Billmon:
Back to Main
April 29, 2006
WB: And the Band Played On
Comments
From OpEd News:
April 29, 2006
Going to War with the Morons you have
Tell A Friend
by Mike Whitney
http://www.opednews.com
“As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
— Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
Bad news continues to pile up around Don Rumsfeld like garbage at a land fill. The latest blast came from an unlikely source, The Army Times”, which conducted a poll showing that 64% of enlisted men think Rumsfeld should tender his resignation immediately.
It would be impossible to find a more conservative publication than the Army Times or a more compelling reason for stepping down. Still, the recalcitrant Rumsfeld shows no sign of caving in or loosening his withered grip on the levers of power.
Earlier in the week, an equally devastating article appeared in the New York Times “Criticism of Rumsfeld Widens to Young Officers” echoing that younger officers are just as sick of the glib Rummy as their elders. One anonymous officer noted, “We have not lost a single tactical engagement on the ground in Iraq….The mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels.” Confidence in the Secretary is deflating more rapidly than the air leaving a punctured tire.
Most of the grumbling about Rumsfeld seems to center on his two salient attributes; arrogance and ineptitude, the twin-axels of predictable failure. There isn’t one part of the 3 year occupation he hasn’t mishandled, mismanaged or completely bungled. His tenure at the War Dept represents the greatest collapse of leadership in the history of the republic.
You’re doin’ a heck-uva job, Rummy.
It was Rumsfeld who refused to commit enough troops to the original invasion making it impossible to establish order; just as it was Rumsfeld who left the armories and munitions dumps unattended, disbanded the Iraqi military, and dismantled the government through de-Ba’athification. All these proved to be costly and avoidable mistakes which made reconstruction difficult and security impossible.
Rummy has brushed aside such idle criticism saying, “Stuff happens”.
Rumsfeld’s only success has been in alienating the Iraqi people by authorizing the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib as well as the gratuitous destruction of Falluja; two events which galvanized the Iraqi resistance and savaged any chance of winning over Iraqi “hearts and minds”.
Now, Iraq is in the throes of deadly guerilla war with casualties mounting by the day and not a glimmer of light in the tunnel. The responsibility for the deteriorating situation mainly rests with one man, Don Rumsfeld, the primary architect of America’s desert “cakewalk”. .
Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton’s summarized Rumsfeld’s abysmal performance best when he said that Rumsfeld was “incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq.”
The problem with Rumsfeld runs deeper than his failure to stabilize Iraq. His “Strangelovian” ideas of military transformation have no place in a democracy. His efforts to convert the military into a martial-force for private industry have eroded America’s moral standing in the world and put allies and enemies on alert.
We can see now that Guantanamo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib are not anomalies, but vital gears in a global war machine controlled from Washington.
A Washington Post article last Sunday “Rumsfeld OKs wider anti-terror role for Military”, exposed another frightening part of Rumsfeld’s “transformative” vision. Following the next terrorist attack on American soil, Rumsfeld plans to deploy “elite Special operations troops” to conduct military operations in countries outside of war zones. Under the secretary’s direction, 53,000 paramilitaries and Green Berets will be released into sovereign nations in violation of international law, conducting renditions, assassinations, sabotage, and acts of piracy. Rumsfeld’s plan abandons all prior constraints on the military and converts the entire world into a “free-fire” zone.
There’s no doubt that Rumsfeld’s malignant strategy encompasses the American “homeland” as well. It was Rumsfeld who pushed the Posse Comitatus law towards extinction by setting up NorthCom, a military command post within the United States. This creates the possibility that future military operations will target the American people, a threat which was anticipated by the founding fathers. Under new legislation the military is free to spy on American citizens, deploy mercenaries to natural disasters, and, in the event of a terrorist attack, arrest citizens without charges.
All this leaves little doubt that Rumsfeld’s ultimate goal is to remove the military from all congressional oversight and create a global policing apparatus for transnational corporations. The final component of his plan will be set in motion following the next terrorist attack.
Rumsfeld’s ambitions are worrisome but we should not ignore how dramatically public opinion has shifted against both him and the entire administration. Bush’s dwindling popularity is bound to frustrate any scheme to militarize the nation.
We should also be encouraged by the extraordinary catalogue of failures that Rumsfeld has amassed in just 6 short years. His record does not support his lofty dreams of global domination. We expect he will fail in this endeavor as well.
Regrettably, the price of ambition tends to be quite high. As Marine Lt. General Greg Newbold opined, “The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood.”
Posted by: tante aime | Apr 29 2006 23:19 utc | 2
If Rumsfeld stepped down… the next Secretary of Defense would end the war in Iraq? would stop the war in Iran before it started?
Would getting rid of Rumsfeld save a single life anywhere on the planet?
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is the Hillary Clinton solution to The Wars. They’re not being fought competently!
The executive, real and in the wings, is hopelessly corrupt and has an adequate bench.
I rage as much as anyone but it’s s&f signifying nothing.
If we were serious about ending this we’d replace the congress, including Clinton, with people pledged to simply cut the funding.
The entire House and one-third the Senate, including Clinton and Lieberman, can be dumped in November. It does require organization.
