should do is apologize for the U. S. and for the C.I.A.'s having overthrown the government of Iran in 1952. I am not hearing anyone talk about this. Why? Did all those persons get killed recently? I guess I'd better "search" for some of the writers on Google. So the U. S. does not seem to support any more our one strength which is that of democracy and human rights. If we in the "democratic free world" do not support democracy and human rights we are just as good as the other countries and there is no reason why we should have any special power over tyranny or injustice. So it's all hopelss, and Obama, it appears to me, does not understand what is at stake or what is going on in Iran. Having failed to support human rights for other countries, at the current moment, the U. S. is weaker on human rights than it has ever been: Iran's political system is shooting persons in the street, and Obama is not able to say more than something like "yes, I saw the film of Neda, and you know, I found it disgusting." This did not seem to me acceptable, when I saw it. I saw it on the "TV" thing, since my new apartment came with one. I understand that Western Europeans such as the French or Germans did have a stronger response.
Back in the U.S., the position of the Right has no grasp of reality to it; they do not understand history, but just utter slogans. So that has no reality, but the position of the progressives is better informed but there is no grasp of right and wrong. So that's not acceptable. It is clear that the U. S has forgotten all about human rights at the top. It is all talk. The other thing, though, is to back up the talk with brutality or violence: a crackpot invasion of Iraq that leaves us no better informed about who we are, what our policies should look like, or where we stand on human rights. So I said, above, "bullshit from all sides." The U. S. is the most powerful, influential country of them all. I always believed that our strength was that we did did support fairness, justice, and the importance of basic decency in the conduct of persons towards other persons. What am I getting wrong? We are no longer able to tell right from wrong. We are the shame of the human race. This country has failed.
OK NOW IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CLICK ON COMMENTS AND READ MY COMMENT...

In this culture, and this time, it is the P. R. side first

I am not saying it makes sense but in the rational, or “rationalized” version of reality I am apparently supposed to believe that the way I can communicate with the president basically is the internet.

I do not have any particular comment about this. Maybe I am just too old or I do not "get it." What I would like to do is add my own internet experience into the collective data bank of our cultural knowledge.

Step one: I open an email from Barack Obama. This is because president Barack Obama in some sense supposedly sends me emails. That was proactive of him, wasn't it? Yeah and this is how you get elected president. But then I was proactive too, I guess, because I linked from there to the DNC (Democratic National Committee) This was proactive by me. For sure: I just searched “dnc” and immediately found myself on the Democr. Nat’l Comm. website.
What I learned is as follows.

I learned that the first thing you get is the “face” or external part or public relations part. That part of the experience is what comes first. This is considered the valid, respectable. This is the valid way to do it. The pattern, in a little more detail: first, you go into some web experience. This was because of the email from my good buddy Obama, of the U. S.?, and then it was, more pro-actively, from my side, from some another (DNC) website. But each time, what you get is not information per se: first it has to be sorted, into the outide or the wrapper ---- this is the “p. r.” side. That is the opening gambit on each web destination. It is the publicity or p. r. side first.

Of course this is not how a person communicates to a friend or someone that the persons normally works with. That's all I have to say for now.

Review

Book Review ; author: Ifill (Doubleday)



When stuff gets too static, something gives, and whites elect freaks

-with black skin-

Oh. He 'as another blog, eh?

There is a certain type person who is very angry because you have questioned his ideas. These are ideas that often involve the centrality of money and contracts and it could, as well, be some kind of putative “individualism” -- or else it's about property lines: the famous theory of their private property. Yeah. That's a big one. They have dome up with a kind of theory of modern capitalism. But theirs isn't the only one. Many books today do in fact discuss the way that the economic views of the Right took over, starting with Reagan in the 80's. Too bad we let them push us around, but, to tell the truth, I am not sure how to stop it. Of course, we saw what happened in Germany in the thirties when you put morons in charge.

They characteristically are not open to criticism but rather they believe that they can push all other ideas right out the window. Everyone else is obliged to think their way. So they think. And they succeed!

