tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76770762024-03-07T02:53:54.982-06:00Socio-Political DiatribeJimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-8850083757280489982012-08-05T22:39:00.003-05:002012-08-05T22:45:27.701-05:00framing the events of mass shootings<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
<a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/reports-of-people-shot-at-sikh-temple-in-oak-creek-qc6cgc0-165059506.html">FBI: Motive in Oak Creek Sikh Temple shooting unclear</a></h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
I just thought I'd help the FBI understand the US for a second. First of all thank you for coming by here and you don't need to pay me for doing your job as analysts. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
Remember after 9/11 when there was widespread violence against Sikhs?</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
So far in the news this event is being filed in the same category as the guy who thought he was in an action movie. Eventually the evidence will be found that this individual is extremely prejudiced against Muslims. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
Ok don't go away yet, let me finish. As is often the case in instances of extreme prejudice: the ideology when put in practice becomes absurdly ironic. And in my own personal opinion people that are extremely prejudiced are not critical thinkers. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
The shooter was clearly a fucking idiot and a violent idiot to boot. My money is that he thought he was shooting Muslims. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
He thought he was playing his role in the global holy war that is the "war on terror". But, as was the case after 9/11, these idiots will soon find out that Sikhs are not Muslims. I don't know too much about them except that its mostly practiced and historically from India. It is a religion that is passed down in a guru-apprentice type deal. So its a religion of direct gnosis. They dig meditation and reading of their holy texts. One thing I do know for sure about Sikhs is that they are most certainly not Muslims. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
It is our decontextualization from reality which has led to the loss of "the neighbor". This mass murderer, this self-proclaimed lieutenant in the holy war (which is also appearing as a race war more and more) was not even accomplishing his own warped vision of his self-posited role as he threw his life away. This is where it is sadly ironic...but...there is a but. I do not wish to lighten the immensity of 7 innocent people murdered. But when this happens the whole system of terrorism and state security the Ouroboros of modern politics is laid bare, because there has been a breakdown, or maybe short circuit is the better word. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
It makes it clear that all the ideologues and all their guns and all the technology in all the universe will never make a utopia, they will only bring violence. Whether it is one person killing because he mistook someone's religion in the holy war that only existed in his head until he took 7 lives. Or whether it is a trillion dollar network of satellites, spys, and drones that <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html">executes a 16 year old United States citizen WITHOUT A FUCKING TRIAL. </a></h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
So as you mr. fbi analyst come across this site, remember that your agency catches some terrorists but it also covers for its own terrorists. Now you know why a violent idiot quickly and forcefully eradicated necessary pieces of 7 families. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
I started with an attempt to first of all frame this event, because apparently I'm the only one who gets it so far. I've been looking through all kinds of articles and nobody understands this angle. So although I was attempting to delineate The theater murderer from the Sikh murderer to begin with I think they share one thing in common. </h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
This is the presupposition of Cartesian metaphysics. Which makes the human a subject with an inside like a vessel or a thinking camera. In the video footage of the theater murderer James Holmes he talks about his project being a retroactive reality change. Fancy semantics for memory programming. His study in neurology no doubt continued to condition him with the notion that the human is a subject with an inside and outside. And that the inside could be changed studied manipulated. This assumption makes other people in to other vessels. It makes them in to computers who can be controlled and dominated. It makes "the other" whose death only serves to remind the self that it is alive. After establishing borders of inside and out it is only one more step in to the hyperrealist(in both senses of a wanna-be action hero shooter and international relation's endless war between states[or bodies that are akin to states, with their borders]). You are only possible through another. Without another you can never be anything, let alone be yourself. The murderer today suffered from a creation of his own Cartesian inner-world. His decontextualization from reality meant that he actually expanded the borders of his conception of the enemy to a group of people that do not in reality fit his conception of the enemy. Again the hyperrealism of a mass murder and the war of all against all.</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="headline entry-title">
But I could be wrong maybe he really hates Sikhs...</h1>
</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-79274209510472333392012-05-05T14:31:00.000-05:002012-05-06T03:34:13.886-05:00The "trial" of Kalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I am writing this because of my utter disgust at the proceedings of the kangaroo court in Guantanamo bay. This is something I cannot blame Obama for. He (Eric Holder) tried to treat this crime as a criminal matter. Rather than treating this crime as a military matter. Holding a trial where the crime was committed is an important symbolic act for proper justice. The laws of the state of New York or the laws of the federal government could have been used to prosecute these individuals. If they are guilty the evidence would have shown this and they would be convicted and sentenced. As I have stated repeatedly before the Florence ADX supermax is already the "arkham asylum" of the United States with MANY terrorists already imprisoned. Charging criminals with a crime and giving them a trial is what we have always done in the United States. It is what our constitution guarantees. And apart from our traditions and our legal system it is the only thing which even resembles a just response to crime for a society. <br />
<br />
Republican legislators and corporate media managed to win another victory in their ongoing endeavor to fully militarize the American mind. They pretended that traditionally we haven't charged terrorists with crimes, given them trials, and incarcerated them. They pretended that it wasn't against the highest law of the land to waive habeus corpus. They pretended that it wasn't just to patch together a kangaroo court which will make these people in to martyrs for the islamist cause.<br />
<br />
<br />
We will all regret allowing this to happen. This creation of martyrs strategy is something Egypt has been trying for years. We followed Egypt's lead in our political relationship to Islamist individuals when we engaged in torture and denied trials. We can look to their history to understand what happens next. When radical nutcases open their mouth and what they say is actually FUCKING TRUE! (Like the protest of the accused in this kangaroo court) WTF! We have proven a mass murderer right, it is disgusting. When we stoop so low that we prove a mass murderer right, guess what happens? Those people on the fence? They decide that the Islamist was right, because he IS right. He deserves a trial just like any human. These are not the same recruits that join the ranks of radical islam because you eat better in the barracks than on the street. These are the professional educated islamists who join these ranks from propaganda like this. These "trials" are an embarrassment to me as a citizen of the United States. They will be used to justify more terror attacks in the future. This is the first reason we will come to regret this bullshit kangaroo court brought on by jingoist republicans and their propaganda wing known as the media.<br />
<br />
The second reason that we will regret this is because of the legal precedent it will set. If we allow it to be "OK" to deny anyone a trial, ESPECIALLY if the punishment is death, then this will be used to justify further "OKing" of denying other identities trials. This is a backdoor to the eradication of Habeus Corpus granting another victory to the very real agenda of corporatism that seeks to privatize all things and militarize civil society.<br />
<br />
The last reason we will regret this is because the trial won't even fucking work! The stupidity of this trial is of such epic proportion it causes me a visceral reaction. Even if the accused decide to cooperate(which they fucking shouldn't that court has no legal authority derived from the people[and i'm pretty sure we're still a democracy, at least on paper]) and the trial goes straight to a very convincing conviction. It will be appealed through whatever fucked up legal rules they are deciding to use ,considering they will not be tried in violation of the laws that we the people have passed through our congresses. The appeals will be overturned because this trial is fucking absurdly unprecedented and has a disgusting amount of political intervention. Then these dirtbags can be let free because of all the whack legal process that got them there in the first place.<br />
<br />
<br />
If they are guilty it should be easy to find evidence and prosecute them. There is no need to create a martyr, destroy our constitution, or create dangerous new legal precedents in order to incarcerate criminals. These individuals should be segregated from society so they cannot hurt more people and they should be punished for their actions...if they are guilty. That is why we have trials, there is NO justification whatsover for this kangaroo court. If anyone has a rational or logical reason why we should engage in this dangerous practice that won't reap any benefits, please share it with us. </div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-86586995156982781632012-04-23T14:23:00.002-05:002012-05-05T13:56:49.620-05:00The state of the right wing<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A couple friends of mine are currently deep in debt and so they sent out this email with a link to sign a petition for the student loan forgiveness act. My friend got this angry response from a relative that was on the email by accident. She had asked me if she should be ashamed at their unveiled jabs at her under the guise of attacking her "generation". I dissected this statement to try to understand the mind of the modern right wing american.The demographic is that this is being written by a wife who has not gone to college or had a job outside the home. Most likely the wife is being dictated too by the husband who is a successful surgeon. <br />
<b><u><br /></u></b><br />
<b><u>Original Email: </u></b><br />
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em;">
Hi, Friends and Family:</div>
<div style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">
Since 1999, average student <span style="background-color: #ffffcc;">loan</span> debt has increased by a shameful 511%. In 2010, total outstanding student <span style="background-color: #ffffcc;">loan</span> debt exceeded total outstanding credit card debt in America for the first time ever. In 2012, total outstanding student <span style="background-color: #ffffcc;">loan</span> debt is expected to exceed $1 trillion.<br />
In response to this crisis, U.S. Representative Hansen Clarke of Michigan has just introduced H.R. 4170, the Student <span style="background-color: #ffffcc;">Loan</span>Forgiveness Act of 2012, which would extend a helping hand to those struggling under massive amounts of student <span style="background-color: #ffffcc;">loan</span> debt.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">
,That's why I signed a petition to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and President Barack Obama, which says:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em;">
"Total outstanding student loan debt in America is expected to exceed $1
TRILLION this year. Millions of hardworking, taxpaying, educated
Americans are being crushed under the weight of their educational debts,
while the economy continues to sputter. Support a REAL economic
stimulus and jobs plan. Support the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012
(H.R. 4170)."</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em;">
Will you sign this petition too? Click here:</div>
<div style="margin: 1em 0; overflow: hidden;">
<a href="http://signon.org/sign/support-the-student-loan?source=c.fwd.in&r_by=4287311" target="_blank">http://signon.org/sign/<wbr></wbr>support-the-student-loan?<wbr></wbr>source=s.fwd.in&r_by=4287311</a></div>
Thanks! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u><b>Response:</b></u></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Sorry! Not very sympathetic on my end. I didn't go to college
because I couldn't afford it. I worked instead. Uncle X went to
medical school and we paid off his school before we could to have kids
and buy a house. College is a choice, not a "right". It should be an
investment. Not a right of passage. Most people who go to college
shouldn't be there. It is not an extension of high school to continue
partying while you "find yourself." College is essential for the hard
sciences, engineering, and to develop critical thinking skills. The
first thing you should learn is to budget. It is stupid to take out
loans and amass unaffordable debt so that you are prepared for a career
as a Starbuck's barrista. The "occupunks" are not hardworking and are
unlikely to pay taxes (50% of the population pay no taxes). The 1
trillion dollars you cite is GOVERNMENT debt that must be paid back at a
market interest rate. The tax payers will have to pay this down ( the
other 50% of the population). The govt admits to 16 trillion debt but
the unfunded liabilities of social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and
government workers pensions (which is bankrupting municipalities and
states) is 145 trillion dollars. This debt will destroy our economy,
opportunities and standard of living as well as our country as a
constitutional republic. This situation was created by the political
class that uses govt spending to buy various factions/special interests
(eg people with large student loans) in order to get their votes.
Therefore, I think people should learn from their mistakes, engage in
productive enterprise, and earn the income to pay off their debt like
responsible adults have done throughout history. That's the view from
the "real world."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
P.S. For an in depth discussion of the educational
bubble, mortgage meltdown, financial crisis, and the political rules to
rule by call Uncle X and get a useful education.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
P.S.S. As a law student, you should know that a loan is a contract.
Contracts must be enforced for an economy to function. If laws can be
arbitrarily enforced or changed for the benefit of one party to the
detriment of another party the result is tyranny. Arrogant fools like
Hansen Clarke have been undermining the rule of law and wrecking the
economy for decades. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u><b>My dissection of the text:</b></u></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="im">
<u>"Sorry! Not very sympathetic on my end. I didn't go to college
because I couldn't afford it. I worked instead." </u></div>
-She COULD
have taken loans they WERE available. And most people who attend college
work at the same time. She thinks they're mutually exclusive lol. </div>
<div>
<br />
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="im">
<u>"Uncle X went to
medical school and we paid off his school before we could to have kids
and buy a house. College is a choice, not a "right". It should be an
investment. Not a right of passage. Most people who go to college
shouldn't be there. It is not an extension of high school to continue
partying while you "find yourself." College is essential for the hard
sciences, engineering, and to develop critical thinking skills. The
first thing you should learn is to budget. It is stupid to take out
loans and amass unaffordable debt so that you are prepared for a career
as a Starbuck's barrista. "</u></div>
-This chick needs to get a job and
see what its like to live off what people pay in the service industry.
The way out of those jobs is education just as it was for her
benefactor, errr husband. This next statement solidifies the fact that
she just has disdain for working class people. <br />
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="im">
<u>"The "occupunks" are not hardworking and are
unlikely to pay taxes (50% of the population pay no taxes). "</u></div>
-As
has been the case since the industrial revolution the working class
makes up most of the population. In fact the economy wouldn't work
without these people. Here is interesting stuff on her statement about
the<a href="http://dmarron.com/2011/07/27/why-do-half-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/" target="_blank"> 46% that don't pay taxes</a>. Half of them are in this situation: "A couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal
income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four
exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic
structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income
from tax.". <br />
<br />
so 25% of those who don't pay taxes, don't pay
taxes because they are barely earning enough to survive. If they paid
taxes they would become indigent meaning the job they work would have
nobody working it. So in a world where these 25% pay taxes and end up
living on the street or forced to.....take predatory loans to survive
another month. You actually might kill off a large portion of a
neccesary workforce in the economy. <br />
<br />
Here is another 12% of that 50%: "The second reason is that for many senior citizens, Social Security
benefits are exempt from federal income taxes. That accounts for about
22% of the people who pay no federal income tax." <br />
Then heres another big chunk: "The third reason is that America uses the tax code to provide benefits
to low-income families, particularly those with children. Taken
together, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and
the childcare credit account for about 15% of the people who pay no
federal income tax." <br />
<br />
That is 90% of the 46% who don't pay their
taxes: ppl too poor to pay taxes, seniors who only have social security
as a source of income, and tax benefits which attempt to make having a
family possible for working class people. Obsessing about this statistic
is weirdly fascist considering that to raise taxes on these people
might actually kill them. I'm sure this is a talking point on clear
channel or news corp owned talk radio stations, because to understand
that statistic as anything related to the "occupy"/"arab spring"
movements is tarded. It displays such an ignorance that it is physically
making me angry that such people continue to survive in this world and
perpetuate a way of knowing the world that keeps so many in poverty. <br />
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
<br /></div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
"<u> The 1
trillion dollars you cite is GOVERNMENT debt that must be paid back at a
market interest rate. The tax payers will have to pay this down ( the
other 50% of the population).</u>"</div>
-So if you are going to pay back
your debt...how will the taxpayers have to pay that down...This is just
senility. By market interest rate she means they adjust the interest
rate according to the change in value of the "90 day treasury bill"
rate. I think it is a good thing the government caps the interest rate
even though its such a dangerous intervention in to the "free" market!
