Technology and its forms are like an infinite number of roads with and infinite number of forks. For instance, the internet has been shaped and formed by the way that we have used it. Despite the hype from polyannas who say "it makes us smarter." or "it can change the world." a recent survey was done as to what the vast majority of Americans use the internet for. #1 was social networking...#2 was email, #3 was www use consisting of buying and selling and viewing porn and sports. The web was dubbed "in jest" world wide wiretap by its creators. That is to say, the internet is being increasingly used for pernicious reasons namely surveliance and disinformation. Other than that it is basically an extremely powerful advertizing tool. This is not a description or criticism OF THE TECHNOLOGY. It is a description and criticism OF THE USES OF THE TECHNOLOGY. It is the uses of a technology that will shape the direction it moves in in the future. And at this point that is not a good direction for the internent.
The only thing that "makes us smarter" is what we do with our mind. The use of the internet is a generic activity. it is really simply an all encompassing almost instant form of communication. But "communication" is itself not an end but a means. The real question we must increasingly ask ourselves is the old Aristotelian questions of ends. We can "communicate" with anyone we please anytime. OK?? And??? Then what?? The real question of the future is not increasing access to technology or increasing internet use or whatever. That is being achieved at an almost breathless rate. The question of the future is "WHAT are we going to communicate about with each other??" What purpose does the communication serve. It seems to me that communication with no or hardly any purpose is increasing.
Again, the point is, technology moves in the directions of its most used applications. If we use technology for increasing frivilous forms of communicating the technolgy will increasingly facilitate that application in a vicious cycle. The development of technology does not occur in a beam but in a spectrum. The particular uses that people most make of the technology is the direction that technology will develop fastest. This is to say the most important component of any technology is the mind using it. We should consider that more often.
John
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010 (journal entry)
The contradictions of the Left
The Left's view that Justice is promoted through the promotion of group identities and by a powerful central government is fallacious historically.
Historically, the Civil War was not a matter of a powerful Federal government standing up for the rights of black people. The Civil War was started by Abolitionists, both Black and White, who rightly refused to abide by the edicts of the federal government to protect slavery where it already existed. It is true that the federal government tried to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories. However, even this limited effort was attenuated in 1854 by the Kansas and Nebraska Act that introduced the unjust idea of Popular Sovereignty as to whether to allow slavery.
By its protection of Slave owners rights the Federal government was itself dividing the Union not upon sectional lines but racial lines. Thus we see that it was as much the actions of the federal government in its protection of slavery that promoted disunion as it was the actions of individual states. It was therefore a false choice that the war was either to end slavery or save the Union. It was only by ending slavery that the Union, disunified along racial lines, could be restored. Any nation thus divided along racial lines was already disunified before the war began and even before secession. This is what Lincoln meant in his "House Divided" speech.
In the South, secession was dishonestly justified by an argument for "states' rights" and decentralized power. This was to gain support of the majority who were non-slaveholders. The primary issue at the Secession Conventions was slavery, pure and simple. They could not abide the growing Abolitionist movement in the North that wanted to attack slavery and the South as immoral and evil. The South, therefore, saw itself as a different nation than the North culturally as opposed to any political differences that existed. This was demonstrated in the Confederate Constitution that was almost a duplicate of the Federal Constitution in its political arrangements but was specific in its protection of the cultural institution of chattel slavery. The Confederacy had not allegiance to State or even individual rights as demonstrated by it actions domestically in the South during the war.
In this historical example we see that contradiction in the notion of the Left that it has historically been a powerful central government that promotes Justice. In the Civil Rights Era we see this same contradiction. The Civil Rights Era is viewed by most on the Left as being the story of the Federal government's promotion of Justice. Although there is some justification for this view compared to during the Civil War, it is not so simple a story. Segragation was a pattern of laws enforced by state and local governments and in many ways by the Federal government where it had jurisdiction such as in DC during the Wilson administration.
It was only by the late 1950s or so that the Federal government began grudgingly to oppose Segragation laws. It did not do this out of any sense of Justice but by being agitated against by the Sovereign power in a free nation: the People in their political capacity. Just as the Abolitionists, as free citizens, formed groups to oppose slavery, so Civil rights minded American citizens formed groups to oppose injustice in a Segragated and disunified society.
The idea that an enormously powerful central government will be responsive to minority rights or civil rights for minorities of people is a quaint and fallacious argument unsupported by the hard facts of history. It is the People themselves, organizing and acting in their political capacity that promote any real and lasting change in a free society. The Federal government and all the governments in the nation down to dogcatcher belong to them in their political capacity as free citizens. This is written directly into the Constitution by the method of amending it through conventions of the People.
It is in the nature of an unchecked and overweening central government to usurp Justice, even when no plan or conspiracy for such usurpation exists. A wolf cannot be expected to control his ravenous appetite when guarding the hens. The Left, or large parts of it, have never seemed to understand this. That fact to this moment baffles me.
Power into will, will into appetite
And appetite, a universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power
Must make perforce a universal prey
And last eat himself up.
William Shakespeare from "Troilus and Cressida"
The Left's view that Justice is promoted through the promotion of group identities and by a powerful central government is fallacious historically.
Historically, the Civil War was not a matter of a powerful Federal government standing up for the rights of black people. The Civil War was started by Abolitionists, both Black and White, who rightly refused to abide by the edicts of the federal government to protect slavery where it already existed. It is true that the federal government tried to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories. However, even this limited effort was attenuated in 1854 by the Kansas and Nebraska Act that introduced the unjust idea of Popular Sovereignty as to whether to allow slavery.
By its protection of Slave owners rights the Federal government was itself dividing the Union not upon sectional lines but racial lines. Thus we see that it was as much the actions of the federal government in its protection of slavery that promoted disunion as it was the actions of individual states. It was therefore a false choice that the war was either to end slavery or save the Union. It was only by ending slavery that the Union, disunified along racial lines, could be restored. Any nation thus divided along racial lines was already disunified before the war began and even before secession. This is what Lincoln meant in his "House Divided" speech.
In the South, secession was dishonestly justified by an argument for "states' rights" and decentralized power. This was to gain support of the majority who were non-slaveholders. The primary issue at the Secession Conventions was slavery, pure and simple. They could not abide the growing Abolitionist movement in the North that wanted to attack slavery and the South as immoral and evil. The South, therefore, saw itself as a different nation than the North culturally as opposed to any political differences that existed. This was demonstrated in the Confederate Constitution that was almost a duplicate of the Federal Constitution in its political arrangements but was specific in its protection of the cultural institution of chattel slavery. The Confederacy had not allegiance to State or even individual rights as demonstrated by it actions domestically in the South during the war.
In this historical example we see that contradiction in the notion of the Left that it has historically been a powerful central government that promotes Justice. In the Civil Rights Era we see this same contradiction. The Civil Rights Era is viewed by most on the Left as being the story of the Federal government's promotion of Justice. Although there is some justification for this view compared to during the Civil War, it is not so simple a story. Segragation was a pattern of laws enforced by state and local governments and in many ways by the Federal government where it had jurisdiction such as in DC during the Wilson administration.
It was only by the late 1950s or so that the Federal government began grudgingly to oppose Segragation laws. It did not do this out of any sense of Justice but by being agitated against by the Sovereign power in a free nation: the People in their political capacity. Just as the Abolitionists, as free citizens, formed groups to oppose slavery, so Civil rights minded American citizens formed groups to oppose injustice in a Segragated and disunified society.
The idea that an enormously powerful central government will be responsive to minority rights or civil rights for minorities of people is a quaint and fallacious argument unsupported by the hard facts of history. It is the People themselves, organizing and acting in their political capacity that promote any real and lasting change in a free society. The Federal government and all the governments in the nation down to dogcatcher belong to them in their political capacity as free citizens. This is written directly into the Constitution by the method of amending it through conventions of the People.
It is in the nature of an unchecked and overweening central government to usurp Justice, even when no plan or conspiracy for such usurpation exists. A wolf cannot be expected to control his ravenous appetite when guarding the hens. The Left, or large parts of it, have never seemed to understand this. That fact to this moment baffles me.
Power into will, will into appetite
And appetite, a universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power
Must make perforce a universal prey
And last eat himself up.
William Shakespeare from "Troilus and Cressida"
Sunday, August 22, 2010
From my Journal:August 18 2010
The US today faces a crisis of purpose the like of which it has not faced since 1860. This is no crisis of confidence in the country per se. There is an over-confidence on Right and Left in the purpose of our political agendas, deeming them to be essential to pursue the purpose we believe in for the country. The crisis is rooted in the sharp disagreements over the purpose of the United States in the present and the future. The disagreements are not only between Left and Right but within them as well.