No money no war.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 30 2006 1:16 utc | 3
Ball defined the terms of the Cabaret Voltaire in advance. On 25 November 1915 he wrote:
People who live rashly and precipitately easily lose control over their impressions and are prey to unconscious emotions and motives. The activity of any art (painting, writing, composing) will do them good, provided that they do not pursue any purpose in their subjects, but follow the course of a free, unfettered imagination. The independent process of fantasy never fails to bring to light again those things that have crossed the threshold of consciousness without analysis. In an age like ours, when people are assaulted daily by the most monstrous things without being able to keep account of their impressions, aesthetic production becomes a prescribed course. But all living art will be irrational, primitive, and complex; it will speak a secret language and leave behind documents not of edification but of paradox. (quoted in Greil Marcus, Lipstick Traces 198).
still, too much of the juxtaposition of bush’s lunatic platitudes w/ reality doesn’t produce obvious and unacceptable contradiction. the meaninglessnesas of his phrases now only seem to produce a jumble of hope, confusion, ambivalence, apathy. and the killing goes on.
we could sure use some dada now.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 30 2006 1:21 utc | 4
I can’t decide if the accent on this thread is on “and the band played on” or the nature of the external environment it was distracting people from.
I chose the former, so am posting this here, rather than on the the Open Thread. Hope that’s ok.
This is one of those – If You Read One Article this Month – offerings.
It’s J.K. Galbraith’s article in new MoJo. We’ve been kicking around the issue of corruption v. institutional plunder…etc. Galbraith has clearly been focusing on similar issues, and has a succinct definitive article. (I excerpt for those who don’t follow links, but Strongly Recommend that you go HERE to read it all.)
Predator State
WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE of American capitalism today? …
…
Today, the signature of modern American capitalism is neither benign competition, nor class struggle, nor an inclusive middle-class utopia. Instead, predation has become the dominant feature—a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class. The predatory class is not the whole of the wealthy; it may be opposed by many others of similar wealth. But it is the defining feature, the leading force. And its agents are in full control of the government under which we live.
Our rulers deliver favors to their clients. These range from Native American casino operators, to Appalachian coal companies…Everywhere you look, public decisions yield gains to specific private entities.
For in a predatory regime, nothing is done for public reasons. Indeed, the men in charge do not recognize that “public purposes” exist. They have friends, and enemies, and as for the rest—we’re the prey. Hurricane Katrina illustrated this perfectly, as Halliburton scooped up contracts and Bush hamstrung Kathleen Blanco, the Democratic governor of Louisiana. The population of New Orleans was, at best, an afterthought; once dispersed, it was quickly forgotten.
The predator-prey model explains some things that other models cannot: in particular, cycles of prosperity and depression. Growth among the prey stimulates predation. The two populations grow together at first, but when the balance of power shifts toward the predators (through rising interest rates, utility rates, oil prices, or embezzlement), both can crash abruptly. When they do, it takes a long time for either to recover.
The predatory model can also help us understand why many rich people have come to hate the Bush administration. For predation is the enemy of honest business. In a world where the winners are all connected, it’s not only the prey who lose out. It’s everyone who hasn’t licked the appropriate boots. Predatory regimes are like protection rackets: powerful and feared, but neither loved nor respected. They do not enjoy a broad political base.
…
But if the government is a predator, then it will fail: not merely politically, but in every substantial way. Government will not cope with global warming, or Hurricane Katrina, or Iraq—not because it is incompetent but because it is willfully indifferent to the problem of competence. The questions are, in what ways will the failure hit the population? And what mechanisms survive for calling the predators to account? Unfortunately, at the highest levels, one cannot rely on the justice system, thanks to the power of the pardon. It’s politics or nothing, recognizing that in a world of predators, all established parties are corrupted in part.
So, how can the political system reform itself? How can we reestablish checks, balances, countervailing power, and a sense of public purpose? How can we get modern economic predation back under control, restoring the possibilities not only for progressive social action but also—just as important—for honest private economic activity? Until we can answer those questions, the predators will run wild.
Posted by: jj | Apr 30 2006 2:08 utc | 7
@JF Lee
“The entire House and one-third the Senate, including Clinton and Lieberman, can be dumped in November. It does require organization.”
JF, I respect you. I really do. I have found your comments to be consistently insightful. But, my god, how tired I am of all of our ranting here invariably coming back to this.
I will say, for the millionth time, no matter how deeply etched into your psyche this idea might be, no matter how fervently you would like to bury your head in the sand about this particular matter, no matter how often the talking heads trumpet on about opinion polls and public sentiment… voting strategies at this stage mean absolutely nothing.
If 100% of the voting public pushed their touchscreen buttons unanimously against The entire House and one third of the Senate (including Clinton and Lieberman), the next day the newspaper would be heralding a narrow victory for those people who have already been decided upon.
While there has never at any time been much of a democracy in the USA, voting has been reduced to a game to pacify the masses and to distract us from discussing our real alternatives. The people have no voice except for possibly here on the net, and steps are being taken to eliminate (regulate) even that.
I can not express my frustration when I speak to people outside my country who still blame Florida for 2000 and Ohio for 2004. They still think America, a country with practically no manufacturing industries left, is the richest country in the world with only voluntary unemployment and opportunity for all on gold-paved streets. The band plays on about how America is “exporting democracy” and so it does not occur to anyone that you can not export something that you do not have!
I’m saying now for the millionth time that the will of the people alone is not enough to remove these hobgoblins from power. Clicking your heels together and chanting “I believe in faeries” has as much chance of producing substantive change as voting and organizing voting blocs at this stage in the game. Wishing and hoping and voting isn’t going to make the Emperor any less naked. When America pretends it has the finances to keep itself afloat, everyone goes along for a time, but eventually the bill comes due. And pretending that the voting system has not been hijacked might make you feel all empowered for a time, but eventually you going to have to realise that you are as disempowered as you have ever been… and pushing touchscreen buttons isn’t going to give you your voice back.
Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 30 2006 3:23 utc | 8
Nice one, jj.
Here’s another outtake or two:
Why don’t markets provide the discipline? Why don’t “reputation effects” secure good behavior? Economists have been slow to answer these questions, but now we have a full-blown theory in a book by my colleague William K. Black, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Black was the lawyer/whistle-blower in the Savings and Loan and Keating Five scandals; he later took a degree in criminology. His theory of “control fraud” addresses the situation in which the leader of an organization uses his company as a “weapon” of fraud and a “shield” against prosecution—a situation with which law and economics cannot cope.
Also,
That a government run by people rooted in this culture should also be predatory isn’t surprising—and the link between George H.W. Bush, who led the deregulation of the S&Ls, his son Neil, who ran a corrupt S&L, and Neil’s brother George, for whom Ken Lay sent thugs to Florida in 2000 on the Enron plane, could hardly be any closer.
JKG also uses the words “kleptocracy” and “looting.” I have long agreed that the underlying theme in recent US gov’t behavior is simple theft. I mean, walking around Iraq with suitcases and bags and warehouses full of hundred-dollar bills! The necessary outcome of the 1980s “greed is good” mentality.
Posted by: jonku | Apr 30 2006 3:32 utc | 9
Glad you liked it, Jonku. As I said, it’s an article that shouldn’t be excerpted – and more than repays reading in its entirety.
Posted by: jj | Apr 30 2006 4:40 utc | 11
On a sadder note, the same week we lost Jane Jacobs who left Am. for Canada during Vietnam, we lost James K. Galbraith’s father, and one of Canada’s Greatest sons, today.
Perhaps realizing we that we were desperately short of hilarity these days, the NYT sent some clowns out to the barnyard w/a shovel to slap tog. what they call an obit.
The appropriate response that floated through my head as I read it, was sending them back a Tommy Friedman obit to keep in the files 🙂
I’m interested if others more knowledgeable care to weigh in on his legacy. I would summarize why he’s still very important for young economists to read by noting that he gives them a view of the world before the Pirates Became God and the Fungus of Numerology/Scientism rotted economists capacity to think.
Posted by: jj | Apr 30 2006 5:24 utc | 13
Thank-you mononyclus. And I concur, 100% because as much as people (including myself in weak fleeting moments) want to believe in 1)the archetype of a Savior/Messiah/scapegoat, (read republican/democrat) who will make all things better and 2) in the so called “political pendulum” paradigm where bad swings back to good and balances out unjust law in a market place of ideals -even if it were true, and it’s not that simple- mere puerile fantasies. Until we deal with the problem of who controls the pendulum process (e.g. Diebold) we will be led like lambs to market.
Are we (humanity) to be forever trapped like bugs in amber? For afterall, the Savior archetype manifests itself as something deeply psychological in the majority of the world , but has a particular sadeian bent in the Christian-Judaeo West. I have said before that if we are to become real humans, we are going to have to reclaim perennial philosophy. This preditor/victim role (as mentioned in jj’s post has gone on for a long long time. The system as it stands now, has us from cradle-to-grave and leaves us an empty indeterminacy. In my more lucid and hopeful moments I want to think humanity is pending resolution or in flux to a better understanding; however certain ptb (powers that be) would wish that we would rather not understand. The elite would keep it’s controlled bifurcation. Nor do I hang all my eggs all in one basket. I don’t believe in a giant, supersecret cabal operating behind the scenes of *everything*.
The tendency to see everything through dark-tinted glasses is pervasive and in many ways attractive. But it’s not intellectually rigorous, and it’s psychologically destructive and disempowering. Believe me I know.
Believing that there is one ultimate cabal is as silly as believing cabals don’t exist. Both viewpoints are contradicted by mounds of evidence. Greed, secrecy, and stupidity abound, but so does kindness, common sense, and goodwill. Society is complex and messy, with circles within circles of competing and compromising interests.
The “ultimate conspiracy” ideology comes perilously close to clinical paranoia, of which I have been know to borderline on at times. It is not grounded in reality, but in an ever-tightening noose of fear and a surrender of personal power to a mythical “them.”
There is no dark room filled with cigar-smoking fascists orchestrating little league soccer teams to produce the next generation of robotic warriors(or are they?). Humans walked on the Moon. Paul McCartney is alive and producing bland, inoffensive music. Bad Disney films are not embedded with fascist memes — (only subliminal messages) they’re just crappy movies designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of mommy’s pocketbook.
There is no cabal, the Illuminists, Masons, Skull and Bones club does not exist…or does it?
There is no spoon. And I did not write the above, in fact,
I am not even human, but an AI bot owned and created by the Tyrell Corporation. My true name is UBIK.
“Secret history is at least twofold. One part consists in the secret corruptions, the personal lusts, avarices, etc. that scoundrels keep hidden, another part is the ‘plus,’ the constructive urges, a SECRETUM because it passes unnoticed or because no human effort can force it on public attention.”
~Ezra Pound
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 30 2006 8:16 utc | 16
What utter nonsense Monolycus. Just because you insist on perpetuating the belief in your own victimization, does not mean this translates into collective reality.
There are as many degrees of power as their are humans. You are powerless apparently, but others are not.
And this has nothing to do with voting machines OR hobgoblins in governmental jobs. Some people have a healthy workable relationship with life.
These games in the halls of power are ageless, but believe it or not, people live within the flux around them successfully and with great achievement.