Otherwise there would be widespread usury for anyone who wanted to go to
college. It would make it untenable for anyone to go to college(much
like the tuition is now). I think she means that if they forgive the
loans that the government will be short the money it was owed.Which is
the same old bullshit refrain that the right wing practices to be
completely ignorant of the percentage of gdp we spend on defense vs.
social needs. Its our government, to forgive that debt will free up
future entrepreneurs and professionals to find their niche in the
economy. This will be better for everyone in the country than another
contract for boeing or lockheed. <br />
<div class="im">
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
<u> "The govt admits to 16 trillion debt but
the unfunded liabilities of social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and
government workers pensions (which is bankrupting municipalities and
states) is 145 trillion dollars. This debt will destroy our economy,
opportunities and standard of living as well as our country as a
constitutional republic."</u></div>
-The "unfunded liabilities" wtf? I'm
pretty sure there is funding. This is where people have really become
drones check this out. They already have this like picture of government
health care so then they're too stupid to remember the history of
social security and this generation of right wingers are often 1st or
2nd generation immigrants who are like "i got mine, now fuck everyone
else". They think social security must be the same as medicaid and
medicare! and then government pensions must also be the same!! I don't
know how these conclusions are drawn from one another, but clearly to
lump these very different things in together just displays ignorance.
Medicaid is a mostly state run program that provides health care to
people that are too poor too afford it. Medicare is a federal program
that supplies seniors with some health care coverage. These two things
are fundamentally different than social security and pensions. Social
security and pensions have been paid in to for our entire lives. To
eliminate medicaid would take health care away from people that paid in
to taxes to get it. To eliminate medicare would take health care away
from seniors that have worked their whole lives and paid taxes. To
eliminate a pension would steal the money someone invested in
themselves. To conflate these things is so ignorant its insane.
Corporate shills get elected because tards like this believe corporate
news and loot pensions from people who have been having it subtracted
from their check for years. Then they turn around and say "amg the
pensions are so untenable, we don't have enough money! I totally didn't
use that money to fund MYYYY pet projects". The reason we're having
trouble paying this shit back is because we don't have real journalism,
we don't have government transparency, and so shitty politicians use it
for other things and don't get ousted next election because people
believe corporate media bullshit like this. This is more evidence that
the right wing is just becoming more distanced from reality. The
spectrum swung hard right after 9/11 but people are coming to their
senses and most of this bullshit falls on deaf ears now. You should see
the skew on women voters for obama vs. romney its like 54-36 or
something crazy. And ignorant right wingers always come with some esoteric definition of what our government is. And to be technical we are a democratic-republic (because of our bicameral legislature). So if you want to include the "constitution" part for shits and giggles(maybe to sound smart to ignorant people again?) you would say "constitutional democratic-republic". I'm sure these "big" words work for this guy at his local watering hole, but for a person like yourself with an education in politics they're the words of an elementary schooler pretending he knows what hes talking about. <br />
<div class="im">
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
</div>
<div class="im">
<u> "This situation was created by the political
class that uses govt spending to buy various factions/special interests
(eg people with large student loans) in order to get their votes.
Therefore, I think people should learn from their mistakes, engage in
productive enterprise, and earn the income to pay off their debt like
responsible adults have done throughout history. That's the view from
the "real world.""</u></div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
-Lol the shut-in is right about it being
created by politicans vying for speial interest, but i'm pretty sure
people with large student loans are not a key demographic lol. This is
hilarious. Your relative thinks that politicians want votes from people
with loans, but they're living in like the 1800s in terms of their their
knowledge on elections. Politicians appease factions that have, can you
guess?, MONEY! lol if this demographic is too poor to even pay off
their loans why the fuck would a politician want them! lolololol, are
your relatives aware of the correlation between campaign funding and
campaign victory in modern america? Politicians spend public money to
get wealthy supporters who will give them private money to fund their
campaign. LOL thats something most americans learn like the first
election they're lucid for like around age 12. This statement just makes
me pity such ignorance, that her twisted and blind view of the world
which seeks to kill off the working class is characterized as the "real
world". I think people should engage in politics as they have done
throughout history and use the state to help a large amount of people
rather than build the next aircraft carrier or hand out a trillion
through corporate tax breaks. </div>
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<br />
<br />
<div class="im">
<u>"P.S. For an in depth discussion of the educational
bubble, mortgage meltdown, financial crisis, and the political rules to
rule by call Uncle X and get a useful education."</u></div>
-K. it
may be obvious by now, but your education has come from books,
periodicals, etc. Their education has come from whatever the Karl Roves
of the world have decided is the next big lie. You have far more
epistemological justification for your knowledge claims. And your stance
on politics doesn't distance it from the self and make politics just
the mechanism by which corporations rule us,as hers does. The
"educational bubble" sounds like a critique of undergraduate education
we can all agree with that there are many problems with the price and
product of undergraduate education. I think we would probably disagree
that they are so hardcore positivist they actually disdain the social
sciences, even though metaphysics ALWAYS comes before science:) You are
way smarter than whoever wrote this letter and your knowledge is far
less dangerous to other people than their knowledge(when evangelized or
reproduced through discourse). <br />
<span name="hotword">The
"mortgage meltdown" and "financial crisis" are the same thing. I don't
know why they're being mentioned separately except as an attempt to
appear intelligent to an ignorant audience. I'm sure they blame the
recession on like lesbians or Chinese people or something and ignore the
deregulation. </span></div>
<div class="im" style="color: #eeeeee;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<u>"P.S.S. As a law student, you should know that a loan is a contract.
Contracts must be enforced for an economy to function. If laws can be
arbitrarily enforced or changed for the benefit of one party to the
detriment of another party the result is tyranny. Arrogant fools like
Hansen Clarke have been undermining the rule of law and wrecking the
economy for decades. "</u></div>
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<u></u></div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
-Lol first of all its "p.p.s." and I'm not even from a generation that wrote letters. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansen_Clarke" target="_blank"></a>DIctionary.com: </div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<h2>
tyr·an·ny</h2>
<span style="display: inline;">[tir-uh-nee] <span style="display: inline;"><a alt="Toggle for IPA" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7677076" title="Click to show IPA">Show IPA</a></span></span> </div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<span name="hotword">noun,</span> <span name="hotword">plural</span> <span name="hotword">tyr·an·nies.</span> </div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<span name="hotword">1.</span> <br />
<div>
<span name="hotword">arbitrary</span> <span name="hotword">or</span> <span name="hotword">unrestrained</span> <span name="hotword">exercise</span> <span name="hotword">of</span> <span name="hotword">power;</span> <span name="hotword">despotic</span> <span name="hotword">abuse</span> <span name="hotword">of</span> <span name="hotword">authority.</span> </div>
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<span name="hotword">2.</span> <br />
<div>
<span name="hotword">the</span> <span name="hotword">government</span> <span name="hotword">or</span> <span name="hotword">rule</span> <span name="hotword">of</span> <span name="hotword">a</span> <span name="hotword">tyrant</span> <span name="hotword">or</span> <span name="hotword">absolute</span> <span name="hotword">ruler.</span> </div>
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<span name="hotword">3.</span> <br />
<div>
<span name="hotword">a</span> <span name="hotword">state</span> <span name="hotword">ruled</span> <span name="hotword">by</span> <span name="hotword">a</span> <span name="hotword">tyrant</span> <span name="hotword">or</span> <span name="hotword">absolute</span> <span name="hotword">ruler.</span> </div>
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<span name="hotword">4.</span> <br />
<div>
<span name="hotword">oppressive</span> <span name="hotword">or</span> <span name="hotword">unjustly</span> <span name="hotword">severe</span> <span name="hotword">government</span> <span name="hotword">on</span> <span name="hotword">the</span> <span name="hotword">part</span> <span name="hotword">of</span> <span name="hotword">any</span> <span name="hotword">ruler.</span> </div>
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee;">
<span name="hotword">5.</span> <span name="hotword">undue</span> <span name="hotword">severity</span> <span name="hotword">or</span> <span name="hotword">harshness.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />So the definition of tyranny is either an abuse of power
or rule by one person. I do not understand how forgiving loans would
fit either of those definitions. The reason the loans are there is to
provide the opportunity for college so that people can get what is
NORMAL in the MODERN "real world" not in this chick's kitchen: a B.A..
B.A.s are as common as high school degrees were when your relative was
our age. Contracts can be changed by the sovereign whenever and
whereever, thats why its the sovereign: it can do whatever the fuck it
wants. If the intention of the loans was to provide an education than
forgiving the loans does NOT arbitrarily go back on the intention of the
law. I feel like this is going to be how the election breaks down this
year it will be a referendum on our construction of gender. In order to
have a country which supplies the social spending necessary to make
social mobility possible we need full employment(including women!). In
order to get full employment and a good economy we need to ensure that
our population is well educated. How do you do that? Send them to
college. In nortern Europe and like Scandanavian countries there is
health care and free education. But in order to accomplish this they
don't spend huge percentages of GDP on defense and they require full
professional employment so there are is a robust middle class to tax.