The differences in purpose are rooted in the different ideas we hold on the Right and Left regarding the Identity of the United States. How do we see ourselves?? The Left identifies America with the idea of the struggle for Justice. This largely centered around the Civil War and Civil Rights Eras. It is primarily emphasizing the equal treatment both legally and socially of different indentifiable groups. The Right identifies America with the struggle for Liberty. This view emphasizes the Revolution, the Declaration, and increasing World War II as the time when the struggle for Liberty and America as "the most powerful nation on Earth" came together.
So we see contradiction and dichotomies in both poles of American politics. Starting on the Right, we'll then examine the American Left.
The Right has melded the struggle to be "the most powerful nation on Earth" into one unified purpose for the nation that it views as self-supporting. To the Right, it is self-evident that being and struggling to stay the most powerful nation on Earth supports the struggle for Liberty. The Right, to move forward, must disabuse itself of this vision. We must recognize that it is often the struggle to become and then stay the most powerful nation on earth that subverts, not supports, the struggle for Liberty. It is at once parodoxical and tragic that those nations at the pinnacle of the protection of Liberty often blindly move toward the pinnacle of world power. It is the desperate struggle to succeed in the latter that ultimately saboutages and hampers the struggle in the former. Ultimately a nation must choose between freedom at home or empire abroad, it cannot have both because the efforts to secure the later neccessarily threaten the former.
We must have the vision of our Fathers. Our greatness is not built upon power, either military or economic. Greatness is built upon a divided and gentle government, limited in scope, whose purpose is the protection of the Liberty of the individual person. Power flows into this kind of nation from the trust that it engenders within and among the people between themselves and their government. It is this trust that unifies the nation. It is this unity that over time fosters national greatness. It is this trust that we are losing, this unity that seems in danger and this greatness that one can only whisper about now as it becomes a memory.
The process of rebuilding trust is slow and must begin from with a nation, not from ephemeral successes outside of of it. Goodness and Greatness are perilous partners. Any identity that seeks to combine the two into one national purpose is a journey with no happy endings, fraught with danger laced in sorrow.
(more soon on the contradictions of the Left)
The differences in purpose are rooted in the different ideas we hold on the Right and Left regarding the Identity of the United States. How do we see ourselves?? The Left identifies America with the idea of the struggle for Justice. This largely centered around the Civil War and Civil Rights Eras. It is primarily emphasizing the equal treatment both legally and socially of different indentifiable groups. The Right identifies America with the struggle for Liberty. This view emphasizes the Revolution, the Declaration, and increasing World War II as the time when the struggle for Liberty and America as "the most powerful nation on Earth" came together.
So we see contradiction and dichotomies in both poles of American politics. Starting on the Right, we'll then examine the American Left.
The Right has melded the struggle to be "the most powerful nation on Earth" into one unified purpose for the nation that it views as self-supporting. To the Right, it is self-evident that being and struggling to stay the most powerful nation on Earth supports the struggle for Liberty. The Right, to move forward, must disabuse itself of this vision. We must recognize that it is often the struggle to become and then stay the most powerful nation on earth that subverts, not supports, the struggle for Liberty. It is at once parodoxical and tragic that those nations at the pinnacle of the protection of Liberty often blindly move toward the pinnacle of world power. It is the desperate struggle to succeed in the latter that ultimately saboutages and hampers the struggle in the former. Ultimately a nation must choose between freedom at home or empire abroad, it cannot have both because the efforts to secure the later neccessarily threaten the former.
We must have the vision of our Fathers. Our greatness is not built upon power, either military or economic. Greatness is built upon a divided and gentle government, limited in scope, whose purpose is the protection of the Liberty of the individual person. Power flows into this kind of nation from the trust that it engenders within and among the people between themselves and their government. It is this trust that unifies the nation. It is this unity that over time fosters national greatness. It is this trust that we are losing, this unity that seems in danger and this greatness that one can only whisper about now as it becomes a memory.
The process of rebuilding trust is slow and must begin from with a nation, not from ephemeral successes outside of of it. Goodness and Greatness are perilous partners. Any identity that seeks to combine the two into one national purpose is a journey with no happy endings, fraught with danger laced in sorrow.
(more soon on the contradictions of the Left)
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Strategic Situation(I)
Overall, American foreign policy is just as incoherent and directionless as in the final 5 or 6 years of the Bush 43 administration. What American policy there is are policies directed at either Iran or North Korea and trying to "engage" the help of larger powers, most of whose interests coincide only vaguely and occasionally with our own.
Afghanistan is a tactical quagmire and a strategic disaster for the US. Iraq is proving to be that as well. The effects of these two endless wars have been to "terrorize" the US military. That is: to shape its training to a point where it is all geared toward "anti-terrorism" and heavy combat training is either delayed or posponed indefinitely. In this sense the US military has again become a hollowed out force with units only prepared for nation-building operations in Iraq or Afghanistan and unprepared for any type of more conventional warfare. It is a general rule of thumb in world affairs that the events you are not prepared for are the ones usually thrust upon you. The next war between major powers will be both conventional and unconventional.
The strategic situation vis a vis China and Russia sees a deepening of their relationship on the military and economic levels. This is perilous for the US and some way must be found to drive a wedge between these two giants as it is obvious the US is unwilling or unable to recognize the threat a Sino-Russian reproachment will bring. One curious little note is that Russia has cut off all grain exports until December 1st due to a drought/and or fires. It is of interest, at least to me, that just 25 or 30 years ago every Western analyst would have recognized this action as a war preparation. But of course that is now unthinkable. (more soon).
Afghanistan is a tactical quagmire and a strategic disaster for the US. Iraq is proving to be that as well. The effects of these two endless wars have been to "terrorize" the US military. That is: to shape its training to a point where it is all geared toward "anti-terrorism" and heavy combat training is either delayed or posponed indefinitely. In this sense the US military has again become a hollowed out force with units only prepared for nation-building operations in Iraq or Afghanistan and unprepared for any type of more conventional warfare. It is a general rule of thumb in world affairs that the events you are not prepared for are the ones usually thrust upon you. The next war between major powers will be both conventional and unconventional.
The strategic situation vis a vis China and Russia sees a deepening of their relationship on the military and economic levels. This is perilous for the US and some way must be found to drive a wedge between these two giants as it is obvious the US is unwilling or unable to recognize the threat a Sino-Russian reproachment will bring. One curious little note is that Russia has cut off all grain exports until December 1st due to a drought/and or fires. It is of interest, at least to me, that just 25 or 30 years ago every Western analyst would have recognized this action as a war preparation. But of course that is now unthinkable. (more soon).
Sunday, July 4, 2010
International Law
US policy over the last 30 years or so has ceded the debate over the International system of Law to the international Left and the anti-American sentiment among many nation. Human rights resolutions at the UN are largely used as an anti-western tool, such as denunciations of Israel. UN practices are too ofen used to shield authoritarian states like Iran and North Korea as their labyrinthine nature cause them to be ineffective.
The UN is a body of largly equal nation-states with each state's adherance to respect for human rights or any limitations upon control over its people largley ignored. The US, because of its lack of interest in International Law, has dangerously ceded all of these legal points to its enemies on the world state. States such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe and a gaggle of other such violators of individual liberty have been shielded by a dome of International Law.
The US has abrogated its responsibilty to its interests to shape international law in a way that will explicitly protect individual rights and thereby implicitly serve US interests.Instead we see a headlong rush to furth "global governance" in an anti-Western direction based upon a nation-state system. The policies of centralized states have been allowed to promulgate on the international stage, shaping international law.
Paradoxically, the only way global government or even "global governance" will ever be acceptable, much less effective, is if it adopts a decentralized structure that is at the heart of the American idea of Federalism. Unforunately, this view of global government is largely antithetical to the ideas of those who advocate it, as it is centralization of power and not diversity of culture or interests that they seek. The victory of this view of centralized international law and government is a consequence of the American reatreat from the debate over the last 30 years.
"One World" may someday be possible and might be desirable. A one-government world, however, will by its nature be authoritarian if not totalitarian and will lead to more division and conflict in the world not less.
The UN is a body of largly equal nation-states with each state's adherance to respect for human rights or any limitations upon control over its people largley ignored. The US, because of its lack of interest in International Law, has dangerously ceded all of these legal points to its enemies on the world state. States such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe and a gaggle of other such violators of individual liberty have been shielded by a dome of International Law.