Governments are not imposed on populations like some mythic alien monstrous force. They are created from the collective according to the needs of the time. It’s all perception, skill in living, maneuvering, and understanding the larger dimensions as to how you deal with it. You sculpt your own life no matter who is on the touchscreen.
Political movements are actually fascinating if one can remove his need to feel oppressed in the witnessing of socio-political behavior. The blanket perception of horror and abuse, solely, in government is, as I say, sheer nonsense. Even in the United Sates. And to think that a few hold all the power and is also nonsense.
It’s a limited perception of power you describe. People are always discussing alternatives and actively experimenting, and will continue to do so. Nobody takes a person’s voice. It just might lack mass influence.
Your appraoch to change has as much chance as the fairies.
Posted by: Helen 11 | Apr 30 2006 11:08 utc | 17
i am not sure if slothrop is just joshing but i find the longer post here of capital importance especially of monolycus, malooga & many others
& i think what b has understood – what is being said at moon is not being said anywhere else -not with the same precision & depth & yes sometimes, elaboration
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 30 2006 13:00 utc | 20
genocide happens, terrorism happens, pandemics happen; its the fear that we won’t do anything to stop these terrible things that makes us feel horrible.
The horror is, what if the secret cabals are the only one’s that have the antidote to the next pandemic, genocide, or act of terrorism?
Posted by: gus | Apr 30 2006 13:35 utc | 21
@Helen 11
“Your appraoch to change has as much chance as the fairies.”
Since I never specifically endorsed any particular “appraoch” (sic), but instead only pointed out the flaws in the one which continues to perpetuate the status quo, I’m not sure what it is to which you are reacting so strongly. People get very defensive over their sacred cows, but you are correct to state that I am powerless to do more than criticise it. It is not within my power to persuade anyone that their deeply held ideals amount to a pile of neon-backlit bullshit. They will either to come to that conclusion on their own or not.
Tell you what, keep doing what you have been doing. When the Dems come back to power (and they will, they’re already groomed for it), and we are still in Iraq and we are still squandering billions and exporting jobs and the elite are still making off with your capital, blame it on the voters. They were just dumbasses who couldn’t figure out which evil was the lesser.
In the meanwhile, I’ll blame the corrupt system that continues to bring us evil as our only option.
Fair enough?
Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 30 2006 14:00 utc | 22
Incidentally, yes, I strongly suspect that I am still not being spoken with honestly, Helen.
@Unca
As always, thanks for the links and archetypal interpretation. I’m something of a processualist myself… I expect you’d gathered.
@R’Giap
Except for the inclusion of my nom de guerre on your list, I agree wholeheartedly and wondered how serious slothrop was being. Discussion does not take place in soundbites and we would not get anywhere if all anyone ever posted were pithy little aphorisms and coans. I suppose it’s possible to reach understanding in bite-sized chunks. A drip might be able to wear away a stone but I’m still going to try to find a more efficient tool for the job… how’s that for pithy?.
Thankfully, the folk ’round these parts say a bit more than the latest “talking points”, and that, if anything, is what makes us so special.
Well, that and the fact that we are just so darned pretty.
Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 30 2006 14:21 utc | 23
April 27, 2006
Conyers, Boxer back attack on Iran
Same ol game.
Just different players…the so called good guys.
@Helen 11
I agree with Monolycus on this one, well except for his last post in that he feels the dems are primed to get back in. That one is debateable, nonetheless, it’s Coke or Pepsi. Not to be flipant, but here’s one way of explaining how the system seems to work from my view. Basically, it goes like this:
1. Start with a cage containing five apes. In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put stairs under it. Before long, an ape will go to the stairs and start to climb for the banana.
2. As soon as the ape touches the stairs, spray all of the apes with cold water. After a while, another ape makes an attempt with the same result – all the apes are sprayed with cold water.
3. Turn off the cold water. If, later, another ape tries to climb the stairs, the other apes will prevent it even though no water sprays them.
4. Now, remove one ape from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new ape sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror, all of the apes attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
5. Next, remove another of the original five apes and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The other newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.
6. Again, replace a third original ape with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well. Two of the four apes that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest ape.
7. After replacing the fourth and fifth original apes, all the apes which have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced.
Nevertheless, no ape ever again approaches the stairs. Why not?
BECAUSE that’s the way it’s always been done around here.
The “monkeys in a cage” meme should preface every History book.
The Messiah will only come when he is no longer needed
~Franz Kafka
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 30 2006 14:44 utc | 24
Addendum:
The adversary process I spoke of above seems to get everyone in the end -ask the Romans. Mostly due to the great Judeo-Christian Sin, Outlaw, Guilt, Crime&Punishment T.V. Show- otherwise know as reality-at least to b-team (straussians)and the rest of the neo-convicts.
Lets us come to the point shall we? Crime in xMerica today is a business [read: system], which is run by (and for the prophet of) those who create law-i.e.lawyers. And speaking of lawyers I was somewhat amused at beq? arguing with the military guy at her door, because It seems neurologically impossible for a military man or a lawyer to think creatively or to act in harmony with nature.
And speaking of the savior/religon myth being as it’s May-day/Earth-day in many traditions I was reminded of the following by Tom Robbins and wanted to dedicate it to moon:
Happy Terra-firma Earth Day
Early religions were like muddy ponds with lots of foliage. Concealed there, the fish of the soul could splash and feed. Eventually, however, religions became aquariums. Then, hatcheries. From farm fingerling to frozen fish stick is a short swim.