So, if one has even the basic uppityness or the temerity to suggest they may be wrong they bristle, and will not accept the cricism: nor will they regard these interlocutions as particularly valid or sincere. In short, they bristle when their opinions are challenged. You see them on Television. The bigshots do not want to hear new information: they do not need it -- they are the experts. The reason these types exist at all is because there has been an ongoing effort for a hundred or two hundred years to enact just this particular framework. It is a very focused effort to bring certain ideas to the forefront. The ideas fail. Where are all the free-market genius pundits, now that there is an alteration in the economic reality? I discovered only the other day a Britisher name of Mary Midgely, one of the few who bothers to carefully writes about all this. If she is alive she is about 90.
When I crossed the border on a car trip I was surprised. I found the American culture not to be the only way of culture, after all, or only way to do things right. Right, in fact, exists as "derecho" in Spanish. It's interesting. There's a Rubik's language cube there. On that trip I was at our southern border. I could see right away Mexico to be another culture. No one had told me the place even existed. Really they are on their own plan. We have no definitive clue as to why the American view is hegemonic. Linguistically, it is already odd that we say "American," so how far can you even get with this when the language seems not to work properly, since what we mean by "American view" is really the North American or Anglo-American or even European view. But this is the common pattern for speech. Americanism is a bit like our the bullying opaque bristler we met above. A final comment, one that becomes obvious as I write: in the final analysis "America" (whatever that is) and Mexico are both a combination of democracy and fascism.

This is the man who bristles if unable to have his way. It seems that he must have his view be correct.

His view must be correct it seems. But why should one thing be more important than the other --- in the first place? (Of course, it might be, but I'm not sure why it "should" be.) I do not know why his special world view "should" be more important but to him it seems to be. In the cultural aspect, it is usually one view that predominates wherever we are --- and this is one of the ways that we use the word "culture," itself perhaps the most uniquely difficult-to-pin-down term of all the useful, nuanced or profound terms we use in general discourse and discussion. The person that belives in contract theory tenaciously holds his own ground. These fuckers want to fight to the end, don't they?

Usually, though when you can put the contract theory people in their place they become civilized. Oh. So then they tame nicely. The Wall Street Journal (the American king of this view, perhaps compared to England's magazine "the Economist," which could be England's queen of this view --- but that's relative and therefore parenthetical) recently put Thomas Frank on its roster of columnists. That sort of thing always amazes me. What are they going to do, hire me next? Pleeeze no.

I said "contract," as you well know. I did not, of course, mean those who specialise in a particular branch of the law. I mean the proponents of the current system of commerical capitalism that which trades between "individuals" (some of whom employ 20,000 workers, none of whom are individuals at all, with regard to the discipline of their working lives) in the situation we refer to as a --or the --"market." They construct a certain scaffolding around this, and this constitutes the world view that they defend as rational and correct against any freaks or swashbucklers daring to challenge them in their ubiquity, their sense of entitlement. Yet, as mentioned just above the truth is that they tame out rather well once disciplined. Just be careful, if you can, not to give them too much power. But, they always somehow do seem to get too much.
Somehow we do in fact give them too much power. And then they get weird. And this always culminates in something like Hitler or Stalin --- or what is called the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre. Here, Paris lost an estimated fifteen per cent of its population, who died because they were protestants -- as opposed to Catholics, you know. That was it, though and for the next three hundred years (i.e. to date)Paris was on the liberal tolerance system --- which means, and rather simply and concisely in my opinion that we simply let more than just one view or culture exist at one time: in the same place. Like planet earth, maybe?

Bull in China Shop

Norm Coleman keeps trying to take over. He wants power I guess. I think he's a little bit weird. It does not matter to him that he's not the legitimate winner. That doesn't matter, so I guess that's not it. I thought that that would matter. Apparently that people didn't vote for him doesn't count. This seems pretty obvious.

So what matters, then? It is that he feels a really big competitive urge -a hate -towards the other candidate, similar to any kind of ethnic or other bigotry or hatred for "other" or "outsider." Al Franken won. But he's a liberal. I should say I suppose evil liberal. Coleman presumably thinks A. F. is evil. That's what matters. That it's Al Franken who won. Coleman is the type who doesn't want anybody but his party or him.

It is sobering to reflect that we almost had such a reckless, authoritarian person in our nations' highest legislative chamber. (Yes, that's called the "Senate.")

It's a disgrace.