What do the women of this country want for themselves? What does
everyone want for their daughters and sisters? Do they want a woman whos
stupider and more reliant on men's money? Do they want a woman who
cannot afford birth control? This email is good evidence of how the
right wing has alienated moderates in the United States and barring some
catastrophic collapse in the economy will lose the election to Obama. <br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />There are some people out there who want to help a
generation experiencing a pretty rough recession with their debt so that
they can have more disposable income to kick start the economy with. <br />There
are others who don't give a shit, because their husband says empathy is
for pussies. And if I don't do what my husband says I don't have any
other way to survive. <br />
<br /><br />They should be ashamed of their own greed and lack of empathy. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-25758877749656172992011-10-26T01:12:00.001-05:002011-12-01T13:17:38.135-06:00Framing (Again)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Originally I read this in an adbusters years ago: "The cold war was World War III, the war on terror is World War IV".<br />
<br />
I didn't think much of it at the time, in fact I thought it was stupid, because nobody else thinks that. In history books in my public education I was told that the cold war was an era of almost war with examples of the cuban missle crisis, but never actual war. I learned later that <i>pax americana</i> was hardly peaceful with WARS(call it what you want but if it looks like war and quacks like war...) in just about every Latin American country, and every region of the globe. If we weren't outright going to war we were selling arms to Indonesia for use in the East Timor genocide, because us small arms sales are 50% of world sales. <br />
<br />
It reminded me of Einstein's quote that "we don't know what world war three will be fought with, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones". Apparently his metaphor was wrong, but his idea was right: War is more dangerous than its ever been. <br />
<br />
My point is that this quote had some truth to it. It was a reaction to the war on terror, but there is a much better term which both Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt have used "Global Civil War".<br />
The correct phrasing should be: "The cold war was World War III, and we are in the midst of World War IV which is a Global Civil war".<br />
<br />
Is this not truth?<br />
The cold war was a bipolar competition for sovereignty of the globe. The "low-intensity warfare" or "proxy wars" are still wars! The united states and the USSR fought a war against each other during those years. The USSR could not continue the war because their political and economic systems had to be drastically changed starting with Perestroika and Glasnost. When the USSR broke up the United States was the victor of World War III, and global hegemon. WTF is the difference between the hegemon and the sovereign? I have stated this before that the United States is the world government. The UN does not have police, the US does in the form of a military which receives the largest percentage of GDP of any nation. The US enforces its will around the globe and empirically is willing to pre-emptively strike in order to enforce that will.<br />
<br />
As I have also stated before the global hegemon/sovereign can only maintain that position if it doles out energy supplies and has a steady cheap supply for themselves. Lets look at some(I have to say some because the list is a mile fucking long) of our "interventions"(see: "wars") since the USSR's break up. First is Saddam former scumbag and confidant of United Statesian intelligence scumbags. He rose to power and is now leading Iraq, he invades tiny kuwait. Need more historical info, Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves and Kuwait is up there.. Recently the situation has changed apparently last year Venezuela's got way higher, but back in 91 we're talking here. Back then Iraq had proven reserves of 100 billion barrels, Kuwait had 96.5, and Saudi Arabia had 260.9. THe UAE is also on the arabian peninsula and has like 98 bil. we're talking about 800 Billion worldwide proven. <br />
So Saddam doubles his oil supply, Instead of about 12.5% hes up to 25% of world oil. Saudi Arabia is freakin' out they have shit for an army: an air force full of toys and muttawa thugs enforcing wahabbism. Mister Osama Bin Laden himself goes to the Sauds and hes like "let me bring my buddies from Afghanistan over here and we'll fuck saddam up for you." The Sauds were like "Ha! yeah your guerrilla army is going to confront Saddam's soldiers, we'll be executed within days, Ameicans said they want at him, they just need a place to park their troops, so we're letting them chill here while they take Saddam out, we'll have to make sure there are no women driving when they get here, we don't want them to think us savages." Then Bin Laden is all like Fuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!! and rage quit saudi arabia because they let infidels(Americans) in the land of the two holy shrines(saudi arabia[mecca and medina]). 20 years later: 9/11, but I digress. Saddam is sitting at 25% and all he has to do is go next door and take out a few cities because like 99% of Saudi Arabia is uninhabited('cept for nomads) and he'll be sittin on more than half of the world's proven oil supplies. Holy fucking shit, you have to go through Saddam to get a gas pump. So Sauds let the US in, US drives Saddam out of Kuwait, a regional hegemon has thusly been deterred and the US grip on energy becomes even better because they now have better relations with Saudi Arabia and fucking troops there. If the US ever really needs oil they just need to knock off a few asshole royals that the entire country('cept the muttawa) hate anyway and bam Americana Arabia, Or I guess they already decided they want to call it Syriana. This was an effort to maintain global sovereignty from a potential threat(saddam controlling 50%+ of world oil).<br />
There are trends like this in foreign policy, countries ask the US for help and they send troops, sometimes the troops hang around for awhile.<br />
<br />
The next major event comes with 9/11. Which was a perfect excuse to engage in the project The PNAC and many other neo-realist intelligentsia wanted: to finally go back to Iraq and just take the fucker over. <br />
It was also the perfect excuse to engage in the project recommended by Brezenzki of the CFR and many other neo-liberal intelligentsia: to take over Afghanistan for its geopolitical value.<br />
In an academia that pictured itself with the gods eye view of Science and Cartesian rationality, they often end up blind to the most obvious prejudices. Orientalist discourse constructed the middle east as a place of conflict that needed the managing our masculine western whiteness naturally gives us.Iraq and Afghanistan give the US a jumping off point for a land takeover of most of the middle east, specifically potential regional hegemons like Iran.<br />
<br />
The United States has been and continues to further its position of power in the world. This position of power is admittedly based on the ability to project power(i.e. violence) across the globe quickly and effectively(i.e. kills lots of people). This is different than a state who passes laws and has the police enforce them with violence. I do not mean to say that this isn't sovereignty, just that this doesn't even remotely resemble what we refer to as "democracy". The US still has some set of universal values which can sometimes be discerned by reading the writings of corporate shills that political science supplies us with, but whether or not the universal rules are codified, as is the case in a democracy, what we can be sure of is that the US visits violence upon those who do not obey. This is a form of sovereignty. When no other country on earth has this ability or if they do have it, but not engage in it, this is evidence that the US is the sole world sovereign.<br />
<br />
So I would like to frame history differently, I do not wish to propagandize but to use evidence to support my point, obviously if you refer to world war three or four people will not understand, but don't these labels stand up to scrutiny? Are we not in the midst of a global civil war?<br />
<br />
P.S. Another framing I find interesting these days is the bracketing of "occupy wall street" and "arab spring", why is this not part of one global phenomenon that is a reaction to a declining economy and an increasing rich-poor gap(which can also be read as a declining middle class)?</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-57105293566018355262011-10-18T00:27:00.000-05:002011-10-18T00:27:35.903-05:00America<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Is the United States a democracy?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/court-dismisses-targeted-killing-case-procedural-grounds-without-addressing-merits">The executive has the ability to kill US citizens without charging them with a crime. This is in direct contradiction of Habeus Corpus. </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001-present%29#Legal_basis_for_war">The united states has been occupying Afghanistan for more than a Decade, without specific legislation declaring war. Instead a state of exception in which the Executive has sole authority to decide when to prosecute war has become the norm.This is in direct contradiction to the war powers act and the constitutionally explicit rules governing warmaking. </a><br />
<br />
The United States has been occupying Iraq for nine years. Originally people scoffed at Wolfowitz saying we could be there until 2010. This war was clearly an illegal pre-emptive strike by the United States. The justifications for invasion turned out to be complete bullshit: WMDs, yellow cake from Niger, active chem. weapons, complicity with 9/11, and harboring of Al-qaeda have all turned out to be false. When revelations of these lies started to be printed there was no mandate for intervention. The public has not supported this war once given halfway decent information. Before the media realized the bullshit it was peddling a majority of Americans actually believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11. There has NEVER been any evidence of this, a potential meeting between a jihadist does not mean that Saddam is al-qaeda, if you think that evidence is convincing you don't understand what Al-Qaeda and Ba'athism are. Saddam is a ba'athist which is essentially the IRaqi version of Nasserism, generally it can be described as an arab nationalism, sometimes being pan-arab and socialist. Ba'athists are secular, ok? If you weren't aware of these nuances are you starting to see my point? How does al-qaeda feel about secularists? Saddam and what we call "al-qaeda" (which appears to be a phrase that is applied to any Muslim who believes that temporal and spiritual power should be more conflated[Shariah]) hate eachother!<br />
<br />
<br />
Wealth has been and will be continuing to shift towards the super-rich, which means less money for the other 99% as this chart shows. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_gains.jpg">Inflation adjusted percentage increase in mean after-tax household income in the United States between 1979 and 2005.</a><br />
<br />
That statistical data is old though, this process has accelerated since 2005 as a result of numerous events, the most important in my opinion being <a href="http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html">rising gas prices</a> driven by <a href="http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif">rising oil prices.</a> Because its pretty fucking obvious that if you keep taking something, and you start to take it faster and faster. Eventually you will run out, because all things are finite. Whether that means you run out in a million years or tomorrow is of little relevance, the fact remains that demand will begin outstripping supply on carbon based energy sources. The demand will continue to accelerate, but once supply shocks occur, the acceleration will increase exponentially. In my opinion we are nearing the end of the age of oil. The scrambling for practices of resource gathering which is far worse for the environment and produces less product, is evidence for my belief. Shale gas and tar sands being my examples. Because capitalism claims that it will solve peak oil by causing it to be such a high price that alternatives will appear. But these alternatives are just much worse versions of the original, and really just amount to grasping at straws. There is no effort to get in to rehab for our addiction to carbon energy.<br />
I apologize for digressing, but my point is that there are currently structural factors which have further accelerated the wealth redistribution that we see taking place from 1979-2005. The middle class is being destroyed further. A post-industrial service based economy does not produce a strong middle class in the first place, if we add rising living costs and shrinking salaries/wages we will see a slow destruction of the middle class.<br />
<br />
Most political theorists will agree that the middle class is where most of the stability for any regime is located. These are all individuals with a vested interest in making the system work, they are reformers because the system rewards them with a decent lifestyle. An evaporation of the middle class creates revolutionary instability because the lower class does not have a vested interest in maintaining the system of the status quo, they don't have much to lose. Whoever the boss is, they're going to go to work at their job and have the same skills they had before. They will still fit in to the same niche in the world economy no matter the regime. The upper-class being small cannot resist these changes.<br />
<br />
My first point is that democracy in America is not a very convincing argument right now. Although materialism is important, (one must eat and stay warm) it is also important to know there is no point in living if you are going to be evil. Economic concerns are important, but we must also pay attention to Politics(which is the ability to justifiably kill people) because the two are related. The United States spends as much as the next 27 countries combined on their military. The US with its huge GDP even has the highest PERCENTAGE of gdp that goes towards military spending. The global civil war that the United States is prosecuting must stop if we are to save the middle class(which in my opinion is of more concern than the entire 99%, because the middle class is key to the stability of any regime). <br />
<br />
My second point is that the upper-class should be embracing the messsages of occupy wall street, because without some sort of reform to save the middle class united states might see some REAL class warfare.<br />
<br />
It does make me smirk when I think of a wealthy politician, who proclaimed attention to class in discourse as "class warfare", being killed by the real revolutionaries we will see if current trends continue, but violence is a question without a satisfactory answer. <br />
<br />
We do not need to fear revolution, because if we do not have a democracy what the fuck do we have to lose?<br />
<br />
We do not need to stoke revolution, because the structural trends will make one inevitable.<br />
<br />
To those who are trying to silence or marginalize Occupy Wall Street: Don't blow your one chance to reform the system before you make peaceful revolution impossible. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-56027178257611004262011-09-26T15:01:00.001-05:002011-10-14T09:42:45.315-05:00Class Warfare<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I have 5 minutes to write what I wish to say. This should be easy.<br />
<br />
Currently there are efforts to relieve the tax burden on individuals of the working and middle class(even upper-middle class) within the party in power.<br />
Consequently, there are efforts within the opposition party to characterize such attention to the specific social, political, and economic harms of being lower or middle class, as "class warfare".<br />
<br />
If the current mainstream media is dominated by a handful of wealthy corporations, who are legal persons obligated by law to their shareholders to seek profit no matter what the human cost, most likely these corporations will have political agendas which favor the wealthy. Because the individuals who can arguably be said to hold the levers of power are assuredly of the upper class. And if there are no levers of power because the institution runs itself like some kind of organism or legal person, then that organism is wealthier than the vast majority of humans(those are the people that aren't corporations). <br />
<br />
I only bring up the preceding paragraph to make the point that in the status quo, before this event of relieving the tax burden came in to the focus of the agenda setting machine of the media, class warfare was a non-existent topic, only surfacing when George Bush Jr. made the same claim previously in regards to Kerry. My argument is that the dominant understanding of the idea of "class warfare" is discourse on class is not ok.<br />
<br />
I only bring up the preceding paragraphs in order to argue that whether or not you agree that Obama is engaging in "class warfare", you should understand that class warfare is constantly taking place in the status quo.<br />
<br />
Wealth is ALWAYS being redistributed in some way. Or else nobody would be spending anything. If nobody spent anything there would be no wealth. Thusly, we can see that wealth is constantly being redistributed in some way.<br />
<br />
<br />
My thesis: Currently in the status quo wealth is being transferred from the middle class to the upper class in great quantities. The more discourse on class is silenced the more effective and accelerated this redistribution can take place. The fact that we have reached this Orwellian point where the middle class starts finally fighting for its life and realizing their shared experiences and goals have real significance for the political role they should play, and its called class warfare. During times we DON'T talk about class, "class warfare" plays a much larger role, than in times we DO talk about class. <br />
<br />
<br />
