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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
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.
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?
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?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
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]
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]
Thursday, January 8, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)