Beginning in approx. 1830

Beginning around 1830, individuals living in the U. S. A. began developing a sense of slavery as a grave wrong that needed to be rectified and an institution that needed to be abolished. A considerable movement arose led by famous men like William Lloyd Garrison. In this way a movement arose. And, it was a form of activism directed toward the South. For - you see - that is precisely where the slavery was. But what does this entail?

We can see that if we are to proceed in this way in our pursuit of ethical values we are opposed to grave moral wrongs and, simultaneously, always locating those wrongs in somewhere other than ourselves; it is not that it was in the negro race: but in the big bad slavers who are harming them.

Notice that this is a righteous combination. If it is moral outrage you need it is there. Additionally it is combined with a view to somebody else. This is someone both wrong and not of one's own group. And yes, Virginia, to this day, scholars still assume things, but with questionable moral certainty, for they are assuming one side unquestionably right, the other unquestionably wrong. The result is a self-righteous attitude not so different from any other form of bigotry. What happens to this clear demarcation, between right and wrong? It disappears when we realize that the bigotry never left the house at all. Ooooops!!!

Well, the only conclusion possible is that it never existed. The moral certainty, I mean – and blaming the South was above all convenient. One never had to go against anyone in one's own neck of the woods. The slaveholding southerners are the same. They too would pose as morally upright; so did the Southerners in the fifties and sixties: like George Wallace. Everyone did this. These righteous gentlemen – Southerners, this time around – resisted integration. They claimed that these new ideas would destroy the "civilization" and moral values of the West. I do not think I am exaggerating because this is documented in Wm. Manchester's two volume work on the period. It’s good reading.

What the South was doing to the blacks the North then did to the South. Gotchya. But what actual good comes out of this? Is anything really changed? Or does all of this just feed into our own self-righteousness? The root downfall in either of the cases is simple: not understanding others. This is as hard for the Northerners, certainly, as it is for the Southerners. Opposition to slavery was the way we in the
U. S. A. expressed our own ethnic strife. Clever.

Western civilization is an old, established thing. It passes through Greece, Rome, the medieval period and the nation-states period – on to the culture of capitalism and democracy. It changes at its own organic pace. Now we have arrived at what we might call modernity. The term is well-known. But is modernity simply another stage like the others or is there something different?

An Interesting Book From Awhile Ago

I saw an interesting book by Louis Fisher the other day. It was in the book section of a local thrift venue, with books at very low-prices, and also excellently classified, and displayed. It's a Madison thing I guess. Fisher's book is one of the raft of books about "the world" that came out just after WWII. I dont know how many there are really but I think I've seen a few others from that same period: a man looks around himself and sees a world. The man tries to discern just what that world is. The man nows tells everybody about what he's seen ---- tells all the folks back home. It is an opportunity for total creativity.
One can always basically paint one's own picture. Looking at the world the individual can see whatever the individual wants to see. The understanding of the world one will see in books written 175 years ago or older is often something entirely distinct as compared with today's fashion. Is today's view more correct? Well, I really, really doubt it. Even books depicting human society from the 1950's are seeing a different thing compared with what authors today see, and it works in both directions. Whether we fast forward or rewind it is not the same thing. For example, the whole particular take on slaves in a book written 175 years ago would differ compared to the concept of slavery in a book written today. The same would go for the concept of the African-American found in a book written in 1950 as compared with today.
This is not to say that a few books do not transcend. Oh yeah. Sure. Definitely; there are the great books. This is not the norm however; few writers can transcend whichever is the fashionable ideology of the time. I am afraid maybe these are just the books we usually end up reading! The superficial ones!

And I hope you are OK with that. It is similar if you look at the differences in view, between the conservative small town or rural person in our American South or Southwest and the urban, urbane and educated one in a Northern city, one who may be more liberal.
The later may be overeducated ---- but he still winds up buying the stereotype book. He is more engaged, has more sources of information, and yet, he too falls into an all too typical point-of-view. On the other hand our small-town or rural friend is totally off in fantasyland: they simply make stuff up. It is a wonder to observe this. It has its points, too. (I mean good ones.) I did observe it, in several years of moving around the Southwest. I found out that Mexicans are planning an imminent invasion of the United States, for example, they are going to use Arizona to enter, probably. And it is imperative that the white folks man the defense lines. (Not to mention that you guys immediately should elect McCain. If possible!!)
Contrary to what liberals reading this may be snickering and thinking, I gained more rather than less respect for this southwestern world, and for the decency of the persons in it. For: the whole point here is that this is what we do. We make it up. We always do this. It's nothing to be ashamed of, because civilization would not be around were the liberals to take over and stop society from this process of blocking reality and making up their own thing.