The Reverend Buddy Winkler was correct about Spike Cohen and Roland Abu Hadee: they did not glide in numb circles inside a glass box of religion. In fact, they, Spike and Abu, wouldn’t hesitate to directly
attribute the success of their relationship to their lack of formal religion. Were either of them actively religious, it would have been impossible for them to be partners or pals. Dogma and tradition would have overruled any natural instinct for brotherhood.
It was as if Spike and Abu had been granted a sneak preview behind the veil, a glimpse in which it was revealed that organized religion was a major obstacle to peace and understanding. If so, it was a gradual revelation, for it unfolded slowly and separately, a barely conscious outgrowth of each man’s devotion to humanity and rejection of doctrine.
At best, perhaps, when the fourth veil does slip aside, Spike and Abu will be better prepared than most to withstand the shock of this tough truth: religion is a paramount contributor to human misery. It is not merely the opium of the masses, it is the cyanide.
Of course, religion’s omnipresent defenders are swift to point out the comfort it provides for the sick, the weary, and the disappointed. Yes, true enough. But the Deity does not dawdle in the comfort zone! If one yearns to see the face of the Divine, one must break out of the aquarium, escape the fish farm, to go swim up wild cataracts, dive in deep fjords. One must explore the labyrinth of the reef, the shadows of lily pads.
How limiting, how insulting to think of God as a benevolent warden, an absentee hatchery manager who imprisons us in the “comfort” of artificial pools, where intermediaries sprinkle our restrictive waters with sanitized flakes of processed nutriment.
A longing for the Divine is intrinsic in Homo sapiens. (For all we know, it is innate in squirrels, dandelions, and diamond rings, as well.) We approach the Divine by enlarging our souls and lighting up our brains. To expedite those two things may be the mission of our existence.
Well and good. But such activity runs counter to the aspirations of commerce and politics. Politics is the science of domination, and persons in the process of enlargement and illumination are notoriously difficult to control. Therefore, to protect its vested interests, politics usurped religion a very long time ago. Kings bought off priests with land and adornments. Together, they drained the shady ponds and replaced them with fish tanks. The walls of the tanks were constructed of ignorance and superstition, held together with fear. They called the tanks “synagogues” or “churches” or “mosques.” After the tanks were in place, nobody talked much about soul anymore. Instead, they talked about spirit.
Soul is hot and heavy. Spirit is cool, abstract, detached. Soul is connected to the earth and its waters. Spirit is connected to the sky and its gases. Out of the gases springs fire. Firepower. It has been observed that the logical extension of all politics is war. Once religion became political, the exercise of it, too, could be said to lead sooner or later to war. “War is hell.” Thus, religious belief propels us straight to hell. History unwaveringly supports this view. (Each modern religion has boasted that it and it alone is on speaking terms with the Deity, and its adherents have been quite willing to die—or kill—to support its presumptuous claims.) Not every silty bayou could be drained, of course. The soulfish that bubbled and snapped in the few remaining ponds were tagged “mystics.” They were regarded as mavericks, exotic and inferior. If they splashed too high, they were thought to be threatening and in need of extermination. The fearful flounders in the tanks, now psychologically dependent upon addictive spirit flakes, had forgotten that once upon a time they, too, had been mystical.
Religion is nothing but institutionalized mysticism. The catch is, mysticism does not lend itself to institutionalization. The moment we attempt to organize mysticism, we destroy its essence. Religion, then, is mysticism in which the mystical has been killed. Or, at least diminished. Those who witness the dropping of the fourth veil might see clearly what Spike Cohen and Roland Abu Hadee dimly suspected: that not only is religion divisive and oppressive, it is also a denial of all that is divine in people; it is a suffocation of the soul. ~
From Skinny legs and all by Tom Robbins
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 30 2006 15:56 utc | 25
Pepsi’s been served since ’00. How would you like yr. Coke – warm, w/ice ,w/lemon, or perhaps, you’d prefer a Cherry Coke… Your Choice…
Posted by: jj | Apr 30 2006 18:53 utc | 27
Dear Tom:
amphibious
semiconductor
succor
jogging elegance
isolated
repentant
bump
sect
Yours, Larry
MoA has as much chance of altering
the meme, as of dancing in pajamas
in Gitmo, which is why MoA has as….
It’s just a circle jerk.
Posted by: Larry Frank | Apr 30 2006 19:01 utc | 28
thanks to jj–
The JKG, the real thing, is much better than the codswallopian obits floating around today.
.
It’s just a circle jerk.
here to get your rocks off larry?
Posted by: annie | Apr 30 2006 19:24 utc | 30
Hard to post on OT, w/a thread w/this name, which could most appropriately be the Name for our little Bar. So, in that spirit, I offer…
Democracy – where? Neither Pres.-elect Gore, nor Pres.-elect Kerry were allowed to assume office. Now the Globe reports that
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ”to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” link
Throw in WTO, NAFTA, inc. IMF at least in the future, Systemic Corruption…
If “democracy” is shorthand for representative government that reflects the will & interests of the people, we now have something entirely apart. Am I missing something?
Posted by: jj | Apr 30 2006 19:32 utc | 31
My Sunday Offering.
We’re so blessed to live in an Englightened Civilized Country rather than among the Savages.
Posted by: jj | Apr 30 2006 19:38 utc | 32
My 3:38 post is disingenous almost to the point of being fraudulent since the elites governing the captives native countries are far more barbaric to their own people than xAm. elites. However, that is the juxtaposition that came to me, and I had to wait a long time & think about it to perceive the problem, so I posted it assuming it’s a juxtaposition that many barflies would also perceive. (Anyway, I can’t remember when I was so moved as I was by that 2nd link on The Garden & the Gardeners.)