The US has abrogated its responsibilty to its interests to shape international law in a way that will explicitly protect individual rights and thereby implicitly serve US interests.Instead we see a headlong rush to furth "global governance" in an anti-Western direction based upon a nation-state system. The policies of centralized states have been allowed to promulgate on the international stage, shaping international law.
Paradoxically, the only way global government or even "global governance" will ever be acceptable, much less effective, is if it adopts a decentralized structure that is at the heart of the American idea of Federalism. Unforunately, this view of global government is largely antithetical to the ideas of those who advocate it, as it is centralization of power and not diversity of culture or interests that they seek. The victory of this view of centralized international law and government is a consequence of the American reatreat from the debate over the last 30 years.
"One World" may someday be possible and might be desirable. A one-government world, however, will by its nature be authoritarian if not totalitarian and will lead to more division and conflict in the world not less.
Remembering Myself
Every act of creation is a worhipful act toward God. Writing a word on a page is an act of creation. In a sense it is also an act of Revolution but also of Tradition. Let us say writing is the acto of the Traditional Revolutionary. It is the weapon of choice for all true revolutionaries down through the centuries. Writing is an act in which thought and action combine. Often through the action, thought is enhanced.
When one reaches a point where writing becomes tedious and topics seem meaningless the key is to keep writing, the hand movong. Start with a topic in the very present moment. The present moment is that perfect combination of all our senses and mind working together. There is no memory involved. Or is there??
Does not the present moment, any moment, conjure up countless memories?? A word can create a thousand pictures, what of a book, or a song?? Any action one takes is bound to be something that one has done in the past. The present may contain different elements. But some sensation in the present moment opens up an entire past world in which possibilities that seem to have past one by a still open.
It is in this way, perhaps, that our memories give us hope. Hope, as Aristotle wrote, is a waking dream. Hope is an expectation, usually unfullfilled, that the wrong can still be righted, that time in its ubiquity has somehow granted an exception for us, that we may walk again, that our dreams can appear to us in our waking eyes and not only our sleeping thoughts.
Can life then simply be an engineering exercise in which we input thought and effort and heart and a commensurate output is produced? I think not. In our memories lurks the key to our redemption and destruction. This constitutes and forms the unpredictabilities of life. These uncertainties constitute the sum total of the memory of Humankind. Each one of us acts upon the ghosts of our memories, the past creating the future in a wheel where the prevalence of spontanaity and surprise is guaranteed by the individuality of our memories, of our minds.
Memory is an essential and dangerous necessity that continually breaks the stale crust of the desire to control the life of this world.
When one reaches a point where writing becomes tedious and topics seem meaningless the key is to keep writing, the hand movong. Start with a topic in the very present moment. The present moment is that perfect combination of all our senses and mind working together. There is no memory involved. Or is there??
Does not the present moment, any moment, conjure up countless memories?? A word can create a thousand pictures, what of a book, or a song?? Any action one takes is bound to be something that one has done in the past. The present may contain different elements. But some sensation in the present moment opens up an entire past world in which possibilities that seem to have past one by a still open.
It is in this way, perhaps, that our memories give us hope. Hope, as Aristotle wrote, is a waking dream. Hope is an expectation, usually unfullfilled, that the wrong can still be righted, that time in its ubiquity has somehow granted an exception for us, that we may walk again, that our dreams can appear to us in our waking eyes and not only our sleeping thoughts.
Can life then simply be an engineering exercise in which we input thought and effort and heart and a commensurate output is produced? I think not. In our memories lurks the key to our redemption and destruction. This constitutes and forms the unpredictabilities of life. These uncertainties constitute the sum total of the memory of Humankind. Each one of us acts upon the ghosts of our memories, the past creating the future in a wheel where the prevalence of spontanaity and surprise is guaranteed by the individuality of our memories, of our minds.
Memory is an essential and dangerous necessity that continually breaks the stale crust of the desire to control the life of this world.
Remembering My Country (II)
Much of the dispute over taxation was precipitated by Great Britain's growing debt precipatated by the French and Indian War from 1756 to 1763. Her debt had risen by 58 million pounds from a base of 130 million pounds. This caused Parliament to search for new sources of revenue.
Britain won the global war with the French. However, in the course of the war she had to buy mercenaries in order to fight Her land battles in Europe. Therefore, She was in a deep debt crisis that was unprecedented for the time.
In 1761, before the end of the war, Britain made a more vigorous effort to collect customs duties from the Colonies. Courts, prompted by Customs officials , issued writs of assistance. These were orders autrhorizing police force to be used to search for smuggled goods on the private premises of American merchants. The Americans vehemently protested this as a violation of their rights as Englishmen. The brilliant young Bostonian lawyer James Otis made this argument in the courts. Otis argued that the courts had no legal right to issue the writs because Parliament had no legal right to authorize them. This argument by Otis was the intellectual spark that lit the American Rebellion. It was the first American legal argument disputing Parliament's unlimited right to make laws for the Colonies. The Americans were gaining the habit of governing themselves and they were preparing the intellectual and legal arguments to justify that position.
Long before bullets and lead were shot into Redcoat bellies, Americans were forming the philosophical arguments to justify the purpose of an American Nation. That purpose was Self-Government. The idea that you reading these words, whoever you are, have the duty to govern yourself in a lawful manner and that you have the Right to participate in the formation of those laws that you have the duty to obey. This is the relationship between duty and law, between obediance and freedom, between security and Liberty. They are all necessary to one another because they form a whole called Freedom under the Law.
Today, you celebrate your duty and right to govern yourself. Tomorrow, and every other day, you practice and defend that duty and right by thinking, reading, writing, debating, and governing. That is the duty and right of an American. That is the teleological purpose of our American nation. That is why I am still proud when I call myself an American.
Britain won the global war with the French. However, in the course of the war she had to buy mercenaries in order to fight Her land battles in Europe. Therefore, She was in a deep debt crisis that was unprecedented for the time.
In 1761, before the end of the war, Britain made a more vigorous effort to collect customs duties from the Colonies. Courts, prompted by Customs officials , issued writs of assistance. These were orders autrhorizing police force to be used to search for smuggled goods on the private premises of American merchants. The Americans vehemently protested this as a violation of their rights as Englishmen. The brilliant young Bostonian lawyer James Otis made this argument in the courts. Otis argued that the courts had no legal right to issue the writs because Parliament had no legal right to authorize them. This argument by Otis was the intellectual spark that lit the American Rebellion. It was the first American legal argument disputing Parliament's unlimited right to make laws for the Colonies. The Americans were gaining the habit of governing themselves and they were preparing the intellectual and legal arguments to justify that position.
Long before bullets and lead were shot into Redcoat bellies, Americans were forming the philosophical arguments to justify the purpose of an American Nation. That purpose was Self-Government. The idea that you reading these words, whoever you are, have the duty to govern yourself in a lawful manner and that you have the Right to participate in the formation of those laws that you have the duty to obey. This is the relationship between duty and law, between obediance and freedom, between security and Liberty. They are all necessary to one another because they form a whole called Freedom under the Law.
Today, you celebrate your duty and right to govern yourself. Tomorrow, and every other day, you practice and defend that duty and right by thinking, reading, writing, debating, and governing. That is the duty and right of an American. That is the teleological purpose of our American nation. That is why I am still proud when I call myself an American.
Remembering My Country (I)
The principal dispute regarding taxation between the American colonies and Britain was the specific authority to level particular taxes. The colonial Assemblies asserted that Parliament only had authority over external taxes. That is control over trade matters. Their position was that parliament had no authority over taxing internal interactions among the Colonies. The Assemblies had sole authority in those areas and the sole right to tax. This was the crux of the American argument regarding no taxation without representation.
Parliament argued that the Colonies had "virtual representaion" in Parliament because it represented the the interests of the entire empire. Eventually, the Colonists argued that the legality of any tax lay in its intention not its ostensible purpose. Therefore, a tax upon exports that had a hidden purpose of raising revenue and not simply regulating external trade was an unconstitutional tax based on the ancient unwritten English constitution. Great Britain as a sovereign nation had the right to regulate trade. But She did not have the right to levee taxes upon a people that had no say in their implementation.
Many Colonists, including Benjamin Franklin, came to the conclusion that the distinction between external and internal taxation had become indeterminant and therefore Parliament had no authority to pass any laws for the Colonies.