Oh, yeah, about the writer Louis Fisher: Interesting book. Pick it up. It'll do you about as much good as the average white man's bird's eye view of the Mid-East.

The invasion of I. must, due to the way it was conceived and executed, be understood by us as a totally foolish act. We must begin to question the kinds of persons we have had in power. Bush and Rumsfeld are two names to mention here.

We must ask ourselves whether Americans are really such intelligent people at all.

We need to instigate a project to arrive at clear thinking again, because we seem to have lost it.

Obama talks about freedom or the great qualities of the United States of America or whatever but I think he is missing the underlying malaise that is going on right here all around us. What I've got to say is that every day we get more and more distant from one another; it gets harder to talk to one's neighbors. The little bit of social intercourse the emerging market economy gave us for the last one or two hundred years is wearing thin, wearing out. We are herded more and more, like silent, driven animals, into our places. If on the other hand you like the niche you ended up in, then good for you but a society needs interaction and by the time you wake up and feel the loss it will be too late.
No revolution: it will stay the same as it ever was. It may get worse. But if it gets worse it will collapse altogether. So, I say, we cannot let it just get worse. The processes in place are so heavy, so massive -- and yet we do not even understand either how to change things or even what the things we have in the society today are in the first place.

US/America: born of refugees who escaped suffering and conflict in Europe, they were all thrown together here, and created a friendly, neighborly society.
But now the violence of Europe that the Americans escaped has been reproduced here, so the escape was only temporary.

How 'bout these miracles of the free market? Yeah; How 'bout it? How about the material the ideologically star-struck conservatives talk about? There is none; no competition. There is no one entering any markets -- OK, on the lowest level, like a taco stand in Mexico.
But we are talking about the movers and the shakers and it is a big players enacting sham competition. If a CEO loses in that game he gets replaced and gets a check for millions. This has happened many times, I believe. That isn't competition. It is humorous, but it isn't competition. He isn't risking anything. He is playing a game. Every five years the phenomenon called competition will drop in quality by another degree. And anyways no one wants to compete -- or even interact with -- the disgusting phonies who manage/own the capitalist world nowadays. Just jump into the tank with those barracudas, would jya? You will like it. Competition.

If you are a genuine, honest person that's great. But how much influence will you have in society. If you do not even talk to your neighbors...In this American vacuum?

The Absolute Self-Assuredness of the Republicans

The other day, I was looking at a book. It was by an economist who is extremely loyal to the conservative vision: excessively so. It is Thomas Sowell, and on the back of this book, a compilation of letters, is a blurb by an “editor emeritus” of Forbes magazine that is completely consistent with certain types of conservative expression regarding the alleged “facts.”
The absolute self-assuredness of the “fact-conservatives” is, first of all, astonishing. Or I should say jaw-dropping. Or amazing. This pattern is not rational. It is totally emotional, or else perhaps I should say psychological. They are completely beyond rationality. They are, in their own view of themselves, right automatically.
What we need is not to pillory them, etc. What we should do, rather, is ask why?
A better approach to understanding this volatile cultural situation is that they are frustrated. The best way to understand the situation is that this is a situation of persons who are frustrated. This way we can have sympathy for them instead of always being hostile.
And why are they, in my opinion, “frustrated”? It is because their world is being taken out from under their feet by trans-national capitalism.

Bush's Tendency To Blame Others

In order to support himself in power Bush, had to turn the other people into fools.

It is always the other guy who had to suffer for me: this is Bush's credo. This is intensely sad. Let's all say a prayer for this man.

I am mad

It hit me a few hours after the office of the presidency was switched out: reverted from unacceptable to acceptable. We now have an individual who is reasonable and will work within the suitable cultural parameters of a liberal democracy, rather than violate them.

I felt angry. Just for a second.

Well that is enough of an excuse to write.

This bastard had us INTIMIDATED. He was a bully. (Oh lookee there; I say "bastard.")

What he wanted was to bully us. And now, as Piaget's little children would say: "all gone!"