Concession: Or we can just allow such activity to be called class warfare, just make sure we label the times when we are not talking about class as: Class Terrorism. Because the middle class should start fighting back rather than just hoping the economy doesn't come for them next. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-85067117289350622422011-06-19T13:09:00.001-05:002012-05-05T13:55:44.084-05:00Dialogue with Owl #2 Death<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt;">To: Jimothy</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt;">From: Owl</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">DEATH</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">“We can only know something by what it is not”</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> -K. Beanhouse</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">This contradictory idea was espoused by the great scholar and cheeba smoker, K. Beanhouse, in his musings on Money, circa April 2011. It exemplifies the noted thinker’s distrust of words and his skepticism towards the human mind’s ability to grasp something objectively and truthfully, in and of itself, without the ineluctable obfuscation that language and the process of thought bring to any subject.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Taking his pithy tenet as a starting point for studying death, we must first understand what is NOT death, before we can tackle the question of what is death.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">The simple and quick answer is: The opposite of death is life. End of story, right? Not so, because as anyone who has ever suffered under the inconsolable reality of being/becoming knows, life is much more than the four letters l-i-f-e and all the preconceived notions this four letter word implies. Indeed, the purpose of life, the reality of life, the truth, meaning and fabric of life is deep, murky and unknowable.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Say, to begin the argument, that life is consciousness; then death is lack of consciousness. Sleep would be a temporary death, an unconsciousness that we can experience and still recover from - a fleeting experience of death that we are able to recall, partially or wholely or not at all. True death, then, is the permanent state of unconsciousness, a sleep from which we are unable to awake. Without ever awaking, we can never recall, and therefore it is nothing, a permanent unconsciousness.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">But, life is more than consciousness. Trees and plants, even fish and empty-eyed dogs, are alive but it would be tough to argue a sentience at the level of which I refer to when speaking of humans. Perception, data processing, the ability to react to an external environment, these are all factors in defining consciousness, but they are as easily attributable to a mid-tech machine as they are to a “living” being. So, it seems life is also something biological, captured in the fragile construction of cells, chemicals and organic compounds that enable life to exist and propagate. Death, then, would be the destruction, or entropy, of this ordered organic life. The decay of the system until the final feather falls and the system collapses, irretrievable and lost.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Consciousness and order are life. Death is the negative of these states.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">And now for a narrative interlude:</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">One day while I was at work in the hospital, the EMTs brought a dead man into the ER. These days, with the technology and medicine our society possesses, death and dead are not the same thing. A heart can be arrested, the flow of oxygen ceased, any recognizable form of consciousness absent and the order of the mind and body rapidly crumbling to chaos. In short, the body can be dead, but life is not completely lost. Pump the heart artificially, apply electric stimulation to re-boot the cardiac muscles, force air artificially into the lungs and suddenly the dead is living once again.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">The docs and nurses did all this and more and for a few precious minutes and, as his extremities turned blue and his body grew stiff, they kept the blood pumping to his vital organs and oxygen exchange occurring in his lungs. In the end, the state of unconsciousness became permanent.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">I stood off to the side for most of this, as I lacked the skill level to be immediately helpful, only occasionally handing someone a tube or apparatus when asked. One of the EMTs who had been at the scene when the patient was found stood near me, searching the man’s wallet for some form of identification. In the wallet, he found a hand-written business card which had apparently been prepared by the dying man in anticipation of exactly this situation. Although I can’t recall exactly what it said, it read something like this:</span><br />
<div align="center" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Do Not Resuscitate</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div>
<div align="center" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;"> Do Not Intubate</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div>
<div align="center" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;"> Any attempt made to revive to life the person holding this card will be met with legal action and will be sued to the fullest extent of the law.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> There was also a lawyer’s office and contact information listed. Whether the lawyer or the address was valid I never found out. What I do know is that this homemade disclaimer was ineffective and, contrary to its demands, every effort, including resuscitation and intubation, was used to preserve the man’s life. I was thankful when the doctor finally called off the efforts and a time of death was declared.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> What I didn’t say earlier was the man’s age, which was somewhere in the eighties, and why he was in the ER in the first place. He was found breathing his car’s exhaust in an empty lot in an attempt to kill himself. He’d left a carefully lettered note resting on his expiring breast asking anyone who found him to please leave him the fuck alone and let him die.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> Death, in our society, is to be feared, fought, struggled with. It is quite barbaric. It is also quite stupid when your consider the inevitability of the event. Quite stupid, yes, but simultaneously noble.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> I have failed to develop my theories on suicide here. They may be more appropriate for another topic, but are essential, at least in part, to the understanding of death. I personally think of suicide any number of times a day or week, but in the same way that I dream of writing a genius novel or leaving my quotidian life in search of some hermetic nirvana. They are dreams to bring me to the other side of the anger, depression, pain and fear of life. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">To: Owl</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">From:Jimothy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Your last paragraph sent chills down my spine, because it is exactly how I employ the idea myself. There is an exit door at all times and I am in control of whether or not I wish to pass through. I do not think life represents order, I think life is a chaos unto itself, life is the origin of chaos. Without life the universe remains balanced(although it will balance itself against the human life's decadence eventually). But it is possible to destroy our earth with our technology it is possible to use chaos to destroy the order of earth, this makes me believe that life is chaotic rather than orderly. <br />
Order lies with the knowledge of death. The only real finish line, from which stems all our understandings of morality. Suicide seems like such a crude word and euthanasia sounds too euphemistic, but employment of the option of death is a powerful tool for thrusting oneself back in to life, as I think your last paragraph agrees. I will go back to my point on morality. <br />
I did a little research in my health/insurance class on DNRs. For the most part they don't work there are multiple situations where people were prepared way ahead of time with actual legal documents and family members with power of attorney in the room. Paramedics are required by law as they see it to do everything possible to make a person live. They cannot debate about the legality of a document when there is no turning back if the argument turns out to not merit a DNR, because the patient will be dead. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another interesting idea I came across was in Oregon's assisted suicide program. Individuals were given a lethal pill if they applied for assisted suicide. Many of the individuals never took the pill, but the vast majority said that it comforted them. That it gave them control at that point in life where control was to be lost. Not only the control that you and I find comforting that we can always choose to take the exit if we decide to, but control over their bowels and brains. They feared a loss of dignity and wouldn't even have the strength to kill themselves. The pill gave them back power over their own destiny. <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I wanted to talk a second about my morality claim. This is a quote from John Locke that was quoted in a journal I'm reading (I have the entire journal from like 2000 to 2010, and i'm only at like 2002 or something, its called "Theory and Event"). Locke as the classical liberal(not the "liberal" that o'reilly/limbaugh rail against, but the liberalism of the US constitution[checks/balances] combined with free market economics[economic liberalism]). So Locke is all about toleration. Hes like we should tolerate everything and that way the government can decide what we can and cant tolerate. Obviously hes facing a world divided by religions and nationality(wars) and he believes that trade can reduce wars. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But there is one exception in the population that cannot be tolerated: "those are not to be tolerated who deny the being of God." "Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all."<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In our discussion of money the idea taken for granted in Star Trek TNG is that “plenty” pervades rather than “scarcity”. And humans seek to do, simply because they desire to, not because they need to earn their next meal or find antibiotics for their kid. The morality of TNG seems atheist. Unlike the explorers from history who sought to spread Christianity and proto-capitalism, star trek explorers only seek knowledge and friendship. This may be a little too utopian, I think that there are evil things in all humans. Not that humans are basically good or evil, such a decision no matter what side it came down on would only justify evil. What makes humans good is the possibility of death, but death and its smaller degree variant "pain" are also the condition for evil. The times when humans are most noble and "good" are times of sacrifice. When individuals submit themselves to pain or death in order for another to live or be safe. Christianity is based around this archetype of nobility and self-sacrifice. Death seems to be almost a boon, not almost, it is. Without death there would be no possibility for good. There could be no evil, nobody could steal someone's meal or drive them out of their home if they need neither home nor meal. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I may be simplistic in this way but two ideas that I think are somewhat opposites that are interesting are "jouissance" and "schadenfreude"<i><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">. </span></u></i><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">You know a little French. My font just changed cause I copy pasted that word, weak. jouissance is like a passing joy and schadenfreude is german for deriving joy from someone else's suffering. I feel like such a utopian, but I think that death opens the possibility of good. And therefore the possibility of reducing the degrees of unfreedom any individual or group faces. Death is the possibility for justice(never a pure justice, only steps towards a pure justice by reducing degrees of injustice, that can never fully attain "Justice" with a capital J). Without scarcity and without fear of death humans could live for the jouissance of knowledge and friendship like Picard's bad ass, instead of today's scarcity producing pervasive desire for schadenfreude.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
So specifically, death for me is the possibility of morality, because I do not believe that if there is a God we can understand its laws. So effectively even if there is a God, we must function as atheists, because to believe we could understand a God's will is tantamount to proclaiming yourself a God. These individuals argue that there isn't death, that death is only a threshold to the next world, so many and so passionate, LIKE THEY'VE SEEN WHAT LIES BEYOND! I think Locke is stating the exact opposite of truth. Atheists are the only individuals with a possibility of acting (not morally) against immorality, because they accept death. People who believe in an after-life cannot possibly comprehend the value of life and therefore cannot work to protect it on earth. Suffering for many is expiation of sin, how can such an outlook lend itself to fighting immorality. <br />
<br />
I think the main problem with my theory is that human morality being based on self-sacrifice and suffering for others(love), then where does that leave us after the sacrifice. After pontus pilate(is that right lol?) stabs a sacrifice, and we all perceive the action as immoral and the action of the sacrificed as moral. Where does that leave us next time? If self-sacrifice is moral and violence immoral, it leaves us in a self-fulfilling prophecy where those who wish to do good are killed by the evil. Is this how life is until the end of time? What I'm trying to get at without doing it, is why can't the people kill pontus pilate? To make sure he doesn't do it again? Obviously because “this is violence” is the answer, but what if he does it again and again. When can you use violence to stop violence? Or does that violence beget more violence? If we know death is not to be feared(as Atheists do) should we offer ourselves as sacrifices to protect the weak or should we offer ourselves as soldiers who fight evil?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">To: Owl</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">From: JImothy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Two more ideas that I could wait until your response to introduce in to the conversation, but I think they're too cool too wait. <br />
First of all I have to submit the subject to my three points of analysis which you kind of broke in to. "1. Locate the contradictory notion within the text of an idea that relies on a metaphysics of presence. <br />
2. Examine how the idea "became" through a genealogical analysis of history (as we are all always in a process of becoming, never human being only human "becoming")<br />
3. Examine how the word "became" through etymology"<br />
<br />
1.I don't know if death necessarily relies on a metaphysics of presence. I suppose the argument would be "how do you know you're alive?" DeCartes "cogito ergo sum" doesn't work, thinking does not prove existence how do we not know a rock or tree thinks? So the metaphysics of presence that we rely on to understand death would be we ASSUME we are alive. lol Hard not to. <br />
2.Number two is always too complicated, need shit tons of research. Death is something that was not socially constructed though, death is a cessation of life. When people no longer respirate and shit, they no longer exchange discourse with others: they are dead. But If we only really know death through the fact that the individual who is dead is removed from the interaction of humans, then death falls upon many political, ethnic, religious, etc. minorities WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE! I suppose a genealogical understanding of death would look at the rituals that surround death and where they came from. One example that comes to mind is from the book "the myths of babylonia and assyria" by donald mackenzie. He talks about how assyria went through multiple periods where priests became too powerful and there were "revolutions". The priests controlled the death ritual and therefore controlled who got in to heaven, elysian fields, etc. whatever. So when they started charging more and more so the priests could do more blow and hookers(or the equivalent back then) people rose up. The taboo on killing priests or overpowering priests was broken by the threat of no afterlife...So in order to protect one part of their belief structure they violated another...<br />
3. The word structure I'm not too interested in. I mean we both apparently know the greek word "thanatos" but I don't see its etymology in other words off the top of my head. <br />
<br />
Ok the two ideas I wanted to talk about. <br />
First is Zoe vs. bios (on the topic of greek words lol). These are from Giorgio Agamben's "State of Exception" in which he divides the world in to two types of life. His book explains that the exception of sovereignty is the norm, so the state is just choosing to let us live every day. In effect every state/government/territory is just one big concentration camp in which we are allowed to live at the whim of the sovereign. I couldn't find it in the book in my hand but found it on wikipedia: "<i>bios</i>(citizen) and <i>zoe</i>(homo sacer)" Essentially there are two types of life. There is the life of bios which is the citizen who participates in the state who has a political life(for lack of a better description). Zoe is the bare fact of existence, a respirating and shitting body. This type of life he shows is how the modern state treats its members as homo sacer (sacred human, before the word sacred meant what it means today). Homo Sacer in old timey days was able to be murdered legally, but not used in any type of sacrifice to the gods. Agamben says that the future holds a paradigm of universal Zoes or bare life. <br />
<br />
THe second is Derrida's book "The gift of death" which I haven't read yet. But I believe it talks about mourning and how mourning shows whats best in humans. The book looks fucking incredible its sitting right in front of me, i'll let you know. <br />
<br />
more later. <br />
lookin forward to ur response</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">To: Jimothy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">From: Owl</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">A quick note before I re-enter the discussion: I recently (about two or three months ago) attempted to increase my reading speed by following one of those speed reading books. It had a bunch of interesting skills that could be developed into a faster WPM, but I lost interest in the exercises and eventually had to return the book to the library. In light of our discussions, and the gaping hole left by too little research, I am contemplating giving it a go once more. END OF NOTE.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now, I think that life is exactly what you claim. To believe, or assume, that you are alive, or more to the point, to have the ability to believe or assume you are alive is the essence of life. It is the conscious awareness of life, and thus the realization that this life will end in death, that defines life. I forget where I read this example, some eastern-based philosophical tract or another, which talked about living in the moment. It used a fish as an example of immortality. A fish, as the common thinking goes, cannot remember more than a second of its life. Every moment is full of stimuli and sensation which pushes any and all earlier experiences out of the mind. So, without a past nor the ability to project the future, a fish just "is" until the day that it isn't.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To: Jimothy</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From: Owl</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Sorry...didn't mean to send that out. I pressed a few wrong buttons in quick succession and all of a sudden I had unwillingly sent off that half-finished email.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Anyway, to continue...</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">A fish cannot comprehend death and in this way it never dies. It lives forever, infinite moment after infinite moment, until these moments cease.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This direction of thought brings me to another of my half-baked ideas that I pretend to live by, yet, simultaneously and contradictorily, haven't been able to fully develop into any real philosophy or values for daily living. The idea is that, at death, the world ends. Whatever we discuss, all we understand and fail to understand, depends on our existence and without the self to interpret it all, then all of it truly doesn't exist. So, either death is the end of the universe, or at the very least, death is the end of MY universe, which is the same thing for ME.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Life is so intrinsic on our ability to think that death as a personal and subjective phenomena cannot exist. We are unable to experience, think, or reflect on the death because it is this absence of these abilities that defines death. It is therefore impossible to comprehend death, it being beyond what is essentially and foundationally life.