Parliament argued that the Colonies had "virtual representaion" in Parliament because it represented the the interests of the entire empire. Eventually, the Colonists argued that the legality of any tax lay in its intention not its ostensible purpose. Therefore, a tax upon exports that had a hidden purpose of raising revenue and not simply regulating external trade was an unconstitutional tax based on the ancient unwritten English constitution. Great Britain as a sovereign nation had the right to regulate trade. But She did not have the right to levee taxes upon a people that had no say in their implementation.
Many Colonists, including Benjamin Franklin, came to the conclusion that the distinction between external and internal taxation had become indeterminant and therefore Parliament had no authority to pass any laws for the Colonies.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
On Avatar
"Avatar" is an entertaining film that failed to take risks in a way that would have allowed it to explore the implications of the human culture it hints has been created by the year 2150.
Briefly, it is about a human mining project on the moon Pandora, a moon of a Jupiter-like planet in 2150 AD. Humans are mining a certain mineral that can be used on earth. In the process of mining, the indigenous beings on Pandora are threatened in their traditions and way of life. These are big, blue, feline-like humanoids who can communicate on a cellular level with all the plants and animals on Pandora. They are called the Nav'i. Eventually a war breaks out between the Nav'i and humans and the humans are expelled from Pandora.
Two major themes of Avatar are Enviromentalism and anti-interventionism. In exploring these themes James Cameron, the writer/director uses strong and pervasive allusions to current events in enviromental affairs and American foreign policy. However, in the use of these allusions, Cameron sacrifices any subtle examination of how these themes might have evolved in 140 years. Cameron's characters, the majority of which he barely develops past right-wing paleo-jingoists, are straight out of 2010 USA. They frame issues and use the same catch-phrases current in 2010. They are divided, as is 2010 America in the view of Cameron, between the virtuous, enviromentalists, non-interventionists and the intervetionists greedy for a commodity.
Cameron misses an incredible opportunity to examine the evolution of how these ideas would develop over 150 years. First, in terms of Enviromentalism,no sublety of thought is shown in those who want to mine the mineral. Presumably, humanity needs this mineral on earth. An interesting conflict could have been developed between "earth centered" enviromentalists and "universalists." A conflict between enviromentalists who want to "save the earth" using the resources of the Universe and those who want to preserve a pristine Universe, earth be damned. This would be a conflict more relevant to a 2150 society than the 2010 conflicts Cameron imagines surviving for 150 years.
Second, when examining the conflict between earth-centered enviromentalists and Universalists, Cameron again views the issue from a 2010 perspective. In 2150, the world Cameron presumably wanted to create, "save the earth" would be a jingoistic battle-cry in the war against the Nav'i. The film intimates that humanity is united in some kind of confederation(although strangely virtually all the humans are white Americans, looking acting and talking like its 2010). Under these political conditions it would almost certainly be enviromentalists advocating intervention on other planets to "save the earth", a phrase that would become comparable to "God bless America" perhaps.
Avatar takes no risks in its politics, its cultural ideas, and even its technological view of the future. It is basic boiler-plate "Gaia Theory" enviromentalism and a mishmash of critical assumptions regarding American foreign policy. It transports the minds and attitudes of 2010 Americans into the year 2150 and presumes no changes in the political and cultural conflicts that exist today. It is as if 150 years of culture, politics, and human life would leave today's political theories and conflicts untouched and unexamined. In that sense, there is not much science here and a whole lot of fiction. Even its vision of the technology of 2150 is the most unambitious in the history of science fiction, with gadgets that look almost contemporary.
In conclusion, Avatar is entertaining. However, it is a shallow examination of the future and in that sense it could have been so much more. It tries so hard to prove current Leftist enviromental and cultural ideas that it fails to do the job of great science fiction and transport the viewer into a world of the future. In that sense it was a disappointment and a lost opportunity.
Briefly, it is about a human mining project on the moon Pandora, a moon of a Jupiter-like planet in 2150 AD. Humans are mining a certain mineral that can be used on earth. In the process of mining, the indigenous beings on Pandora are threatened in their traditions and way of life. These are big, blue, feline-like humanoids who can communicate on a cellular level with all the plants and animals on Pandora. They are called the Nav'i. Eventually a war breaks out between the Nav'i and humans and the humans are expelled from Pandora.
Two major themes of Avatar are Enviromentalism and anti-interventionism. In exploring these themes James Cameron, the writer/director uses strong and pervasive allusions to current events in enviromental affairs and American foreign policy. However, in the use of these allusions, Cameron sacrifices any subtle examination of how these themes might have evolved in 140 years. Cameron's characters, the majority of which he barely develops past right-wing paleo-jingoists, are straight out of 2010 USA. They frame issues and use the same catch-phrases current in 2010. They are divided, as is 2010 America in the view of Cameron, between the virtuous, enviromentalists, non-interventionists and the intervetionists greedy for a commodity.
Cameron misses an incredible opportunity to examine the evolution of how these ideas would develop over 150 years. First, in terms of Enviromentalism,no sublety of thought is shown in those who want to mine the mineral. Presumably, humanity needs this mineral on earth. An interesting conflict could have been developed between "earth centered" enviromentalists and "universalists." A conflict between enviromentalists who want to "save the earth" using the resources of the Universe and those who want to preserve a pristine Universe, earth be damned. This would be a conflict more relevant to a 2150 society than the 2010 conflicts Cameron imagines surviving for 150 years.
Second, when examining the conflict between earth-centered enviromentalists and Universalists, Cameron again views the issue from a 2010 perspective. In 2150, the world Cameron presumably wanted to create, "save the earth" would be a jingoistic battle-cry in the war against the Nav'i. The film intimates that humanity is united in some kind of confederation(although strangely virtually all the humans are white Americans, looking acting and talking like its 2010). Under these political conditions it would almost certainly be enviromentalists advocating intervention on other planets to "save the earth", a phrase that would become comparable to "God bless America" perhaps.
Avatar takes no risks in its politics, its cultural ideas, and even its technological view of the future. It is basic boiler-plate "Gaia Theory" enviromentalism and a mishmash of critical assumptions regarding American foreign policy. It transports the minds and attitudes of 2010 Americans into the year 2150 and presumes no changes in the political and cultural conflicts that exist today. It is as if 150 years of culture, politics, and human life would leave today's political theories and conflicts untouched and unexamined. In that sense, there is not much science here and a whole lot of fiction. Even its vision of the technology of 2150 is the most unambitious in the history of science fiction, with gadgets that look almost contemporary.
In conclusion, Avatar is entertaining. However, it is a shallow examination of the future and in that sense it could have been so much more. It tries so hard to prove current Leftist enviromental and cultural ideas that it fails to do the job of great science fiction and transport the viewer into a world of the future. In that sense it was a disappointment and a lost opportunity.
The Resurrection of the East
It is a historical misperception that the British Empire ended in 1945. Britain's security and military commitiments were enormous between 1945 and 1965. This was especially true in the Persian Gulf region where she had security agreements and/or troops in all the principalities of the Gulf. This included in Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE. It wasn't until 1971 that Britain abandoned this area. This was included in her decision to abandon all of her security arrangements east of the Suez Canal, save Hong Kong. No doubt the Empire was declining after World War Two, but 1971 was the true "fall of the British Empire."
The declining Empire after 1945 was the great catalyst of the Cold War, especially by 1961 when Kennedy decided to fight Communist National Liberation movements with Special Forces. This British decline and the halting, failed attempt by the US to take up Britain's burdens, were both exacerbated by by the political and subsequent economic awakening of the nations of the "third world."
The political rise of the third world was characterized initially by the postwar nationalism that swept over Africa, South Asia and East Asia.This constituted a national awakening in these regions akin to the European national formations in the post-Roman 5th and 6th centuries, the post Carolingian 10th and 11th centuries, and the 1860s and 1870s with the formation of Italy and Germany It is indeed informative that all these events were accompanied by international crises, namely Justinian's attempt the reconstitute the Roman Empire, the Crusader's attempted reconquer of the Holy Land, and the attempted German hegemony over Europe that only failed in 1945.
Asia's political reawakening began in Japan in 1868 with the Meiji Restoration and in China with Sun Yat Sen's revolution overthrowing "the last emperor" in 1911. In India it began with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1923. The awakening continued in earnest however post-1945 with violence in India in 1947, China in 1949, Algeria in the early 1960s and Vietnam throughout the entire era from 1945 until 1975.