What Americans want is a condition we know as "freedom" -- or we can say Liberty, or democracy -- or we can also say choice I think. We want to choose. What freedom means to us and what choice means to us is that you can get what you want if what you want is something reasonable. Freedom applies to good, decent persons. Within reason an individual can get what s/ he wants.

This is a simple way of explaining what we want. As a non-Canadian, non-Carribbean, non-Mexican North American I know what we U. S. people are like. I've been here awhile. I know the American system.

Let me clarify the system we live under a little more: Things work when there are two sides or when there is choice. There is always a choice. Individuals need to be free to express themselves.

He took that away. That is what he wanted to do because he is a bully. He wanted everybody to do things in only his way, nobody else's. Then, for some reason, he poses as a guy in favor of "democracy." Only your hairdresser knows for sure, as the old television commercial used to say. So: only his hairdresser - and therapist - know how that works. He was an authoritarian, not a democrat.

What we are looking at here is a massive tapestry of lies and deception.

Obama (the basic idea was sketched out upon arising Tuesday)

OK now let me get this straight in my head. The idea is that he is leader or chief executive or something. Is that it? He is the president? OK. So then what is really a president?

I think after Bush we should really go over this again. Bush and Cheney never had any intention of doing the job as it must be done. Their way of doing things can be summed up: ideological and extreme. Enough said. I think that, deep down, we were probably intimidated by them. This is something we should all 'fess up to.

The man called Bush, he seduced us into allowing a nasty little group of persons into the halls, corridors and offices or whatever -- of power. He seduced the bourgeoise – this is fairly easy, they are fairly easygoing persons – and he also used the support he got at the polling places from the conservative section of the working class. That’s cultural. He used those things to get pretty close to a majority – a majority only out of those who bothered or were able to vote -- Some in Florida had their votes blocked -- and then he stole the rest. That’s the blogging truth.

So what is a president? How is all this stuff supposed to work? – this is to say when it works in a reasonable and inclusive fashion: in a way that accords with what Fukuyama calls liberal democracy. (Yeah, I bought a journal, of “democracy” the other day, at B&Noble.) He says you are supposed to have “juridical” and “political equality.” B&Che were certainly not in favor of that, so, natch, I don’t think they stood for “liberal” democracy.

Yep, that seems to jibe with what I read from Frances “Fuk-u-ya.” I speak truth. I only shortened it and added a few hyphens!

But, anyway, it’s not Fukuya-guy who is president now. It is a representative of us: the people. Well I mean YEAH, WE VOTED HIM IN DIDN’T WE?

Change vs. The Ubiquitous Conformity of American Life

Yeah well Rolling Stone the super-large used-to-be-a-cult-magazine likes Obama like a lot. They practically ordered the youth to vote for him. I doubt that America's redoubtable musical youth-cult members will vote according to any else's desires. But the implication here is that the Rolling Monolith would, natch, like to play its part to take on that awesum burden of ordering kids around. You get the idea. The Rolling Stone has gotten so big by now that cannot roll unless lubricated on the bodies of squashed kids.
So twitter me on my grammar.

Rolling Mothball, how many ways can I roll thee? How much freedom does he have? Is Obama a real choice? Oh I guess I am trying to say does he have one - a choice - real choice - does he have that? ...or is he bound by some kind of conformity? Where are those rubber baby buggy bumper boundaries? OK. I read a thing about Barrack Obama recently (and I would have voted for him, but I was out of town that day) to where he was about 24 or 25 o something and was saying happy of being associated with Harvard University or Harvard Law Rev. for it gives him a foundation, from which to express and activate, etc. As his basis or something. It would, Barrack O. said, give him a base, a more solid foundation to where he can be able to do thingamajigs or perform activisms --- activism, maybe? His cred or his base. It's true that you need a little cred to do things. And you do need to be a citizen to run for president. What he is saying, smartly and truly (and well, I like that), is that he can swing his bat from Harvard yard a bit better --- or from the Law Review (the editorship of which, from the newstand magazine's piece I read could require up to sixty hours a week -yeah; right --- with or without the guy's homework burden we'll never know) --- and "land on his feet." OK so if I have a pin with an eye on one end, and this is hooked around the eye of a similar pin stuck in the foundation of the ground then the pin can swivel. But it can't really move from that place into which it is stuck in the ground. How much freedom then does Barrack Obama really have? The question again: Is it a real choice or is it conformity? To continue with the initial metaphorical language involving balls and stones, Barrack is like a big polished steel ball. The ball is well-polished, and presumably, it can roll somewhere. It goes beyond marketing; he isn't a product. He is a political officer I suppose. Oh I mean official. Sorry. Typo. He isn't "market," is not a glossy magazine, that is just a commercial thing. That is something that made its way into the rack along side the Betty Crocker recipes. This is something political and there has got to be some distinction. Although campaigning may be a little like commerce -- it has competition for dollars in it -- once one is actually elected then he is going to be there for four years. Well, no. All kinds of things could happen. I think we would be shocked if he were killed right now. So they'll probably let him live, for now.
My question, basically, is: how much will he actually change as regards the parts of the system that may need reform? Will he still maneauver within the limited space of social conformity or will he give us the change we need?