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Oh, man, I feel like I have a word on the tip of my tongue but I cannot quite express it. This idea of individual life and the entire universe as being connected at the basic and fundamental level is so appealing to me. And, yet, I know it to be untrue. I know my parents lived before I ever was, and I know the world, its ills and loves, will continue after me. But, there is no other way to see it: when I am gone, so will be the world.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">To change streams...I want to argue about order and chaos. I adamantly believe that life is order, death chaos. I said:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So, it seems life is also something biological, captured in the fragile construction of cells, chemicals and organic compounds that enable life to exist and propagate. Death, then, would be the destruction, or entropy, of this ordered organic life.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">You said:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Without life the universe remains balanced(although it will balance itself against the human life's decadence eventually). But it is possible to destroy our earth with our technology it is possible to use chaos to destroy the order of earth, this makes me believe that life is chaotic rather than orderly.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">First of all, I want to define some terms. When I spoke of entropy, I used it in the colloquial sense of the word, that is: a movement towards disorder. There is another meaning for this word, which is more scientific and used, mainly by physicists, to describe a specific state of matter. In this more technical term, entropy is the complexity of a given system, or the number of possible combinations its individual pieces could form. Entropy, then, is discussed in terms of how much entropy a given system possesses. A single particle has little entropy because there are not many distinct ways this state could be different. A human body, with its trillions of cells and big-ass-number of atoms has an incredibly high entropy, the universe as a whole has mind-boggling entropy. The other part of this technical definition is that, in nature, everything always attempts to even out. For example, when you let fall of drop of dye into a glass of water, the tiny drop quickly diffuses and soon the whole glass is a similar light pink. This happens naturally. To hold back this tendency towards conformity takes energy. The human body is built cell by cell in near-perfect order, gaining entropy as it gains order. Vast amounts of energy are needed to maintain this order and keep the carbons and hydrogens from dispersing and evening themselves out. So in this view, buildings are <i>unnatural</i>. But so are trees and rivers, even planets and solar systems. Something, call it energy, is holding all of this together in a vast and pervasive order. Now, I have mixed to levels of understanding which you distinguished between, but which I think are bound together. Those being "nature" and "manmade" But, what I have argued, is that "manmade" and our terrestrial or solar systemic "nature" are both unnatural in a broader sense and that their unnatural order is a result of energy. Moving back to life and death, in life there is that inexplicable movement towards order, death, lack of energy, chaos, are all a move towards that natural state of complete equilibrium, where each and every particle in the universe is evenly spread across the infinite reaches of space. FUCK, I AM OUT OF TIME ON THE COMPUTER AND HOVE THOROUGHLY CONFUSED MYSELF. 'Till next time.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">To: Owl </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">From: Jimothy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Ok, I need to make a quick response/clarification. It is a silly assumption of binary opposition between man and nature that has been disproved on so many levels that clouds the ground I stand on in this argument. I opposed man and nature and made the universe synonymous with human. Man and nature are one and the same intimately imbricated in their Heidegerran "worldliness". I can see clear faults in my argument, as there are exceptions, but I think that life more closely represents chaos than order. I think the entropy which is evident in my three cleavages of the cosmos: man, nature, universe (which are delineations that only cloud the point) is the evidence of chaos. Entropy to me is chaotic, whereas ZERO is order. In fact lets not call it the cosmos, lets call it the "big bang". To me the big bang was not an event, it is a noun. It is our cosmos, it was an event in which the huge balloon which is our cosmos was created(I won't say from nothing, because outside the big bang is a nothing much more profound than the word nothing can convey). Within the big bang nature and life are possibilities. Eventually though the Big Bang will either become so large the fabric of reality will simply tear or it will reach an apex and collapse back in on itself. Maybe to reopen again some time(does time exist outside the big bang?) in the future(does the future exist there? can "there" denote an area outside the big bang?). The point being eventually man, nature, and the universe will end. There will eventually be zero. The big bang's current iteration (if there has been or will be any others) will eventually achieve order by not existing...I didn't make any sense. <br />
<br />
I think that your statement "The idea is that, at death, the world ends." is the antithesis of morality. It is solipsism, the closest approximation of opposite to the idea of empathy. I would advise you to reject this axiom in favor of what you were saying earlier which in philosophy is called immanence. <br />
This is the dictionary.com definition but its not 100% accurate I think. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 18pt;">im·ma·nent</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="display: none;">/ˈɪm<img alt="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" height="4" src="file:///C:/Users/kevin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif" width="2" />ə<img alt="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" height="4" src="file:///C:/Users/kevin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif" width="2" />nənt/ </span></span><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; display: none; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif" border="0" height="15" src="file:///C:/Users/kevin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.gif" width="15" /></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Show Spelled[im-uh-nuh<img alt="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" border="0" height="4" src="file:///C:/Users/kevin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif" width="2" />nt] </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">–adjective </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">1. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">remaining within; indwelling; inherent. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">2. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Philosophy . (of a mental act) taking place within <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">the</span></a> mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it. Compare <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transeunt" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">transeunt</span></a>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">3. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Theology . (of the Deity) indwelling the universe, <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">time</span></a>, etc. Compare <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendent" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">transcendent</span></a> ( def. 3 ) . </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><br />
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Origin: </span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br />
1525–35; < Late Latin immanent- (stem of immanēns ), present participle of immanēre to stay in, equivalent to im- <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/im-" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">im-</span></a><sup>1 </sup> + man ( ēre ) to stay + -ent- <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ent" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">-ent</span></a>; see <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/remain" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">remain</span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><br />
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
<br />
<br />
First of all it is not imminent, which is what people tell me is what I mean when I say it, because its a pretty obscure word. The first definition makes it seem like a synonym of intrinsic which literarily(lol thats not a word) makes sense, but philosophically does not. The second definition is complete bullshit and makes it seem like a synonym to what i was trying to provide an alternative for! solipsism! That shit is wrong. And the third definition makes it seem similar to transcendence which is exactly what it is developed in opposition to in philosophy! FUCK! ok so that definition was bad but allows me to draw a few lines around it and I can do a quick explanation here then I'm waiting for ur full response. This is similar to the way a fish lives as you were saying, it is somewhat post-modern and therefore resembles Zen in a few ways so may overlap with eastern ideas in that way as u mentioned. So Sartre was the recent big name in philosophy (and we'll say Thoreau/emerson). Sartre said that every individual is responsible for everything that happens in the world (in what is essentially a big interpretation of Heidegger). So morality lies in two transcendent values: universizability and reversizability (its been awhile since I researched this i'm probably spelling it wrong). Universizability is the question "if everyone else in the world took the action I'm taking would it be ok?" (simply put lol). Reversizability is the golden role "If someone else took this action (that i'm about to take) against me would it be ok?". So there are two simple UNIVERSAL and transcendent rules to live by in order to have a moral life. Thoreau and Emerson's philosophy is actually named Transcendentalism. So they are like late 1800s sartre is writing in the 40s(i think). Before this modern paradigm are the ancient equivalents. THe Kantian categorical imperative. Essentially philosophies of ethics and morality which are based on universality or transcendent values. <br />
<br />
Immanence is developed as an alternative to transcendental/universal moralities. It is impossible for anyone to live an authentic life under Sartre (of course the whole world would die if we all lived like my fat united statesian ass) and (of course I would not be ok with being a slave making clothing and shoes, but I still buy clothes and shoes rather than go naked) and to accept responsibility for everything is tantamount to self-flagellation as Foucault said. <br />
<br />
Here is a paradigmatic (and quite viscerally offensive) example of immanence producing a more morally defensible reaction than transcendence:<br />
<br />
You are hired to be a chauffeur for a junior high field trip. You are traveling on a school bus full of children and 2 other adults who are sitting in front, you are in the back of the bus. At a stoplight a man boards the bus shoots both other adults, drops his weapon which is out of ammo, and proceeds to immediately start raping a child. You are dumbfounded at first but quickly realize that you are not hallucinating and remember that you have a loaded gun concealed on you and have already pulled it out instinctively. THe children are all ducking down in their seats and it is a clear shot at the man who does not notice you as he is deeply concentrated on his task. As you are about to level the gun and take the easy shot you realize that not only are you a christian, but it is illegal and immoral to kill. Having a clear universal moral compass has saved you from inauthenticity again as you holster your weapon trying to ignore the child's screams. <br />
<br />
If the world ends when you die then others are not human like you, they are simulcra. They're GTA animations on a playstation.<br />
<br />
GIVE ME MORE</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">To: Jimothy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">From: Owl</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dear Professor Bean House,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I have been busy with work, moving, reading The Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc and those are my excuses for taking this long to respond.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now, I must say that I like this idea of yours, this immanence, though I am still unclear what it means and what the implications of such a world view are. As you realized yourself after you had presented the three dictionary definitions, they are not really helpful in defining what immanence means on a philosophical level. It is good and right to define your terms using established institutions, but in much of what we discuss these established institutions are unable or unwilling to encompass what we are arguing and I would therefore deem them less than useful, in general.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">However, by defining what it is not, e.g. universizability/reversizability, I began to grasp the main idea and I liked what I was hearing. Now, if I may jump ahead and discuss your final statement: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">If the world ends when you die then others are not human like you, they are simulcra. They're GTA animations on a playstation.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This is not what I meant when I said that the world ends when I die, because what you have written implies that the world was dead the entire time I was alive and that I was never a part of an external reality. But I was. People were real, consequences were real. Pain, anger, love...all of the experiences were real. But, as a subjective being, inseparable in mind and body, when my body dies so does my mind. I guess you could argue that under this view, I would be OK with a nuclear detonation ending life at the very moment that I died. And I would be, as long as it was not I who brought about annihilation. If I died at the very moment of destruction, I would never know it. It would be the same thing if the world ends or if the world continues, for I will not longer exist.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">However, this doesn't mean I am solipsistic while I am alive, because I choose not to live my life like that. I feel empathy and I feel hate and I act according to my mish-mash of morals that I have developed over my 28+ years. The fact that my death means "That's all folks" is an inconceivable inevitability and although rationally, with words and abstract ideas I can define that event, I find it impossible to accept it as long as I am alive and thinking. Until that day arrives, I am human and aware and I must do what I feel or have been raised to believe is right/good/copacetic.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And so, we arrive again at your term: immanence.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Your final HYPOTHETIC example confused me. Did the act of holstering one's gun because of arbitrary moral beliefs give an example of immanence. If so, I completely disagree with the philosophy. I believe that we are all responsible for both our actions and our lack there of, and the person who sits idly by as a child is savagely raped before his/her eyes, while simultaneously holding the clearcut ability to stop the pain, is a fiend. But, you have wallpapered over a moment of life, albeit a very specious and impossible moment, with an abstract and useless philosophical ideal. This misses the point. What I am trying to get at is that, maybe, life is, on a moment to moment basis, transcendent of philosophy. Fear, physical strength, a fleeting disposition one way or the other, would have more of an effect on how I acted than would any philosophy that I thought I possessed. So much of what we do is beyond our philosophy, beyond even our rational decision-making mind. It is, I think, this very fact that makes life such a funny, retarded romp.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I have some more to add about death, based on the readings I have been doing on Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, but Nick is wanting to smoke a bowl and I am feeling the urge myself. So, I will write again soon, with some of what I have gleaned from the yellowed pages of my Cambridge library edition of the Bardol Thosol. However, I'll leave you with the main issue I am having with the whole afterlife/reincarnation/heaven/hell problem. When we die, I know as if it were fact, that we are gone, baby, gone. I am unable to see it any other way. Which makes the entire book and others like it quite silly. But, it is still fun as a discussion of human consciousness/unconsciousness and our penchant for phantasy and art in our lives.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Peace brother,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">To: Owl</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">From: Jimothy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My mouse has been broken and I have yet to get a new one so I can't like copy paste or navigate easily. Thusly i've been putting off my reply til i get a mouse, but I have decided to spend mouse money on other things. <br />
<br />
What I mean by philosophy being behind everything is somewhat like the unconscious. It is not a set of morals as you seem to be constructing it, that is just one school of written and studied philosophy marked by a desire for universality. Philosophy is ontology, epistemology, and ethics. There are other marginal discourses but these are the big 3. We are always deciding our being by continuing to be, thusly not dying is ontology: philosophy is behind everything. We are always deciding what we know when we act or don't act, speak or not speak etc. thusly consciousness is epistemology: philosophy is behind everything. We have a name for an emotion called guilt and it comes in a million shades and we have words for all of them, we question whether we have done right we plan for doing right in the future, thusly living is an exercise in ethics: philosophy is behind everything. <br />
<br />
There is nothing without philosophy, even thoughts within your own head are imbricated with philosophy before they are spoken. Just because there are not names for them and scholars have not written them out, they are philosophy. <br />
<br />