This political rise unltimately fostered an economic rise where stability and sound economic policies were introduced. First and foremost this was true in Japan which began rapid growth and modernization in 1960. One cannot avoid the conclusion that Japan's decision to pursue economic prosperity at the expense of military might was a conscious decision to avoid the mistake of World War Two which was to confront the US from a position of economic weakness. Beginning in 1960 Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong and Singapore all began rapid economic growth. This was helped in some measure by the American war contracts for the Korean and Vietnam Wars. However, the growth was mainly due to an emphasis on primary education, sound free-market macroeconomic policies, with more heavy government involvement in key microeconomic parts of the economy.
It is indicative and educative that these prosperous nations were all non-Communist. The Communists, however, were expert at exploiting the growing Nationalism in the third world.
Communism in Asia, both in China and elsewhere is a virulent combination of radical nationalism and one-state Communism. (and yes this is still true today). The radical nationalism is ancient. China has always considered herself the "middle kingdom", the nation with the "mandate of heaven." The one-state Communism was a 20th century phenomena. It was different from Soviet COmmunism in the revolutionary era in that the Chinese leadership rarely advocated exporting the revolution. In this sense it was Stalinist. It was also an agrarian revolution, rooted in a Chinese peasantry that was xenophobic and rabidly patriotic. There was rarely talk of the abolition of the State in China.
Today Chinese Communism has saddled capitalism and is riding it for Communistic ends. There is nothing contradictory in this for a Communist. (for the Communists contradictions are essential in any system). Communists have always viewed capitalism as the avenue to reach Communism. Indeed, Communism is an idea with more cultural meaning and implications going far beyond an economic system. In fact, in purely economic terms it is the greatest nonsense ever devised by the mind of Man. But for the Communist it not an economic panacea that is sought but a cultural utopia. Capitalists and democratics, thinking in economic terms exclusively, have never grasped this.
So we see the profound effects of the rise of nations and nationalism in the east. This rise was fostered under British tutelage and then in large measure became the force that shattered the yoke. Even areas like China that had never been formerly under British rule had been so dominated by Britain economically as to be a virtual colony. When British power declined and then collapsed in 1971 the effects were earth shattering. In many respects we are still feeling them today both economically and poltically. We are living still through the crisis created by the fall of the British Empire.
The declining Empire after 1945 was the great catalyst of the Cold War, especially by 1961 when Kennedy decided to fight Communist National Liberation movements with Special Forces. This British decline and the halting, failed attempt by the US to take up Britain's burdens, were both exacerbated by by the political and subsequent economic awakening of the nations of the "third world."
The political rise of the third world was characterized initially by the postwar nationalism that swept over Africa, South Asia and East Asia.This constituted a national awakening in these regions akin to the European national formations in the post-Roman 5th and 6th centuries, the post Carolingian 10th and 11th centuries, and the 1860s and 1870s with the formation of Italy and Germany It is indeed informative that all these events were accompanied by international crises, namely Justinian's attempt the reconstitute the Roman Empire, the Crusader's attempted reconquer of the Holy Land, and the attempted German hegemony over Europe that only failed in 1945.
Asia's political reawakening began in Japan in 1868 with the Meiji Restoration and in China with Sun Yat Sen's revolution overthrowing "the last emperor" in 1911. In India it began with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1923. The awakening continued in earnest however post-1945 with violence in India in 1947, China in 1949, Algeria in the early 1960s and Vietnam throughout the entire era from 1945 until 1975.
This political rise unltimately fostered an economic rise where stability and sound economic policies were introduced. First and foremost this was true in Japan which began rapid growth and modernization in 1960. One cannot avoid the conclusion that Japan's decision to pursue economic prosperity at the expense of military might was a conscious decision to avoid the mistake of World War Two which was to confront the US from a position of economic weakness. Beginning in 1960 Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong and Singapore all began rapid economic growth. This was helped in some measure by the American war contracts for the Korean and Vietnam Wars. However, the growth was mainly due to an emphasis on primary education, sound free-market macroeconomic policies, with more heavy government involvement in key microeconomic parts of the economy.
It is indicative and educative that these prosperous nations were all non-Communist. The Communists, however, were expert at exploiting the growing Nationalism in the third world.
Communism in Asia, both in China and elsewhere is a virulent combination of radical nationalism and one-state Communism. (and yes this is still true today). The radical nationalism is ancient. China has always considered herself the "middle kingdom", the nation with the "mandate of heaven." The one-state Communism was a 20th century phenomena. It was different from Soviet COmmunism in the revolutionary era in that the Chinese leadership rarely advocated exporting the revolution. In this sense it was Stalinist. It was also an agrarian revolution, rooted in a Chinese peasantry that was xenophobic and rabidly patriotic. There was rarely talk of the abolition of the State in China.
Today Chinese Communism has saddled capitalism and is riding it for Communistic ends. There is nothing contradictory in this for a Communist. (for the Communists contradictions are essential in any system). Communists have always viewed capitalism as the avenue to reach Communism. Indeed, Communism is an idea with more cultural meaning and implications going far beyond an economic system. In fact, in purely economic terms it is the greatest nonsense ever devised by the mind of Man. But for the Communist it not an economic panacea that is sought but a cultural utopia. Capitalists and democratics, thinking in economic terms exclusively, have never grasped this.
So we see the profound effects of the rise of nations and nationalism in the east. This rise was fostered under British tutelage and then in large measure became the force that shattered the yoke. Even areas like China that had never been formerly under British rule had been so dominated by Britain economically as to be a virtual colony. When British power declined and then collapsed in 1971 the effects were earth shattering. In many respects we are still feeling them today both economically and poltically. We are living still through the crisis created by the fall of the British Empire.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Genius
It is astonishing to think about the nature of genius. An example is Newton's "Principia" where he lays out the laws of space-time and gravity. Newton developed a basic system of formulas which still work to explain much of physics. The calculation for Mass for instance is M=FA, Mass=Force(Acceleration). However, when I thumb through my copy of the "Principia" I barely understand any of it. I peer into a barely intelligible world. This was written in 1683, 327 years ago!!
This is true of many of the great works of genius. "The Origin of Species" is almost never read, even by Darwinists or anti-Darwinists. "The Federalist Papers" are almost never read even by Constitutionalists.
We need to regain a belief in the responsibility of informed citizenship. It is easy to get bogged down in the time constraints and pains and sorrows of the everyday. But, in my opinion, it is essential to occasionally stretch ourselves into a place in which we might understand something in a new light.
The nature of genius is immortal thought and it can leap across the ages and enter our mind and heart if we allow it. The mind of the genius becomes a conduit for the transmission of the mind of God, to the mind of Man.
We ought to respect great works of genius even if we don't always agree with them and read them more often. I am just beginning "The Origin of Species" even though I know that some aspects of Darwinism have come under serious assault by my fellow "Conservatives."
This is true of many of the great works of genius. "The Origin of Species" is almost never read, even by Darwinists or anti-Darwinists. "The Federalist Papers" are almost never read even by Constitutionalists.
We need to regain a belief in the responsibility of informed citizenship. It is easy to get bogged down in the time constraints and pains and sorrows of the everyday. But, in my opinion, it is essential to occasionally stretch ourselves into a place in which we might understand something in a new light.
The nature of genius is immortal thought and it can leap across the ages and enter our mind and heart if we allow it. The mind of the genius becomes a conduit for the transmission of the mind of God, to the mind of Man.
We ought to respect great works of genius even if we don't always agree with them and read them more often. I am just beginning "The Origin of Species" even though I know that some aspects of Darwinism have come under serious assault by my fellow "Conservatives."
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Constitution
My mind is animated by the spirit of the federalist and anti-federalist writers that I have read. One can quite clearly see the crisis, both political economic, that they were dealing with in 1787 through the urgency of their eloquence and the power of their writing and speaking. There is a passion in their pens indicative of that within their minds. We often forget that they were living in the beginning of the Romantic Era. It is not purely Enlightenment ideas that are reflected in the Constitution and the Declaration but Romantic as well. They have a sense, especially the Federalists, of the dangers and possibilities of passion in both the heart and the mind, Madison most notably.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Roubini
Here's a guy who was largely right about the current crisis in the economy so listen up. I don't agree with him on everything he says here but I've never met a clone of myself (yet) :)
He fails to explain how the contridictions in his prescription for the run and medium run can be reconciled when the short run is simply the path into the medium run. Economic policy cannot be turned on a dime as he seems to suggest....but he's generally a truth-teller and we don't have that much in economics nowadays. here it is (and it has a few questions to Roubini from various persons who are supposedly informed, or not)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmI3U_rVYA8&feature=featured
He fails to explain how the contridictions in his prescription for the run and medium run can be reconciled when the short run is simply the path into the medium run. Economic policy cannot be turned on a dime as he seems to suggest....but he's generally a truth-teller and we don't have that much in economics nowadays. here it is (and it has a few questions to Roubini from various persons who are supposedly informed, or not)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmI3U_rVYA8&feature=featured
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wisdom
"I close my eyes in order to see."