He may not know himself. Another thing the newstand book said (did I mention that that article was off the supermarket newstand? It was a Time-Life book. I think so.) -- is that the man has a trait of being restless and switching abruptly from one thing to another.
I think this part here gives us some information: "But he got restless, a condition he describes as "chronic" (and critics say implies unreliability)."

How much can one "change" vs. how much is one obliged to conform...


[The American Journey of Barack.... ; by the editors of LIFE ; 2008]

Initial Post - welcome

There is something called "polite society," or "society."

What it is --- is status. However, as to the real status --- that's truth --- and virtue. What kind of a society do we live in where the very word "virtue" is thrown away like it is rubbish?

What Isaiah Berlin might say we live in -were he alive -is "the modern." On the other hand it is important to note that there may be kinds of modernity. The idea is that there may be authoritarian ones (examples of which we have seen in the 20th cent. and still see today, in places such as Burma, China and any number of other states, including, very likely, certain parts of the terrible United States of America), and, "liberal" ones. This later is, of course, the Isaiah Berlin-endorsed system (which does not mean to imply that he had any such power).

Leftists say it is class that rules. What rules is polite society. What I mean by that hackneyed phrase is something like an informal concatenation: rules, gestures, manners, biology and other factors. That is what "polite society" is. Maybe this is not too difficult to understand.

The fact is that the truth is held by neither one class or the other. The job of the society itself -ultimately we have to talk about the upper class part here -is to uphold truth and virtue. Now, while a classless society is a worthy ideal what we have are the members of polite society, and, in all practicality what we need thim to do is not drop the ball on our behalf --- throwing the rest of us to the dogs.

All over the world, there are many intelligent persons in various and sundry places. The fact is: the ones ruling things are the ones of this polite society. They are the ones in control.

Not the sturdy peasantry.

There have been many debates, have there not? -- about what is the correct form of human society or human social organization? There are also theories that these things just work themselves out, independently, with no interference needed, of an intentional kind. Milton Friedman's ideas indicate that he wanted to have a minimal security structure -- some kind of public security structure -- and otherwise everything is to be "private" or based on what he and his wife in their tome "Free To Choose" describe as business -or "private" -profit.

What is not clear here, upon analysis, is just how big this limited government should be nor what limits its size. Enough about him. Anarchists -I find it odd that it works this way -are also holders of the idea, this idea that everything can just take care of itself. But otherwise we think that there has to be some actual government or other institutional structure that structures, stabilizes.

II

For example, right now (just barely into 2009) we are having a meltdown in what Soros calls one of two parts of the economy: the financial structure or financial sector --- as paired with the actual, physical economy. Most of us, other than the anarchists or Friedmanites, think that there has to be some strucural intervention.
But beyond that no one has very much to say. Obama claims he will better distinguish aid for the financial side of the economy from aid for the physical side of the economy, but, these are just claims coming from a person who, so far, has shown his ability to win elections. He has not made any decisive move yet to make his mark. He is, in fact, the latest member of the elite: the polite society. Just the other day he posed very politely, very nicely, with the other four living presidents and the current one, who claimed, at the photo op for a lunch that they say these guys had, that he too was an ex-president --- jumping the gun a bit.
That happens in 10 days, actually, Beaver.




endnotes:
the phrase "kinds of modernity" corresponds to the work of an English fellow named Gray, at the LSE --- John Gray. I am not particularly fond of this man, but he does use the concept as did I.