I'm down for any topic.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">To: Owl</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">From: Jimothy</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now that I have a mouse I can quote your words. Let me just add this response to the death discussion to respond to ur points and to make a point about philosophy that can only be made in the discussion of death. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You said: “Life is so intrinsic on our ability to think that death as a personal and subjective phenomena cannot exist. We are unable to experience, think, or reflect on the death because it is this absence of these abilities that defines death. It is therefore impossible to comprehend death, it being beyond what is essentially and foundationally life.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This was very well stated and sums up the “radical otherness” of death. Which is one of the points I want to make about philosophy, specifically the dialectic. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You said: “<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> As you realized yourself after you had presented the three dictionary definitions, they are not really helpful in defining what immanence means on a philosophical level. It is good and right to define your terms using established institutions, but in much of what we discuss these established institutions are unable or unwilling to encompass what we are arguing and I would therefore deem them less than useful, in general.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This statement reminded me of a thought I’ve been having A LOT recently. And when I read this paragraph the second time I misinterpreted it to think you were talking about philosophical terms rather than the dictionary definition. To which I was going to respond that all words are institutions. But dictionary definitions seem to be lacking recently when I look for meaning. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">You said: “</span>what you have written implies that the world was dead the entire time I was alive and that I was never a part of an external reality.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think this is a tenuous delineation though, because if there is any assumption in your brain that relies upon thinking of the world as dead after your death it would breed solipsism, even if you can’t even conclude you’ll be dead tomorrow. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for the Tibetan Book of the Dead: it’s an allegory in my opinion. It makes death in to life in order to make it seem less alien. It makes death a journey in which you’re tripping balls the whole time. Sounds pretty much like life: a journey where nothing makes sense but certain things seem strangely significant (love, family, art, human touch, etc).<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for the point I felt was important to make on THIS subject concerning philosophy, I speak of the dialectic. The idea that ideas, history, etc. function dialectically. With a positing or “thesis”, followed by whatever disagrees or is in opposition to the thesis known as an “antithesis”. This inevitably results in a “synthesis” or aufheben or supralation or sublimation there are a hundred translations and phonetic arrangements of the idea. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So lets take a classic political science idea of the “state of nature” Hobbes says that before the state it was a war of all against all. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thesis: War of all against all</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Antithesis: Violence/conquering. growth of the strong/domination of the weak</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Synthesis: The State. This synthesis is thusly a feature of history henceforth. It seen as a neutral and normal thing to have the weak dominated by the strong with violence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thusly that synthesis is a new THESIS!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thesis: The state is the only agent of justified violence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Antithesis: states that go too far</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Synthesis: revolution of who is in control of the state apparatus. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Omg that synthesis is a new thesis!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thesis: The state is the only agent of justified violence, because of its seizure of the state apparatus. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Antithesis: State goes too far</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Synthesis: Revolution of who is in control of the state apparatus. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is one specific examination which ignores a trillion other dialectics happening simultaneously, but it is a simple one to understand that the dialectic can explain everything because it takes TIME(as the condition for anything to be possible) in to account and it takes IDEAs(as the currency of the human mind) in to account, as well as allows for infinite iteration. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem with the dialectic is its so fucking radical. Things are either thesis or antithesis in every episteme. Once a paradigm shift occurs and a synthesis has become the new thesis(which can happen a billion times in a day, but not to big firmly established ideas). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Life and death are the hardest thesis/antithesis pair, because there is no ground for synthesis. But it is also the greatest way to understand how radically different thesis and antithesis are. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my current understanding of what is effective resistance to immorality number one is to know the dialectic and instead of ever cheering for the winner, always be a dissident. If a paradigm shift occurs the new synthesis is not a victory, it is the new enemy. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Many philosophies are based on claims that certain subjects have had their dialectic play frozen and a thesis has become congealed and won’t flip over. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The dialectic is also sometimes seen as similar to the Socratic method. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think its super helpful for understanding big ideas that go through large chunks of time. Like Marx used an ideal dialectic which claimed that capitalism will destroy itself because of surplus value. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The antithesis to this arrived in the form of marketing as Pierre Bourdieu states. Surplus value pays for more marketing in order to get us to buy the shit we don’t need. Its easier to notice changes in the dialectic if you have perspective looking farther back in history. Or maybe the antithesis was distraction/delirium as Guy DeBord writes, that we are distracted from the fissures on purpose by the media. But both agree that the next synthesis after marx’s identification of surplus value as the internal contradiction has to do with media/marketing which are both encompassed by the phrase: mental environments</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is much harder to establish the Theses and potential synetheses of today, because of myopia and lack of historical intel to see patterns in. But the words for the current thesis pervade: episteme, paradigm, millieux, etc. It is that thing that we accept as neutral that is here because of a succession of dialectic. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe Zizek is right that after capitalism created a new capitalism in order to avoid the pitfalls identified by Marx, it stumbled in to new pitfalls which DeBord and Bourdieu are best at identifying, and then created a new capitalism to overcome that, and the main thrust of this latest synthesis is based on making people experience chemical rewards for consumption. Making people feel they are altruistic for consuming, or that they are saving the environment by consuming, or that they are contributing to fair labor practices by consuming. Just look at your Starbucks cup as Zizek says or as Derrick Jensen says just look around you, look at all the unsustainable shit that is telling you that to purchase it will save the world from environmental degradation. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ok end rambling, back to current topic. </div>
</div>
</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-14920190889034860412011-05-14T23:01:00.001-05:002011-05-14T23:10:31.346-05:00Dialogue with Owl One: Money<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Upon the suggestion of the erudite and linguistically talented Owl we will be corresponding on set subjects. I will post these rambling diatribes here for posterity.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">4/30/11</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">From: Jimothy</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">To: Owl</span><br />
"money is cool I'm only human/but they use it as a tool to make the workers feel excluded/like the shiner the jewel the more exclusive the truth is/bullets don't take bribes stupid they shoot shit"-Aesop[Rock]<br />
First of all as to age it is very true we are probably getting weaker at this point physically, but we can still level up with our intellects for many years to come. Which is why I am very excited about this idea. <br />
<br />
I have been thinking about this subject for a couple days and really didn't come up with any meat and potatoes, only that aesop quote. So I feel like I haven't been able to discourse face to face in a long time with you and I want to kind of lay groundwork. Although I feel orthodoxy is the true evil in this world I think that I have found some things which are universal to either the human condition or reality. I feel that Derrida's "Metaphysics of presence" or Lacan's "lack in the big Other" are a universal aspect of humanity. We create illusions of presence, truth, authenticity, etc. We create subordinated and privileged ideas and identities through our discourse.<br />
One example of this illusion of presence, truth, or authenticity is the (re)production of history. Humans must believe history to be truth in some respect, especially their own memories(Or how they reckon they felt about something in the past. Those are two ideas that I just want you to be aware of and I have a third to continue to bore you off topic: semiotics. Symbolism or specifically the lack of universal meaning in any symbol or system of symbols. Because the meaning of these symbols is recreated through our use of these symbols on and on in to the future. So another Derridean concept that I am finding very helpful in understanding reality is "differance" which is two ideas smashed in to one word.<br />
The first idea is that we can only know something, by what it is not. So it is a model of our consciousness based on negativity essentially, which corresponds to how philosophy treats "the other" (or people outside the self). We perform selves to be "different" than the other and only know our "selves" by performing this difference.<br />
The second part of "differance" is that meaning is never fully grasped, meaning is always deferred in a million different ways. We defer meaning until the end of a word, end of a sentence, end of a paragraph, end of a book, end of a semester, etc. This is one reason I am having so much trouble with my big text is because after locating the idea historically the idea(or the word which signified the idea) began to change. <br />
In conclusion to my long introductory paragraph on methodology I just want to say that I think the best way to determine "meaning" is to <br />
1. Locate the contradictory notion within the text of an idea that relies on a metaphysics of presence. <br />
2. Examine how the idea "became" through a genealogical analysis of history (as we are all always in a process of becoming, never human being only human "becoming")<br />
3. Examine how the word "became" through etymology<br />
<br />
2 and 3 can be accomplished with a justifiable amount of certainty through shit tons of research, number 1 is really fucking hard to do. So if these are my established heuristics for accessing ideas and "reality" then let me give it a whirl without any research. <br />
<br />
I mean fuck, I can start anywhere and its all interesting shit that I want to think about and write and read. Lemme get a pinner going. <br />
<br />
Ok i'm gonna have to do a little research<br />
I"m gonna start with number 2, I think number three is kinda stupid for this subject and number 1 is actually too easy on this subject. I mean money IS number one. It is a piece of paper which is said to be the presence of value even though it cannot be eaten, cannot keep you warm, and cannot cure sickness. It is evidence of the metaphysics of presence because our entire society functions BECAUSE we all continue to believe in money's substitution for value. <br />
THe research I wanted to do is I know there is a specific discipline which studies coinage or the origins of money,I almost ruined the whole point by reading some wikipedia about money but I found it: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numismatics" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numismatics</a><br />
ok but no research, fuck numismatics. One book that I loved that I read was Gerda Lerner's "THe Creation of Patriarchy" I"ve probably told you about the ideas it had about sovereignty. I feel like I should start the whole Email over, sorry I'm a rambler, but I think I can focus in now.<br />
I mean money is a representation of value, thats above, so what is important is the value I guess? I mean I could say what everybody already knows but doesn't care that money literally isn't backed by anything. THat paper money at one point could be exchanged for gold, but is now just kind of an investment in a country...which means a bet on the confidence of people who hold the most of the not backed by anything pieces of paper.<br />
But that was above that was the illusion of presence, but I don't think that this is something that only manifests with what we regard as capitalism, unless we regard capitalism as a system based on property. In which case we can consider virtually all post-agrarian societies capitalist and many agrarian societies capitalist. So then the function of money is to represent or stand in for property we can disregard its specific character(the metaphysics of presence above) for this train of logic and just understand money as one category of things representing value. So money is then interchangeable with labor and property(even cultural capital). So Money is a symptom of property or an inevitable structural aspect of a property based system. <br />
Lerner's book explains the origins of property. So lets start with a theoretical background. If there is such a thing that is positively identified as "property" this therefore means that property is something that was not always positively identified and known as "property". So there was a point in time in which there was not property. Not in any specific place but in every locality in the world. Lerner theorizes that property becomes positively identified because of knowledge of biology. As it became necessary to work fields in order not to starve societies in a transition from these hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian societies needed more people. At the point that woman's reproductive capacity was identified the necessity of owning women became apparent. At this point the woman and child slave became the norm. As that became the norm the slave in general became accepted. We can also see the origins of "war" in this narrative as localities or tribes would raid other localities to obtain their slaves. I find this narrative very convincing and the book does a great genealogy of assyrian law and old testament law. The origins of money, which is property lies in the commodification of other humans. The violence against individuals and the theft of free will that slavery entails is at the very heart of this shit in my wallet, but....it IS my wallet as well. HOLY SHIT its my brain also, nobody else owns it! It is in the assumption my sentence on free will relies upon! I can't even think without recourse to property as a meme!<br />
So is there an alternative? I mean all I'm doing is bitching if I don't have an alternative. I guess democratic socialism is the best I got or maybe thats a glorified fashionable term and I should just say the alternative is: politics. And by that I mean using the power of the state(which is an inevitability) to protect the welfare of the citizens. This can manifest itself as making fun of people who think a market free from government intervention is even a possibility, protesting against stupid wars which just create terrorists, writing a letter to the editor in favor of legislation which makes health care more affordable and sustainable, etc.<br />
Money is reducible to property, I think a society without money is possible in history they're called barter economies, but money is just a symptom of property eliminating money would do absolutely nothing to solve the harms which can be attributed to money. If property had an origin there must be a way to eliminate it, but it seems that property is so far back through these millions of layers of dialectic that it is not possible at this point. In order to make property "good" we would have to come to terms with all these heuristics of presence or of privileging identities that were built on the last new norm(like the transition from female/child slave to slaves of all ages and gender). In fact I think that the way in which to solve for the social harms of property is to deconstruct these bullshits one by one: gender, class, race, sexual orientation, age, nationality, religion, ethnicity, and just about every other category we put people in so we can think easy. The process whereby people realize that the privileged identities in each of these subjects are no more secure than the subordinated identities. This seeking of presence that we look for in masculinity, whiteness, wealth, heterosexuality, americaness or whatever identities are performed in your neck of the woods is the problem. Instead of relying on a presence which we think we know, we should understand that presence can never fully be arrived at, only deferred. But most people in the world don't want to know things, they don't want to know where they came from(not nationality) I mean where humanity came from and our ideas came from. Now i'm the old man and a really arrogant old man, but I don't mean to say I'm any better. TV and identity performance often convince me to act stupid, stupidity is glorified; constructed as a privileged identity of security. <br />
<br />
I think one more aspect of property/money is how property became property is quite different from today's property. Property back then was probably the one with the most power owned everything and shared enough to keep the others from banding together to take him out. But the female slave was property, because nobody had the power to say otherwise. Property was clearly overlapped with violence. TOday Property necessarily presupposes a government or state which portends to be an objective arbiter in any property dispute. ok well, i just though of eminient domain, maybe nothing has changed. If eminent domain exists then all land/property is on loan from the government much like the neolithic despotism i was just talking about. Despite this exception my point is that the government is the agent of the violence to repossess something in a dispute, but does not take it for itself. Today one only considers property in reference to the state that protects it, property is something that you can sue for if it is unfairly broken or stolen. The house is only yours as long as the government says so. Money is a good example of the physical manifestation of the bridge between state and property, in fact it has traditionally been a way to cement political support. Issuing a coin was a way to kind of claim to be king I forget where I read this, but it was because assyria or rome or something had coins so others started making it in order to say they were king. Might have been clovis or something. So maybe money is just the symbol a king gives to people that represents that all property belongs to him and shit your life does too because whos gonna arrest him for killing you. <br />
I think i've written too much, sorry for rambling, i'll just end here lol. lookin forward to ur response<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">From: Owl</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">To: Jimothy</span><br />
<br />