Paul Gaugin
another great website www.loa.org and www.civilwar.org
Paul Gaugin
another great website www.loa.org and www.civilwar.org
Friday, January 22, 2010
a great website
One excellent site I am on more and more is www.cominganarchy.com I am beginning to post a little bit there as well, or should I say, respond to posts.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Off the top of my head playing around with words
Clearly it is time for a new direction in this country. Clearly, we can do better.For What does it profit a nation to attempt wild feats of nation-building in far off lands without being able to set our economy straight at home? What have we become as a nation? Are we simply a jumble of interests, or a nation interested in preserving the liberty of our people? That is not only the great question of this election, it is the great question of our time. And it is our time and our honor and responsibility to make that choice.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
To Make Gentle the Life of This World
This is a video many of you have seen however it is the best tribute I think for Martin Luther King on his holiday. This speech has a very special place in my heart and when I hear the words of Aeschylus I pray for strength and calm and compassion and courage and gentleness in the storms in my own life and in the storms just over the horizon for this nation that is bound to me by history, thought, and emotion. I love wisdom, gentleness, and this country. This speech is also a tribute to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9yX0Zv1tZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9yX0Zv1tZU
Friday, January 15, 2010
A Report From Russia
Many of my views on foreign policy are based on the view that Russia is still controlled by the same structures that dominated the Soviet Union.
Please listen to this insightful interview from Moscow for more information about this idea. Don't pay attention to the video, I have no idea what it is. Just listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDCkNDrLMgs
Please listen to this insightful interview from Moscow for more information about this idea. Don't pay attention to the video, I have no idea what it is. Just listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDCkNDrLMgs
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Future of the Past
The cultural struggle today is an effort to preserve the mind and thought. The reason for the disquiet of so many Americans is not primarily economic, it is cultural. It is the sense that the tie to the past has been cut and we are hurtling toward a dead future in which all the generations of the past, including our own, will be forgotten forever. This is exacerbated by the all too evident truth that there is not only a lack of knowledge about the past among the young but a disdain for its pursuit. For a film representation of this of this disquiet I speak of see the thoughtful and allegorical movie "Children of Men."
The battle to preserve mind and thought is in a great way about preservation of the past since it is a practical impossibility to preserve the ideas, art, philosophy, psychology, history, ethics, metaphysics, and theology for the future without their conveyance from the past into the future using the present as the great conduit of knowledge.
Too often when one hears the term "preservation of the past" one believes this to mean a glorification of the past and all its ideas, philosophy, art and so on. This is anything but the case. It is as essential to preserve those elements of the past we are in strong opposition to as it is to preserve those of which we agree. This is not only out of respect for pluralism and the opinions of others. It is out of a recognition that it is just as often that our opinions and views rest upon oppositions as they do upon advocations. It is at once true that our advocations are often strengthend by our oppositions. A passionate advocate of Keynesian economics ought to read as much Milton Friedman as possible. All seeking to prevent genocide ought to read "Mein Kampf" or Mao's "Little Red Book."
I do not advocate an open mind. I advocate a mind ready to devour every piece of wisdom and knowledge it can reasonably consume. I advocate a mind with an open mouth to greedily gobble up and suck up knowledge and thought. Then closing that mind and chewing on the ideas that it has taken in before opening again. This is the essence of education.
I have dedicated my life to the preservation of the past and the conveyance of that past into the future. This is the only way that there will be a future worth living in. This will allow people of the future to do their own devouring and thinking. It will allow them to form their own beliefs in advocation, opposition, or innovation of those of the past. It will give them the tools to be free citizens in a democratic republic. The preservation of knowledge can save our nation.
To preserve the past is to rescue the future from the tyranny of an ignorant dark age that the present state of our culture and society ominously portends.
The battle to preserve mind and thought is in a great way about preservation of the past since it is a practical impossibility to preserve the ideas, art, philosophy, psychology, history, ethics, metaphysics, and theology for the future without their conveyance from the past into the future using the present as the great conduit of knowledge.
Too often when one hears the term "preservation of the past" one believes this to mean a glorification of the past and all its ideas, philosophy, art and so on. This is anything but the case. It is as essential to preserve those elements of the past we are in strong opposition to as it is to preserve those of which we agree. This is not only out of respect for pluralism and the opinions of others. It is out of a recognition that it is just as often that our opinions and views rest upon oppositions as they do upon advocations. It is at once true that our advocations are often strengthend by our oppositions. A passionate advocate of Keynesian economics ought to read as much Milton Friedman as possible. All seeking to prevent genocide ought to read "Mein Kampf" or Mao's "Little Red Book."
I do not advocate an open mind. I advocate a mind ready to devour every piece of wisdom and knowledge it can reasonably consume. I advocate a mind with an open mouth to greedily gobble up and suck up knowledge and thought. Then closing that mind and chewing on the ideas that it has taken in before opening again. This is the essence of education.
I have dedicated my life to the preservation of the past and the conveyance of that past into the future. This is the only way that there will be a future worth living in. This will allow people of the future to do their own devouring and thinking. It will allow them to form their own beliefs in advocation, opposition, or innovation of those of the past. It will give them the tools to be free citizens in a democratic republic. The preservation of knowledge can save our nation.
To preserve the past is to rescue the future from the tyranny of an ignorant dark age that the present state of our culture and society ominously portends.
Russia Under the New(old)New Regime
Russia is more dangerous to the West today because it is viewed as having no ideology. This is incorrect. Russia still has a highly statist ideology. It is, however, much more difficult for the West to understand than was communism. Unlike communism, the ideology now in ascendance is largely Russian or slavic in origin. It is much older than communism. It is the idea that Russia is the "third Rome." It is the inheritor of both the legacy of the Western Roman Empire(Rome) and the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire(Constantinople). This makes for an ideology vast in scope and in geographic ambition. To Russians, geography and history are inextricably linked.
Communism, perhaps, was only a sub-idea which rested upon this far vaster and older set of ideas. Many in Russia view themselves as being in the same position as Constantinope circa 1200 AD, caught between maurading West European crusaders and Jihadi moslems.
The new(old) ideology in Russia is a dangerous and potent combination. Related to the idea of the "third Rome" is the Russian idea of the ideal leader. In Russian this leader is called the "gosudarstvennik." It means literally "man of state." To Russians, the State is not just the government. It is the entire culture, society and slavic civilization. The State is an expression of all these things. The "man of state" is not only the Russian leader. He is the defender and upholder of an entire civilization, the "third Rome" stretching from Central Europe through Central Asia to the Pacific.
To Russians, a "great power" is not only a strong unified state acting abroad, it is also unified completely internally as well. Therefore, any federated government and rival checks and balances within Russia opposite the "man of state", are weaknesses and a threat to Russian Civilization. These common features of Western democracy are thought of as treason in Russia in that a disunified Russia is more vulnerable to Her enemies. This unification of internal and external policies is reflected in two concepts called "the dictatorship of the law" and "derzhavnichestvo" roughly translated as "great powerishness." "Dictatorship of the law" means that though the "man of State" is de jure subject to the law, it is he through the executive branch that interprets the law, not the judicial or legislative branches. In this way the man of state can quell internal enemies. This strengthens Russia externally as well, in her status as a "great power."
The last concept of Russia's ideology is centralization. The top of the government gives the orders. Thoe orders are followed exactly on the way down the levels of governement. This is called "vlastnaya vertikal" or "power vertical." To the Russian mind it is made necessary, paradoxically, as an antidote to weak, corrupt and inert public administration. Therefore, centralization is not seen as empowering the beauracracy but as checking it and curbing its abuses. It is the cultural leader, the "man of state" who fights the enemies of civilization internally and externally and ensures that Russia remain a great power.