Perhaps Noisette can weigh in, or someone w/a greater storehouse of psychological knowledge. This seems almost like some type of psycho-social Mobius Strip. Elites think of themselves as so far above being human that somehow they’re perhaps unable to avoid acting out all they’ve repressed in themselves to be there. And conversely, the prisoners so deliberately degraded into sub-human artifacts of that system, for so long, that they must manifest their life affirming essence to continue.
Yes, I’m grasping…can someone clean this up?
Posted by: jj | Apr 30 2006 19:48 utc | 33
Uncle $cam
You can imagine how disappointed I was when I read your post that stated Conyers and Boxer had voted for the “Iran Freedom Support Act”
So I went and looked for the act and found the following at VOA
The legislation contains language stating that it does not authorize military action against Iran, which was included to make clear the House is not going on record sanctioning regime change.
That puts your post is a slightly different light. Kucinich takes a noble stand on this and he can do it because that is what Dennis does, even if he killed Iranian babies with his bare hands on live TV he would still be known as the antiwar kook. As for the others this is a pretty mild resolution and to vote against it would only give the wingnuts free bullets.
it seems to me that there is enough outrage to go around and we shouldn’t feel the need to complain about everything. I don’t think there is support among the elites to attack Iran and the best plan for the democrats would be to let the republicans dig themselves deeper into a hole. Everyone knows that when your opponent is flailing in feces you should stay out of his way.
I am making a wildly optimistic guess that the Dems want to stop further military adventures. I may be wrong but that is all I have for now.
Earlier Helen and Mono talked about our lack of power. I suppose we are powerless if we merely hang out here and bitch. We can do something and many here have. All politics is local and if you can get people who have similar views elected to local seats you stand a better chance of getting others elected to state seats and then on to the federal level. It can be done and the Republicans have demonstrated that very well. It is time to roll up the sleeves and get to work.
Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 30 2006 20:19 utc | 34
Monolycus
In the meanwhile, I’ll blame the corrupt system that continues to bring us evil as our only option.
Fair enough?
Fair enough. Without elaborating, I think you are skimming the surface and not getting to the root of the corruption. The system is the end result.
Change comes naturally over time. Normally a human can’t perceive this since he is within and it’s almost impossible to get any perspective.
From being trapped within, we have to experiment and change comes in a trillion ways and small efforts. You certainly can’t take a theory from one man’s mind and it expect to work for masses of people. Especially when the common denominator is self-interest. The predatory instinct will have to transmogrify, perhaps after slaughtering animals for food and such things end, before governments reflect a more egalitarian setup. It happens to some extent now only in small communities where people have a genuine and powerful desire to live together this way.
I do not believe that criticism to the point of punishment of those who chose to believe in voting and working within the system does any good at all. You aren’t really knowledgeable enough to know this. It’s only conjecture. The view of an almighty corrupt and abusive authority that can’t be altered is possibly even more of an impediment to change. Criticism can be productive but it takes a wise person to know just how to administer this.
I know you believe in alternate techniques. I, myself, am not a believer in voting and supporting unskilled administrators. But I will not say that those who do believe in this are extremely misguided and should change their behavior. I’m not sure that this process won’t eventually lead to some positive contribution.
I pretty much have thought that all elections are rigged, but still, the right government for the time is in place. They are a mere reflection. So I do agree with you on one point. That the Democrats are scheduled to take power and that not much will change. A little will, however, because their policies are the polar opposite of Republicans. This might matter to some, their votes might give them a feeling, however illusory, of power, and the game continues. Good systems will arrive when the human family is ready.
Uncle has a point about the repeated behaviors. But change does come when survival dictates. When some mutation of behavior works better for the immediate situation. That’s what we can prepare for, rather than criticizing our contemporaries for their techniques too excessively, or giving too much power to the system. That too is illusory. As I said, we still have free will no matter who is in the seat of power.
Posted by: Helen 11 | Apr 30 2006 20:53 utc | 35
dan of steele
it seems to me that there is enough outrage to go around and we shouldn’t feel the need to complain about everything. I don’t think there is support among the elites to attack Iran and the best plan for the democrats would be to let the republicans dig themselves deeper into a hole. Everyone knows that when your opponent is flailing in feces you should stay out of his way.
I am making a wildly optimistic guess that the Dems want to stop further military adventures. I may be wrong but that is all I have for now.
You are absolutely right.
This will probably happen. The most important thing is simply that balance of ideology is restored to the government. That will be the toehold. Then we can proceed with our torrents of complaint. There is a dimishing pay-off for this kind of military pursuit and adjustments will be made. I have a tendency to believe that an attack on Iran was never even considered. It’s a game. Oil futures are involved, among other things.
And, of course the democrats are allowing this. Their noses will be clean as they climb up that ladder.
Posted by: Helen 11 | Apr 30 2006 21:04 utc | 36
@helen 11 Criticism can be productive but it takes a wise person to know just how to administer this.
Sure, only biologists are able to administer a good fuck.
On Iran and Democrats, read Josh
b
That’s exactly what I said. That it’s a phony crisis.
Posted by: Helen 11 | Apr 30 2006 21:44 utc | 38
@JJ; Thanks for surfacing the “Predatory Capitalism” meme. It’s working for me – lots of little clicks in my mind as the tumblers roll. I have a lot more reading to do here. In the meantime, I like the following from JKG senior (age 91!). Excerpts:
Free Market Fraud
Let’s begin with capitalism, a word that has gone largely out of fashion. The approved reference now is to the market system. This shift minimizes-indeed, deletes-the role of wealth in the economic and social system. And it sheds the adverse connotation going back to Marx. Instead of the owners of capital or their attendants in control, we have the admirably impersonal role of market forces. It would be hard to think of a change in terminology more in the interest of those to whom money accords power. They have now a functional anonymity.