<div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">“The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.”</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> -Captain John-Luc Picard</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I have never watched this movie, but the quote is apt in its de-contextualized form as a starting point for my argument. And also, before I begin, it should be said that I had a great start on this typing earlier in the week, when suddenly my broke-ass, third-hand laptop switched off and stayed off. So, this is a second attempt and might lose some creative flair in its redundancy.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I believe, through this quote, that the writers of Star Trek are revealing a subtle clue about the true identity of the humans aboard the Starship USS </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic;">Enterprise</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">. That being that those aboard the future craft who claim the title of </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic;">H. sapien</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> are anything but human in nature and solely on the basis of this quote and the fact that their society has no need for money, I diagnosis Picard, Riker and the rest inhuman.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I call on my misty and fractional understanding of Nietzsche and his argument for the Will to Power. As humans, or defined in a more meaningful way, as intelligent creatures, we are, at our core, motivated by a struggle for power. Power, as your obsession with semiotics should inform you, is not a clearly definable noun and is objective in its application. But, that is one of the clear benefits of money, in that it contains within it nearly every individual’s idea of power in its universality. It is also the main reason why money must exist if the human species is also to exist, because if ever money wasn’t needed, if ever people worked, endeavored or even got out of bed for the lofty purposes of self-improvement, personal satisfaction, or communal humanism rather than power, we would no longer be human.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Don’t give me any specific examples of some bull-shit monk who lives day to day on beggar’s scraps and owns no worldly possessions. This behavior is in conscious rejection of the ubiquitous fact of money. Given a society made up entirely of these hermetic monks, money would necessarily arise in some form or another.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I have only read the first half of your piece. I was trying to wait until I’d finished mine before I read any of it, but I was sitting around at work and had a printout in hand and couldn’t help myself. Before I stopped reading, I saw your three main points of interest/interrogation. The one regarding history would be interesting to research and would provide more substantial evidence of what I am about to say, or, conversely, prove me completely wrong, but in either case: I believe that money is an intrinsic aspect of humanity.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Furthermore, I do not believe that this is a social evolutionary phenomenon. To live without money would require a foundational, DNA-based genetic change. The color of money is cultural. Which dead guy’s face is printed on the bill, how you carry and save and spend that bill, all this is cultural. The money is part of humanity.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I am having difficulty making a clear, logical argument for this claim. In part, like so many other aspects of humanity, money is here and has been for ages, so this fact in itself proves my point. Did money exists back at the dawn of man? Maybe not, but this prehistoric being was not the same species as we are today.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Maybe money needed civilization in order to be effective...</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; min-height: 11pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Shit. I’ve lost my flow. But this has been a good start. </span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">From: Owl</span></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">To: Jimothy</span></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">5/11/11</span></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;">Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 00:53:22 -0400<br />
Subject: Re: Proposal</div><div class="ecxim"><br />
</div><div class="ecxim">So, this guy comes in to the ER for detox. He'd been snorting heroin every night for months, some how decided he should stop, and at the time I spoke with him, he claimed to have been sober for 11 days. He was in his early 60s and seemed to be more or less with it. I asked him at some point in our conversation how much the heroin had cost him. A bag was 50 bucks he told me. So I asked him what quantity "one bag" would be and he didn't really know the answer. He could describe it only by how long it would last him and by how much it would fuck him up. After he'd developed a tolerance, a bag would just be enough to put him out until the morrow. So, he'd spent five grand on heroin in about 100 nights. $5,000 to anaesthetize life for 1/3 of a year. Chew on that...mmmmmmmmmm.<br />
<div></div><div>One main issue I found in writing my little tra-la-la on money was the lack of research I had on the subject. I felt that sending you my preconceived notions, my biases and uneducated, inexperienced hunches was not worth the bits of RAM they'd require. Of course, that is exactly what I did, because I had nothing fact-based or quantitative to say. Now, as I write this, I can't see how that should be a problem; a subjective truth about money could be worth writing and reading/ But, no, real knowledge is in things objective, not the mystical esoteric understanding that only the individual can experience. Anyway, all this conspired to steal my inspiration and I found that writing what measly paragraphs I was able to paste together was very difficult. Maybe we need a new subject.</div><div><br />
</div><div>But, first... "lemme get a pinner going"</div><div><br />
</div><div>I agree with your approach in going back to the beginnings to try and find some clues to our question. But, I disagree with the interpretation. To look back at a time when, as you reference Lerner mentioning, property "was not", is to look back at a time eons before any history exists. Now, was this time before or after or during our evolution into human beings...ahem, pardon me, human becomings? To have language and to be able to manufacture such ideas as property is intrinsic in what we could all agree constitutes a human. Whether or not this ability to understand precludes the advent of a monetary system, or even the evolution of language, is hard to say. The latter would be a sort of Adam and Eve hunter/gatherer paradise, where fully developed, communicating human becomings lived in a edenic confines where the natural resources were plentiful enough not to warrant the words "mine" and "yours". However, in my opinion, this would also demand a perfect 50/50 man to woman ratio, a personal knowledge or naive trust in everyone you met, as well as a number of other similar impossibilities. By arguing that the moment property became a firm idea or an expressable thought defines also the moment property came into existence is wrong. So there is no definite line when humans became...there is only just a long line of past events stretching off into infinity, seen darkly if at all. Property exists in the animal kingdom; property exist where ever these is the struggle to survive.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Now, going back to what I wrote before, or tried to express, I can be sum it up in the following question: Can society, as we know it and understand it to be intrinsically human, ever exist without a form of money? This question encompasses the past that we have been mucking our way through. It also demands all that psychological b.s. about human nature, as well as the greater sociological questions about the nature of humankind. It encompasses the question of what is money and what roll it plays in our lives. It also encompasses the present and future as well.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Hmm...let's leave that and look at one of your sentences I underlined: Money is a good example of the physical manifestation of the bridge between state and property. This is dope and here's why I think that. I defined money as physical, which is an extremely important idea. Taken further, money is physical and yet totally without value in the physical world...kindling and TP are the only possible exceptions. But it is not the adjective that matters, it is the noun: manifestation. Money embodies whatever the state is in relation to whatever it is money can buy. Money can buy property, and its disturbing connection to the state is clear in you example of eminent domain. But it does not stop at property. If we see eminent domain as a symptom of the all-powerful state, the meaning of money becomes larger. And so, I put to you that money is not so much a representation of property. I would argue that money is the representation of power.</div><div><br />
</div><div>New topic...do you want to choose? If so, let me know what it is. If not, then we can use my idea which is encoded below:</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div>-Q S A A C Q Q</div><div><br />
</div><div>(add three letters in alphabetical order from each character to decode the topic)</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">From: Jimothy</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">To: Owl</span></div></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> 5/11/11</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15;"><br />
<br />
I do think your quote needs to be contextualized a bit. This guy Carl G. Hempel says that things can never be fully explained (well he stops short of saying the same thing about the natural sciences unfortunately[but about the social sciences, things can never be fully explained)]. I've already woven myself in to some writing trap trying to fit ideas in there. But there can be "explanatory sketches" that can be "filled out". I so I would like to give a rudimentary sketch of your quote from Picard. Picard's world is different in only ONE way from ours. In the star trek universe they have invented the "warp drive", which is just the name for a source of infinite, renewable, and non-pollution producing energy. That very simply put is the end of money. A post-money world. This is a good provisional context for Picard's quote. Beyond that there are still numerous problems with violence or the show wouldn't be fun.<br />
<br />
As to your diagnosis of the denizens of the Enterprise and the star trek universe, I think you may be close if you look to the philosopher you name in the next paragraph. Nietzsche also thought of man as the middle-ground between simian and ubermensch(superman). His invocation of the will to power stems from a critical outlook on institutions. Humans were not being themselves...I'm saying it wrong, but humans were ceding their free will(will to power) to others and to machines(institutions). Nietzsche would most likely diagnose Picard similarly, but differently. "Inhuman" is a cold dehumanizing(lol redundancy) word, Nietzsche would call them Ubermensch I think. <br />
<br />
Your statement "<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">money...contains within it nearly every individual’s idea of power in its universality."</span> I think may be a little too strong. If we can imagine a world without money and simple way to get there(energy) this is good evidence that power can exist in a post-money world. I think my argument for a pre-money world falls short. I am thinking about it like this: electricity was not invented it was discovered, same for penicillin, and same for all medicine. These things already existed but eventually were discovered by humans. At one point in time there was not money, we know from history there was a barter system(which is such an expansive term). But even before that there was a time before humans realized the value of things: how to use tools. Well most non-human animals use tools, but they use pieces of their environment. A chimp does not carry around his favorite long grass blade that he likes to lick and stick in the termite mound for a quick snack. These tools cannot be considered akin to property or money for bartering. Although your example of the monkeys who were conditioned with using money to buy food, then stole all the money not realizing they had noone to buy from if they stole from their vendors. Is money becoming too amorphous if we say it has always existed (In the form of value, like valuing the life of your family, valuing game in hunting, or valuing the crop harvest)? I think those left out by the statement "nearly every" are actually quite numerous. Power to the victims of rape is clearly not money, I use the most obvious example, but I think we could say the same about any victim of violence or even perpetrators of violence. Especially people who can enact justified violence(violence they can get away with) like police, soldiers, abusive husbands,priests, etc. their power derives from the threat of violence not from their wealth. <br />
<br />
Your sentence: "<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">if ever people worked, endeavored or even got out of bed for the lofty purposes of self-improvement, personal satisfaction, or communal humanism rather than power, we would no longer be human.</span>" I think I agree with you and I think Nietzsche would agree with you. You are demarcating a threshold between man and ubermensch. It does not make what you say impossible for humans, it just means the circumstances need to be right and humans need to level up. <br />
<br />
Your cynicism of humanity can be coupled with hope for the future. Just because humans cannot reach that point where they can live in a post-money world does not mean that humans can' t level up once the circumstances are right. Although there is no such thing as freedom, sometimes it is very easy to see degrees of unfreedom. I think many places on the globe have managed to get a few degrees closer to the unreachable horizon of freedom. But technology and mass production of human minds has made unfreedom all the more insidious over the years. It is hard to clearly see without perspective, like looking back at a time long ago or looking at a culture in present day completely different than your own, but using its epistemology as a mirror of your own culture. <br />
<br />
"<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Furthermore, I do not believe that this is a social evolutionary phenomenom. To live without money would require a foundational, DNA-based genetic change." <br />
I don't necessarily think we need genetic conditioning. I think DNA is given too much credit, soon it will be neuroscience that is given too much credit. The milieu of our culture is certainly what constructs a meaning for money, there is no ingrained meaning for money in our DNA. <br />
<br />
What you are doing is exploding the metonym of "money". If money is also "anything people have value in" then of course there will never be a post-money or pre-money world for humans. Which follows our hermeneutic circle right back to semiotics. We need provisional or operational definitions to draw clear lines around "money". <br />
<br />
On to your second part!<br />
To spend so much money in order to sleep is so crazy to me. I don't wanna join the idiots and put people in cages who do the shit, but what a useless fucking drug. If you are going to be dealing with these people you should know its a revolving door. You met *, well she would have frequent hospital visits for multiple days. She was a full blown "drink a shitton when you wake up" alcoholic and was just recently charged with felony possession of heroin. I am pretty sure she applies for financial aid to go to the hospital in order to have shelter and get opiates. I think a lot of junkies spend a lot of time in hospitals chasing endorphins after they have killed their ability to feel them. <br />
<br />
"</span> I would argue that money is the representation of power." I think I would agree that money is ONE representation of power. I think violence is a much more naked manifestation(manifested in a violent act) of power. I think you may be right that humans cannot be free of money, but maybe a new human can be when the circumstances are in his/her favor. I think energy is the only thing to make this possible. Although that seems utopian it is the number one threat to human existence, because of the obvious degradation of the earth and dwindling energy supplies. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></div></div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-28342038727994585482011-05-01T22:49:00.002-05:002011-05-01T22:53:10.981-05:00Osama Bin Laden Killed<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I have to give my thoughts on an event of this magnitude.<br />
My first reaction is to the news already painting Al Qaeda as more dangerous without Osama. This rebranding is an effort to manufacture consent for the continued occupation(we all know the deadline is bullshit and will continue to be pushed forward). Although there is a new martyr for maximalist violence, this should be the complete destruction of Al Qaeda. This is because Al Qaeda was simply the merging of Zawahiri and Bin Laden's respective groups. This group in its original announcements called themselves the "united front for jihad against zionists and crusaders" calling for withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia. Later including us support for Israel in Palestine as part of their grievance.A loss of one of their two top leaders(the one responsible for fundraising) will be devastating. <br />
<br />
The second impression i get is the fact that this is being painted as justice. This is a strong precedent for murdering criminals rather than giving them trials. It is not justice to kill criminals. This is the longest war in us history and we can't capture the criminal? <br />
<br />
<br />
I hope that this leads to a quick withdrawal of our troops and I think that Obama's speech made some appealing arguments that the war on terror is not a war against Islam. But is this just an effort to modulate distress while the occupation of sovereign countries which are predominately Muslim continues?<br />
<br />
Now finally I am curious about the operation. Was this a small arms assassination or a drone strike? How was the kill confirmed? DNA photos? <br />
<br />
Hopefully more information will come out about exactly how we know it was Bin Laden: do you remember when the Saddam sons were killed? Will there be front page spreads of OBL's body tomorrow?<br />
<br />
I won't celebrate murder no matter how evil the victim, this is the same way I feel about the death penalty. Even more so in this situation though: I will not celebrate the execution of a suspect without a fucking trial.<br />
<br />
We learned nothing from 9/11. <br />
<br />
</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-81246726328097936912011-04-17T22:27:00.001-05:002011-04-17T22:29:13.135-05:00Ikebana Boat by the Owl<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This poem was inspired by a MFA exhibit of the works of the monocular Fagin of the glass art world, Chihuly. The art was titled, "Ikebana Boat," thusly, the poem is eponymous. Might add some more, but I think the brevity is one of its most alluring assets. Google search images for Ikebana Boat for a number of pale imitations.<br />
<span style="color: black;"><pre style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </pre><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDWTFb_e8-ROqUKKcsIs09jRutyGafOy17S9iqi3O8hbpizXhyphenhyphen_WIohXI99dSGyB7yANpMpqUdnI1XSx9CC9s32VKL07uLSe8mAr_0JcbYWx-19vJ0NopySEs1nTuyJoyxFjWI/s1600/ikebanaboat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="357" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDWTFb_e8-ROqUKKcsIs09jRutyGafOy17S9iqi3O8hbpizXhyphenhyphen_WIohXI99dSGyB7yANpMpqUdnI1XSx9CC9s32VKL07uLSe8mAr_0JcbYWx-19vJ0NopySEs1nTuyJoyxFjWI/s400/ikebanaboat.jpg" width="400" /></a></div></span></div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-4385328563253330342011-04-15T16:24:00.006-05:002011-04-29T23:28:29.954-05:00unfinished fragment on violence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The thought that deserves being written: violence as abnormal, but the reproduction of the narratives that justify or make sense of the event expose a hierarchy of corpses.<br />