The Yeltsin years of the 1990s are considered the reason most Russians support the new authoritarianism. Yeltsin's attempt to loosen centralization led to the collapse of Russia's external power and Her humiliation. Vladislav Surkov, the Russian philosopher/propagandist, has put a philosophical color on this desire for centralization. Sysnthesis of ideas is extolled rather than the analysis of one idea. Idealism is celebrated over pragmatism. Images are more important than logic, intuition over reason and the general over the particular. These ideas reflect the reality of government in Russia. That is that centralization, a strict ideology in pursuit of common goals and the reliance on strong and powerful personification of the leader to wield the power of the "man of state" are all desirable and necessary to uphold "culture" and promote Russian power.
This ideology is remarkably similar to the Wilhelmine German ideology of "kultur" that was even more distorted and perverted by the National Socialists. Putin views these ideas as upholding "sovereign democracy." This means that the state is democratic, however the state has the right to determine what that "democracy" means in practice without, necesessarily, adhering to notion that Western countries might perceive as democratic.
In addition to all this ephemeral ideology there is the specter of Russian natural gas reserves and the giant state-owned Gazprom. Gazprom is used as a geopolitical weapon by the Russians. It buys smaller Western energy companies, especially in Western Europe. It uses the technology and expertise of these companies to find more gas fields. It does this by taking advantage of Europe's relatively free market in energy production, using the backing of the Russian government to the utmost. Once a new gas foield is found it offers western energy companies a share in the venture. It then slowly but effectively manipulates them for the benefit of Russia. The goal of Gazprom is to deal with each EU country on a bilateral basis, causing each to be as dependent on Russia for gas as possible. This is much easier than dealing with a unifed EU that has a clout at least equal to Russia's
Another goal of Gazprom is to buy as many "downstream" energy facilities, like refineries, as it can in Europe. This allows Russia to control both the flow of gas and how it is distributed. A coming difficulty for GaZPROM is that it is going to have trouble supplying its market. Russia has been so successful in inceasing Europe's gas dependency on Russia that its customers are far more numerous than its potential to supply gas. This is exacerbated by Gazprom's move into the east Asian market.
The intriguing and dangerous question is what does the Russian government intend to do about Gazprom's coming inability to supply Eruope with gas.
In this inadequate and brief description we see that the narrative about Russia that was built in the West in the 1990s was largely fictitious fantasy based upon our hopes of what Russia was becoming as opposed to what it was, has been and is. It is a highly aggressive state who sees the United States as it strategic adversary and likely enemy. It centralizes power internally in order to more fully and deliberately project power externally. It aligns itself with nations from China to Iran to Venezuela who have the same ideological, anti-democratic and anti-American ideas as itself. Russia uses power much more effectively and deceptively than did the Soviet Union. It uses and penetrates markets in order to get ready cash. It uses gas and oil as a weapon. It outwardly fights Islamists while with the other hand embracing Islamic terror states like Iran. It used and uses false and phony opposition and ruling parties in eastern Europe to maintain a deceptively large amount of control over its former satellite states. It does this because, other than with the notable exception of Poland, the internal security services of those nations are still controlled by old KGB structures that were never rooted out.
Most of all, it takes advantage of the still pervasive anti-Americanism in the world and the growing conspiricism/cynicism of the American people for its own ends.
President Bush was a certifiable disaster in his Russia policies. He propped up Putin at every turn. Lets us hope that President Obama pursues a wiser policy of active opposition to Russian authoritarianism at home and growing agressiveness abroad.
here's a clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6suIQ6TPlo
Communism, perhaps, was only a sub-idea which rested upon this far vaster and older set of ideas. Many in Russia view themselves as being in the same position as Constantinope circa 1200 AD, caught between maurading West European crusaders and Jihadi moslems.
The new(old) ideology in Russia is a dangerous and potent combination. Related to the idea of the "third Rome" is the Russian idea of the ideal leader. In Russian this leader is called the "gosudarstvennik." It means literally "man of state." To Russians, the State is not just the government. It is the entire culture, society and slavic civilization. The State is an expression of all these things. The "man of state" is not only the Russian leader. He is the defender and upholder of an entire civilization, the "third Rome" stretching from Central Europe through Central Asia to the Pacific.
To Russians, a "great power" is not only a strong unified state acting abroad, it is also unified completely internally as well. Therefore, any federated government and rival checks and balances within Russia opposite the "man of state", are weaknesses and a threat to Russian Civilization. These common features of Western democracy are thought of as treason in Russia in that a disunified Russia is more vulnerable to Her enemies. This unification of internal and external policies is reflected in two concepts called "the dictatorship of the law" and "derzhavnichestvo" roughly translated as "great powerishness." "Dictatorship of the law" means that though the "man of State" is de jure subject to the law, it is he through the executive branch that interprets the law, not the judicial or legislative branches. In this way the man of state can quell internal enemies. This strengthens Russia externally as well, in her status as a "great power."
The last concept of Russia's ideology is centralization. The top of the government gives the orders. Thoe orders are followed exactly on the way down the levels of governement. This is called "vlastnaya vertikal" or "power vertical." To the Russian mind it is made necessary, paradoxically, as an antidote to weak, corrupt and inert public administration. Therefore, centralization is not seen as empowering the beauracracy but as checking it and curbing its abuses. It is the cultural leader, the "man of state" who fights the enemies of civilization internally and externally and ensures that Russia remain a great power.
The Yeltsin years of the 1990s are considered the reason most Russians support the new authoritarianism. Yeltsin's attempt to loosen centralization led to the collapse of Russia's external power and Her humiliation. Vladislav Surkov, the Russian philosopher/propagandist, has put a philosophical color on this desire for centralization. Sysnthesis of ideas is extolled rather than the analysis of one idea. Idealism is celebrated over pragmatism. Images are more important than logic, intuition over reason and the general over the particular. These ideas reflect the reality of government in Russia. That is that centralization, a strict ideology in pursuit of common goals and the reliance on strong and powerful personification of the leader to wield the power of the "man of state" are all desirable and necessary to uphold "culture" and promote Russian power.
This ideology is remarkably similar to the Wilhelmine German ideology of "kultur" that was even more distorted and perverted by the National Socialists. Putin views these ideas as upholding "sovereign democracy." This means that the state is democratic, however the state has the right to determine what that "democracy" means in practice without, necesessarily, adhering to notion that Western countries might perceive as democratic.
In addition to all this ephemeral ideology there is the specter of Russian natural gas reserves and the giant state-owned Gazprom. Gazprom is used as a geopolitical weapon by the Russians. It buys smaller Western energy companies, especially in Western Europe. It uses the technology and expertise of these companies to find more gas fields. It does this by taking advantage of Europe's relatively free market in energy production, using the backing of the Russian government to the utmost. Once a new gas foield is found it offers western energy companies a share in the venture. It then slowly but effectively manipulates them for the benefit of Russia. The goal of Gazprom is to deal with each EU country on a bilateral basis, causing each to be as dependent on Russia for gas as possible. This is much easier than dealing with a unifed EU that has a clout at least equal to Russia's
Another goal of Gazprom is to buy as many "downstream" energy facilities, like refineries, as it can in Europe. This allows Russia to control both the flow of gas and how it is distributed. A coming difficulty for GaZPROM is that it is going to have trouble supplying its market. Russia has been so successful in inceasing Europe's gas dependency on Russia that its customers are far more numerous than its potential to supply gas. This is exacerbated by Gazprom's move into the east Asian market.
The intriguing and dangerous question is what does the Russian government intend to do about Gazprom's coming inability to supply Eruope with gas.
In this inadequate and brief description we see that the narrative about Russia that was built in the West in the 1990s was largely fictitious fantasy based upon our hopes of what Russia was becoming as opposed to what it was, has been and is. It is a highly aggressive state who sees the United States as it strategic adversary and likely enemy. It centralizes power internally in order to more fully and deliberately project power externally. It aligns itself with nations from China to Iran to Venezuela who have the same ideological, anti-democratic and anti-American ideas as itself. Russia uses power much more effectively and deceptively than did the Soviet Union. It uses and penetrates markets in order to get ready cash. It uses gas and oil as a weapon. It outwardly fights Islamists while with the other hand embracing Islamic terror states like Iran. It used and uses false and phony opposition and ruling parties in eastern Europe to maintain a deceptively large amount of control over its former satellite states. It does this because, other than with the notable exception of Poland, the internal security services of those nations are still controlled by old KGB structures that were never rooted out.
Most of all, it takes advantage of the still pervasive anti-Americanism in the world and the growing conspiricism/cynicism of the American people for its own ends.