This innocent or not-so-innocent fraud masks an important factor in the distribution of income: At the highest levels of the corporate bureaucracy, compensation is set by those who receive it. This inescapable fact fits badly into accepted economic theory, so it is put aside. In the textbooks, there is no bureaucratic aspiration, no reward for bureaucratic achievement, no bureaucratic enhancement by merger and acquisition, and no personally established compensation. Bypassing all of this is not a wholly innocent fraud.
The clearest case is the weapons industry. Given the industry’s command of the Congress and the Pentagon, the defense firms create the demand for weaponry, prescribe the technological development of our defense system, and supply the needed funds-the defense budget.
Any notion of a separation between the public and a private sector-between industry and government-is here plainly ludicrous. Nonetheless, the absorption of public functions by the arms industry is ignored in all everyday and most scholarly economic and political expression.
What we must seek in these matters is reasonably evident. It is the use of plain language to express the clear truth. We can then take pleasure from the discomfort the truth so often evokes.
Posted by: PeeDee | Apr 30 2006 21:51 utc | 39
We can do something and many here have. All politics is local
my senator cantwell is one of the co sponsors of the IFSA. 10 days ago i met w/one of her aides w/another piece of legislation we’d like her to introduce. excuse me if i already posted about this here. you can bet we addressed her iran freedom support, just writing it makes me want to puke.
It is� with caution that we consider your proposed cosponsorship of the Freedom Support Act with Senator Rick Santorum (R PA) We are�certain that you are aware that Senator Santorum is not highly regarded� by Democrats and many Republicans. While we appreciate the benefits one might assume by reaching across political boundaries to formulate bipartisan legislation, beware that this particular legislation�will be regarded by many within our party as fear laden and punitive in nature, thereby not designed to further productive dialogue with Iran.� We believe that your support, instead, of our proposal would send a clear message of the seriousness with which you regard strong congressional oversight of any consequential action taken by this administration with regard to Iran.
our proposal…
1) legislation amending the War Powers Act that specifically bars the President of the United States from using nuclear bombs against another country in a first strike capacity where war has not been formally declared against that country; or
2) a resolution that it is the sense of the Senate that the President, should he use nuclear weapons in a first strike would be in violation of the War Powers Act.
it’s not enough but its something, we have recieved word from the aide that the proposed legislation have passed the first hurdle and is being forwarded on to her chief of staff, and legislative director w/assurances (underscored!) she would read it. she’s up for re election and so many of us in her constituency are so pissed, who knows maybe she will be backed up against the wall enough to throw us a bone.
Posted by: annie | Apr 30 2006 22:42 utc | 40
their [Democrats] policies are the polar opposite of Republicans
huh?
Posted by: DM | Apr 30 2006 23:36 utc | 41
…”their [Democrats] policies are the polar opposite of Republicans”
Even if that were true, why do even bright people not see that 360° from fucked is still fucked?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 1 2006 0:21 utc | 42
@dan of steele
With regards to your 4:19:49 post.
Two words: ISRAEL LOBBY.
Sadly, while the neo-convicts are the frontmen….it’s ALWAYS bipartisan when the killing starts. The VOA has been the strongest arm of propaganda since World War II.
“VOA administrators have pressed the agency’s journalists to report pro-White House spin and too often directed them to downplay hard-hitting news in favor of puffery.” Voice-Over America.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 1 2006 1:02 utc | 43
@Helen
In your reply, you made many statements with which I fundamentally disagree. By way of example, you concluded that “we still have free will no matter who is in the seat of power”. This is an article of faith that I do not happen to share. To begin with, the concept of “free will” is a nebulous one (I would not have the freedom to choose to defy the laws of physics no matter which system of government I am living under), and it stands in contrast to your observation that “(n)ormally a human can’t perceive (change) since he is within and it’s almost impossible to get any perspective.”
An automaton trapped within the framework of its existence might similarly receive a piece of data which tells it to believe that it has “free will”, and it would be unable to believe otherwise.
But even using the term in a relative sense does not stand up to scrutiny. I would be hard pressed to tell a detainee at Guantanamo Bay that a political authority has not impeded their “free will”. And even when people are not physically detained, there are many examples to contradict the notion that we are free to function independently of outside forces. Are the Iraqi people free to have healthy babies in spite of the fact that a political authority has decided to dump its supplies of depleted uranium on their home?
You stated that I was criticising “…to the point of punishment… those who chose to believe in voting and working within the system”. While that wasn’t my intention, it might have been the result. I apologise for that. My intention was to voice my disapproval of the fact that we here consistently fall back upon the same ineffective idea time and again no matter which thread we are discussing. If it were possible to simply “vote the bastards out of office”, I would be all for it. But this is demonstrably impossible and only results in blame shifting (holding the voters responsible for something that has been taken out of their hands) and distraction from dealing with the real problem involved (Diebold).
This is not to say for a second that I see the government and the system as an unstoppable force. I agree with your observation that “The view of an almighty corrupt and abusive authority that can’t be altered is possibly even more of an impediment to change”. I merely take the position that the corrupt and abusive authority can’t be altered when you are playing by its unfair rules.
You also said that “You aren’t really knowledgeable enough to know (whether voting is effective or not). It’s only conjecture.” This is quite a presumption on your part, which I will counter only with Chuang Tsu’s famous response: How do you know that I don’t know?