President Bush was a certifiable disaster in his Russia policies. He propped up Putin at every turn. Lets us hope that President Obama pursues a wiser policy of active opposition to Russian authoritarianism at home and growing agressiveness abroad.
here's a clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6suIQ6TPlo
Monday, January 11, 2010
Singing while cooking
I do alot of cooking and I enjoy singing off key and poorly while I cook!!! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnz7kf1mgmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnz7kf1mgmo
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Pornography and Propaganda
The cultural conflict in the world today is not between the word and the image. It is between the literate image and the illiterate image. The world is made of images, it always has been. The problem is that our world is increasingly made of illiterate images. These are images that are not designed to express any thoughts, only emotions. Or they can be images designed to express neither any thought nor any emotion and are only designed to titilate. The former is called propaganda. The latter is called pornography.
This is why we see so much propaganda today from all political persuasions. It is also the reason for the explosion of pornography that we see. The image is being systematically divorced from thought and rationality. When I say images I do not mean pictures. Images are either words or pictures or a combination of both. Images create words and words create images when it is Man's rational core being appealed to. The world is incresingly losing any devotion to thought or reason and therefore such images are a rare, dying delight.
We are awash in the illiterate image.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXENYy3HL78&NR=1
This is why we see so much propaganda today from all political persuasions. It is also the reason for the explosion of pornography that we see. The image is being systematically divorced from thought and rationality. When I say images I do not mean pictures. Images are either words or pictures or a combination of both. Images create words and words create images when it is Man's rational core being appealed to. The world is incresingly losing any devotion to thought or reason and therefore such images are a rare, dying delight.
We are awash in the illiterate image.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXENYy3HL78&NR=1
Friday, January 1, 2010
songs to myself
The human brain is the most complicated matter ever discovered in the universe. We still feel the fallibility of that mind anytime we try to grasp complex subjects. This is because, perhaps, of humanity's growing hatred of itself, as expressed in the mass death over the last 100 years and probably that the mind, no matter how complex is still a creation. A creation finds it exasperating to try to grasp its creator and that is generally what we strive for when thinking deeply.
The truth is that the more important part of ourselves we never fully grasp, that is the gap between our rational and our emotional self. It is not either one of these two but the gap in between, the communication in between, that largely makes us who we are. It is this lack of communication within our selves which is in crisis today. There is certainly not a lack of communication between people. But the quality of that communication depends initially upon the conversation within one's own head and that is the conversation that is lacking in many, especially young people. The generalization of our society is the teen or 20 something sitting in a room full of the latest communication technology in which he or she can communicate with a peasant in China. But often they have nothing to say other than something about shopping or entertainment because they have not taken the time to simply have a conversation within themselves first, to sit and think quietly. This enormous gap between our ability to expand our communications around the the world and the quality of the content of that communication is related to the division between the image and the word that I write of. The Declaration of Independence was written with a quill pen on parchment paper. We must not only increase communications among people but within ourselves, within the gaps in our self. That can only be achieved by utilizing the technology between the ears.
It is these separations within us that differentiate us and make us us and this is represented by the separations between different individuals. When building a fire, the flames are fueled far more by the air between the logs than they are by the logs themselves. The heat and the light always pass through the gaps in the wood seeking the oxygen that exists there.
All of our political rhetoric on both the Left and Right is largely the affectations of braying jackasses. The tripe about revolutions and reactions and the like that I indulge in myself is largely a way to get a reaction for others. The more important thoughts we have about life in general are the ones we keep to ourselves. Those are the ones we will generally act upon when action is necessary. The affactations we will dismiss in the first "emergency" as Bush forgot about his "belief" in free markets in the emergency in 2008. Almost all politicians today engage in almost no introspective thought. Every thought they have is designed to be presented as an image to the public and not as a policy designed to properly manage the affairs of the nation.
It is this tyranny of the image which concerns me most about modern life. We have forgotten that within every image is a story, and within every story there is a text. At the heart and essence of a picture are the thoughts that the image creates within us. Those thoughts are made of words. Deficiencies in words and language will always lead to the decline of thought. Images cannot substitute for language because images depend upon language to give them meaning within the human mind. Every great film is not only a moving image, it is a moving, breathing, living thought. It is a living Idea that depends not only on images but on language and music. This is the reason that every great film maker, and generally even great actors, are highly literate people. Quentin Tarantino, in my opinion one of the great film makers of our age, is also one of the best writers of his generation. Examine the opening scene in his latest film "Notorious Basterds". It is visually and literally brilliant. The dialogue creates an image in the mind of the viewer that is both enhancing and seperate from the image actually on the screen.
The tyranny of the image has hijacked our politics. It has led to an acceptance of an almost unbelievable lack of coherence in our political life, our economic life, and even our daily lives. The prevailing pattern of our age is confusion. A mishmash of images dominate our lives uncoordinated by any pattern formed by the thought that the written word concretizes.
One word can open up a thousand images and ten thousand thoughts in the minds of countless individuals. Think of a word like "love" or "hate" or mind or democracy or even sun or moon and think of the images that are created. It is really the word that it is the great picture painter, not the image. The image fixates our mind on that image. The word invites our mind into a diverse world of images abounding and dancing the playful dance of the active intellect. If one word can do this, think then of what a great book can do. The image without the word is an ephemeral, dying picture destined to be forgotten. The images created by words are the joys of memory and thought that are one of the great pleasures of being human. In the beginning was the Word.
The truth is that the more important part of ourselves we never fully grasp, that is the gap between our rational and our emotional self. It is not either one of these two but the gap in between, the communication in between, that largely makes us who we are. It is this lack of communication within our selves which is in crisis today. There is certainly not a lack of communication between people. But the quality of that communication depends initially upon the conversation within one's own head and that is the conversation that is lacking in many, especially young people. The generalization of our society is the teen or 20 something sitting in a room full of the latest communication technology in which he or she can communicate with a peasant in China. But often they have nothing to say other than something about shopping or entertainment because they have not taken the time to simply have a conversation within themselves first, to sit and think quietly. This enormous gap between our ability to expand our communications around the the world and the quality of the content of that communication is related to the division between the image and the word that I write of. The Declaration of Independence was written with a quill pen on parchment paper. We must not only increase communications among people but within ourselves, within the gaps in our self. That can only be achieved by utilizing the technology between the ears.
It is these separations within us that differentiate us and make us us and this is represented by the separations between different individuals. When building a fire, the flames are fueled far more by the air between the logs than they are by the logs themselves. The heat and the light always pass through the gaps in the wood seeking the oxygen that exists there.
All of our political rhetoric on both the Left and Right is largely the affectations of braying jackasses. The tripe about revolutions and reactions and the like that I indulge in myself is largely a way to get a reaction for others. The more important thoughts we have about life in general are the ones we keep to ourselves. Those are the ones we will generally act upon when action is necessary. The affactations we will dismiss in the first "emergency" as Bush forgot about his "belief" in free markets in the emergency in 2008. Almost all politicians today engage in almost no introspective thought. Every thought they have is designed to be presented as an image to the public and not as a policy designed to properly manage the affairs of the nation.
It is this tyranny of the image which concerns me most about modern life. We have forgotten that within every image is a story, and within every story there is a text. At the heart and essence of a picture are the thoughts that the image creates within us. Those thoughts are made of words. Deficiencies in words and language will always lead to the decline of thought. Images cannot substitute for language because images depend upon language to give them meaning within the human mind. Every great film is not only a moving image, it is a moving, breathing, living thought. It is a living Idea that depends not only on images but on language and music. This is the reason that every great film maker, and generally even great actors, are highly literate people. Quentin Tarantino, in my opinion one of the great film makers of our age, is also one of the best writers of his generation. Examine the opening scene in his latest film "Notorious Basterds". It is visually and literally brilliant. The dialogue creates an image in the mind of the viewer that is both enhancing and seperate from the image actually on the screen.
The tyranny of the image has hijacked our politics. It has led to an acceptance of an almost unbelievable lack of coherence in our political life, our economic life, and even our daily lives. The prevailing pattern of our age is confusion. A mishmash of images dominate our lives uncoordinated by any pattern formed by the thought that the written word concretizes.
One word can open up a thousand images and ten thousand thoughts in the minds of countless individuals. Think of a word like "love" or "hate" or mind or democracy or even sun or moon and think of the images that are created. It is really the word that it is the great picture painter, not the image. The image fixates our mind on that image. The word invites our mind into a diverse world of images abounding and dancing the playful dance of the active intellect. If one word can do this, think then of what a great book can do. The image without the word is an ephemeral, dying picture destined to be forgotten. The images created by words are the joys of memory and thought that are one of the great pleasures of being human. In the beginning was the Word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)