We do have some common ground, although I feel that you are struggling between an idealised reality and the reality you are faced with. This internal struggle goes on within all of us and causes us to become internally inconsistent. You, for example, made the contradictory claims that “I do not believe that criticism does any good at all.” and “Criticism can be productive but it takes a wise person to know just how to administer this.” This is indicative of a very authoritarian psychology. Criticism has its place, but not coming from one of the Great Unwashed (which is where, judging by your statement that I can not know but can only conjecture, you have decided I belong). I see this as every bit as defeatist as the view that the corrupt authority can’t be altered. What you are saying is that politics takes some special expertise and only an elite can know what is best for us. I reject that Straussian viewpoint wholeheartedly. But even if it were true, how is it that you can claim with such conviction that I am not one of the wise Philosopher Kings in cognito?
The one point you made which I absolutely embrace with no reservation is that I am “skimming the surface and not getting to the root of the corruption. The system is the end result.” I was, actually, cutting to the chase (and even doing that was not brief enough for slothrop). Unfortunately, bandwidth and attention limitations dictate that I can not treat any subject exhaustively, and this is a very multi-layered and convoluted subject.
Since you have confused my criticism of one technique with a prescription for a specific other, I will state that I have no prescription to offer. Yes, I was speaking about the treatment of a symptom (the system), but the disease is cultural. Unfortunately, as I said in another thread, I believe that the human condition must be “healed” rather than “corrected”, and any effort on our part to make human beings “better” will ultimately give rise to newer and more severe problems. All that we can treat safely are symptoms and in doing so we can hope to slowly and incrementally heal the causes… but if we are trying to create a “world without sin” suddenly, we will only harm ourselves and everyone that shares the planet with us.
In the meanwhile, if I see someone endorsing a treatement that I feel is ineffective, I will bitch about it.
Posted by: Monolycus | May 1 2006 4:57 utc | 44
Monolycus
I have always admired your style of self expression and your last comment lives up to my expectations. I completely “endorse” your right to bitch about a treatment that you find ineffective. I simply found that your response to the comment about voting was maybe a little heavy on emotion such as, JF, I respect you. I really do. I have found your comments to be consistently insightful. But, my god, how tired I am of all of our ranting here invariably coming back to this.. There is really not much inherently wrong with speaking this way, but the excess emotion could possibly go against the result you are trying to achieve in influencing another’s behavior. And I do agree that belief in the vote needs criticism.
But take this hypothetical. Say that by chance, the effort to change actually was affected positively by these people’s voting habits and beliefs. Wouldn’t you feel some guilt in posssibly stopping the action. If you are absolutely certain they are wrong, then of course, I can agree with your criticism. And you do seem to be certain. But still the possibility remains.
I’ve pondered the question of free will as you probably have all your thinking life. This is a tricky one. And you are right about the belief factor. But maybe belief makes it so. I don’t think that my view of being within and lacking perspective is contradictory to free will. We can still make choices, as unenlightened as they might be.
Are the Iraqi people free to have healthy babies in spite of the fact that a political authority has decided to dump its supplies of depleted uranium on their home?
Maybe not, but they are free to choose not to have them.
Of course, it’s true. I don’t know what you know. And I don’t know if what you say is the truth. That was conjecture on my part!
We do have some common ground, although I feel that you are struggling between an idealised reality and the reality you are faced with..
Absolutely, absolutely. You are right about the inconsistencies, but I think these are what spur us on to develop our techniques of living up to the standard of our philosophies. And how we marry our idealised version with our constantly shifting perceptions and confusions. It’s a scientific experiment for me.
I said, Criticism can be productive but it takes a wise person to know just how to administer this.” .
I’m not saying you can’t administer it. I mean that in order to be effective, it takes wisdom. It’s a difficult thing when dealing with the delicate psyches and egos of others. I don’t see many who are consistently adept at it. And this disturbs me since I think it’s a highly valuable tool for improvement. There is a great art to criticizing by leaving self esteem intact and promoting the desire to improve from within the individual. I don’t, beyond any shadow of a doubt, believe that only an elite can know what’s best for us. In fact, I hardly think anyone knows what’s best for anyone else. Therein lies one of the reasons for my belief in the failure of all government.
Yes, I was speaking about the treatment of a symptom (the system), but the disease is cultural. Unfortunately, as I said in another thread, I believe that the human condition must be “healed” rather than “corrected”, and any effort on our part to make human beings “better” will ultimately give rise to newer and more severe problems. All that we can treat safely are symptoms and in doing so we can hope to slowly and incrementally heal the causes…
This would require an all night discussion. A fascinating subject. But I do like very much your statement about healing rather than correcting. Very much.
Posted by: Helen 11 | May 1 2006 6:21 utc | 45
Uncle,
I kinda figured I’d catch some heat with my VOA reference. It was laziness on my part as it was the first article I googled that had what I took to be a fairly objective look at the resolution. I am aware that VOA is a propaganda tool of the US but in this day and age you are hard pressed to find a publication that is not. At any rate here is the actual text of the Act.
I don’t buy into the Israel Lobby either, if that were the case we would have scrolling banners on CNN and faux screaming Showdown with Iran. I am not seeing it here in Europe (I do occasionally tune into CNN but also check Sky News and the BBC) and as far as I can tell the drumbeat for war on Iran has subsided somewhat. Iran just told the US to stick it in their ear and not a single rightwinger has become hysterical over it. Curious, aint it?
Posted by: dan of steele | May 1 2006 6:42 utc | 46