<br />
Sometimes I will read an old blog, see a reference to something from current events that I don't even label and don't remember what I was talking about.I am referring in this blog to the multiple homicide and attempted assassination of a congresswoman that took place in Arizona. <br />
<br />
I would first like to point out that when these acts of violence take place they are recognized almost universally as heinous and punishable. As I have stated earlier weapons to take life have become more effective at taking life over time and this trend will continue. One cost of free will is that some others will choose to use that free will to end the free will of others with violence. My criticism is located on the borders of this area where certain acts of violence are placed as universally an evil or heinous act. Certain acts of violence are not in this frame. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7504574.stm">The bombing of a wedding in Afghanistan</a> pushed on these borders, but was not even close to reaching this zone of universal immorality and revulsion. The 500,000 deaths in Iraq between 1991 and the latest invasion because of our destruction of the electricity and water supply as well as the average once a week raids are hardly close to being seen as bad.<br />
<br />
Since creating this blog and not finishing it <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12769209">another flare up in the media concerning drones</a> took place because Pakistan is finally standing up to the country which is regularly bombing them: the United States.<br />
<br />
Facts:<br />
Lets step back and look at the picture here.<br />
1.Pakistan is a country.<br />
2.The United States is a country.<br />
3.Both have populations they should keep happy to avoid violent uprising(lets just assume this provisionally because it is very statist and in a way justifies violence against citizens in order to "stabilize" the state[violent uprising might be good sometimes]).<br />
4.The US has established a firm pattern of bombing Pakistan<br />
5. Dropping bombs on Pakistan will lead to killing Pakistanis.<br />
<br />
6.Lets look within the state/country now. Heuristic structures we can cling to in order to make this journey inside the bowels of the state quick are: families, religions, and economy. The first is a simple exercise: if one of your family members was killed by a US operated drone how would your attitude towards the US change? The second: how would you feel if a member of your local or national religious community was killed by a US operated drone...how would your attitude towards the US change? And if your resources, business, tools/machines...you know your livelihood, was destroyed by a US operated drone, etc. etc. <br />
I'm going to say that the attitude of the person who has had their families, religion, or economy hurt by US operated drones will experience an attitude shift towards the United States. I am not claiming all people in this situation will experience a dramatic shift towards <strike>"anti-americanism" </strike>but there will certainly be some shift towards distaste with the United States. So this sixth fact of our train of logic is that US killing of Pakistanis will cause a net attitude shift towards disliking the United States by people in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
<br />
Future World<br />
<br />
If our current world is based on finding security within state institutions(which it is for the sake of this train of logic because we have to stay within the confines of our provisional fact number 3) then the people of Pakistan will look to their government to protect them from the drone terrorism. The Pakistani government will be put in a double bind, either they can (ONE) keep eating shit from the US and reap huge benefits from their benefactorship . OR (TWO)Pakistan can really push hard for ending drone strikes by rejecting aid from the US and refusing to cooperate with intelligence. <br />
<br />
If the future continues along the same trajectory we will see one of these two outcomes in Pakistan. <br />
<br />
<br />
The first outcome will make it far more likely that we will see a revolution in Pakistan. The drones constant killing of civilians is a propaganda tool for violent groups. Violent actions and actions against the government will become more widespread in this future Pakistan. Pakistan will be forced to adopt a Saudi style balance between US patronage and hardcore repression. Thusly the US will be propping up another dictatorship. Or Pakistan will not strike a balance and be taken over by extremist elements...the thing is Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the second outcome Pakistan may be able to keep its population's support, but may be making an enemy of the US. Which means they just have to hire a few more gamers to fly a few more drones and the Pakistani body count will get higher. Or worse yet Pakistan becomes the new place to occupy for the war on terror. One reason the US has had such tight relations with Pakistan over the years is intelligence and halting cooperation might be one of the only cards Pakistan can play.<br />
<br />
<br />
My advice: Pakistan should tell the United States that next time they drop a bomb on Pakistan that they're going to receive a nuclear warhead to the face. Then hopefully they will back off, because Pakistan is a nuclear power and can kill everyone if it feels like it.<br />
<br />
<br />
What will happen- Pakistan and the US have a shared enemy: the radicals that are using the drones as a recruiting tool, sooooooo Pakistan will most likely just call the US and say:<br />
<br />
"AIM BETTER!.....please?"<br />
<br />
<br />
At least we can all clearly see that this US policy creates terrorists, which is a valuable lesson that can be applied back to such events as 9/11. And without going in to such a huge topic exposes the hypocrisy of labeling political agendas as "anti-american".</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-14499055474091408282011-02-07T15:03:00.001-06:002011-02-07T15:05:30.518-06:00Axioms in Epistemology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
I have been trying to figure out my own blindsides. As in trying to ascertain where the holes in my critical epistemology lie. The places inevitably that will lie the most effectively are the ones that I think are not lies, but truths. I would like to explicate what I faithfully believe as truth at this snapshot point in my being/becoming.<br />
<br />
<b>1. Pain is real and every living thing experiences pain. </b><br />
Although You will never experience My pain and I will never experience Your pain, our pain is real. Suffering CAN be worse than death: life as torture is not a life worth living. Although such a belief can lead to an extreme of solipsism on the one end or an extreme of utilitarianism on the other, the reality of pain and pain residing in reality is an important element of making morally justified decisions in life. This assumption about reality is very important for understanding empathy and agency. <br />
<br />
<b>2. Death is real and every living thing dies. </b><br />
Although nobody has died and lived to tell about it, we can safely assume that the corpses are not all pretending. No matter your religion we can all agree that "death" is an event that happens at the end of one's life when whatever a person was (apart from their fleshy shell) exits this reality. Some people think this consciousness is a soul which will be assigned a specific home, a single unchanging role to play in an "after-life". The point being that this life is only a temporary place for our consciousness whether you are a religious person or not. This exiting consciousness and vacant fleshy shell is real and inevitable. In fact believing otherwise leads to ridiculous narcissism and political action to control random events. Immortality is impossible in this world death could be around any corner, and as blind Oedipus would tell you: trying to escape the inevitable just exacerbates the problem. Although there is much traffic regulation motor vehicles are still a top killer, although there are endless ways that have been shown to increase the probability of not dying from heart disease it is still a top killer, and although there is endless credible evidence linking health problems with smoking the activity still continues. Death is something often cognitively deferred and is therefore not as ubiquitous in human's motivation for action as suffering or empathy for a sufferer.To borrow an already loaded phrase and employ it differently: "the sanctity of life" is another important baseline assumption for moral decisionmaking. When evaluating this sanctity one must reject the idea that any life outside of our current life is more valuable than our current life. By current life I mean the de facto life you are living demonstrated as life through consciousness and actions in this world or this here-and-now. Dying this life for a life that cannot be demonstrated as real is pure folly. This idea is what my assumptions about the sanctity of life have arisen out of. <br />
<br />
<b>3. History is real. History explains reality better than simply sensing it. </b><br />
<br />
History is real in multiple ways the two I would like to draw out are: <b>History is real insofar as the narrative we (re)produce is viewed as the true story of our past </b>and <u>History is real insofar as our past restrains us because we are on a certain historical trajectory</u>. It is not possible to colonize space next week or next year in our current historical trajectory. It is not possible to stop the over consumption of carbon based energy in the next week or year in our current historical trajectory. History is then something that makes the future possible <u>in the latter definition</u>. <b>The former definition</b> that our (re)production is viewed as a true story is a necessary pre-requisite for any other analysis of history. Because one is always (re)producing history in their present actions/inactions then this history must be viewed as real by the people (re)producing it.<br />
<br />
For even if we forget that we have had a history (which our memory forbids) for example we were all struck with simultaneous amnesia, this event of forgetting would be the defining moment of our history and our successive present(s) from then on. We would excavate the buildings we now live in and stare curiously at complicated machinery. Writing down incorrect assessments of the artifacts as we allowed such assessments to discipline how people lived their lives in this alternate present.. In this extreme example our forgetting of the past would be central TO our past in such a situation where history CAN be forgotten.To forget history would be an infinite amnesia, an end to self, and an end to homo sapien.<br />
<br />
Because history can never be forgotten is why people will continue to need to believe it is real, even though it is just a recreation of the past from an interpreter's flawed memory in the future, and can therefore never be "real" or even adequate to explain an entire time period or all the nuances of an event. The most effective type of history that I am aware of at this point is using historical trajectory as the point of analysis: genealogy. An investigation of the various turning points/syntheses or dialectics that twist and turn their way through history to reach where we are standing today. But an ideal genealogy is impossible, it is too much information to be written. So genealogy is historiographical or episodic, written in big brush strokes thusly homogenizing/essentializing just like history before it. The attempt to come to terms with subjugated or counter-hegemonic truths by looking at the dialectic "losers", still disciplines identities and assumes stable subjects. It is more informative though to see the dialectic's <i>aufhebung</i> as a domination rather than a synthesis in this regard.It is a more "justified knowledge" than regarding the here-and-now as universal and neutral. Instead it should be acknowledge that the hear-and-now is built upon the battles of the past. I think a helpful concept in understanding this idea of history is another Foucauldian concept, that is the inversion of Clausewitz: "politics is war by other means". Even our shared homogenized(nationalized) identity or any other type of identity is marked by battles that are not war because they are happening within the state, but are still oftentimes violent (see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan">Matewan</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>4. The Social (or the creation of inter-subjective reality through discourse with the other)</b><br />
<br />
Human is a political animal: <i>Zoon Politkon </i>; the self cannot exist without differentiating from an other ; without contact with other humans: psychosis manifests. These are three basic reasons why I feel that the need for human interaction is inherent in all humanity. This also has implications for how one can read philosophy. The idea that the path to truth or enlightenment comes through seclusion cannot provide answers to political questions. This long standing belief that removing yourself from the milieu and objectively observing from this other place is the preferred form of philosophy, social science, or any explanatory measure cannot be true if humans need other humans. The most effective form of philosophy, social science, history, etc. is to explain these narratives, being attentive to the fact that theory and practice are one. Any narrative of explanation will (re)produce a certain reality, to pretend otherwise will just lead to discourses which are not conducive to humans as a whole. Instead, by focusing on its' theory as practice, these justified narratives immerse themselves in the milieu giving far better explanatory sketches than epistemologies of feigned objectivity ever could. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>5. Hybrid human motivation</b><br />
My final attempt to assemble justifiably factual or legitimate evidence for my own de facto epistemology that is constantly changing but must be used whenever I make a decision or make a decision not to make a decision. Every keystroke and every pause between them is a decision that I am making with whatever formed my snapshot of an epistemology for my arguments and the ontologies of the words I'm using to explain them. What is my motivation for writing this down? I want to practice writing, I want to practice interacting with concepts I find interesting, I want to interact with the world through this medium of the internet, I want to rant, etc. Can it be said that either Emotion or Rationality is my primary motivator? Socrates' and Decartes' rehashing of stoicism just to name two are huge events in philosophy which still dominate modern western thought on what makes a good decision and what motivates individuals to make decisions.<br />
The Stoakon was a porch, dudes hung out on it and talked. Sounds like the opposite of classy right? But it turns out between them they hammered out a plank of thought that has become an integral part of western epistemology ever since and became especially supercharged after the enlightenment: emotions bad, logic good.<br />
Socrates followed their thought and then Plato started writing shit down, philosophy apparently being dominated by speaking rather than writing (although there are many writings). Rationality and logic became the panacea for all that is good. Sex as an emotional paroxysm was irrational. Desire became the enemy of good decisions. Whether this evolved out of an attitude towards gender or whether this discourse helped create a an attitude towards gender I am not in a position to say. Feminist authors point out that this same discourse is applied to gender where males are seen as logical and rational (neutral/normal) while women are seen as overly emotional. When you go to a movie theater and a guy is crying holding a woman's hand is that normal? I don't want to discipline, crying is something humans do, but for the most part this act is associated with femininity. This attitude still pervades, I just give that one example, but we should understand that there is philosophy behind everything whether someone recognizes it or not. There is philosophy behind who cries at movie theaters. This discourse is so tied in with gender that it makes suppression based on gender easier and easier. <br />
Orientalism shows us that cultures are feminized. Through our discourse(or the accumulated academic and media works) we create an image of an exoticized other in the east. This other is either feminized by being painted as emotional and sensual. Picture the exotic harem. Or they are hyper-masculinized as too stoic and thusly irrational based on the fact they are too rational! Think about the discourse of the japanese man as the us was opening that country to capitalism. Inscrutable and unpredictable because of their inscrutability far too stoic.<br />
Once a culture or population is feminized it then becomes easier to authorize violence against such populations. The populations are irrational! What they need is management. The subordination of the feminized population is neccesary, because as we were constructing the other as irrational it meant we were really constructing ourselves as rational. The next logical step then is to manage the emotional population for their own good, to subordinate their feminized identity with our performance of masculine identity.<br />
I am taking a long time to get here, but my point is that all motivations for human action are hybrid motivations. There are elements of materialism/self-interest and emotional/intrinsic motivators in all action. In fact if there was not an "irrational" emotional element to decisionmaking amongst humans war between families would be the norm and we would not understand the meaning of the word friend. Why do we stand by our friends and families when they have tough times? Why do we fall in love? Why do we wake up every day for work? It is not simply because we will receive material rewards, it is also because we seek to perform our selves. We adopt roles in order to use the discourses within those roles. We desire to be ourselves and being is a constant process. Work is not just money it is an identity, a social event, a disciplining of time, a responsibility, etc. When countries go to war with each other it is not ONLY because they want to control their natural resources. It is also because a discourse was used to justify violence against such a country which gives the population some intrinsic motivation to fight. People do not join the army because if they didn't then foreign invaders would kill them or for money, they also want to adopt a role. Oftentimes the roles we adopt are based on masculine and feminine identities, if we can start to move away from this bifurcated model for human motivation and instead move toward a hybrid model I think it is a way in which to deconstruct the violence which is visited upon subordinate identities and justified through feminizing discourses, the same discourses which are guilty of subordinating the identity to begin with.<br />
<br />
<br />
With that said all of these ideas have aporiae with eachother and internal contradictions. Also my epistemology has changed since I began writing this and when I finished it changed again. :D</div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-35114826928364412722011-01-31T15:27:00.001-06:002011-01-31T15:28:19.765-06:00The Alluvium of Lake Michigan by The Owl<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="color: white;"><span id="internal-source-marker_0.3466638122266684" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Every year, in early summer, a certain fish dies in droves and is deposited on the sandy beaches of Lake Michigan. The carcasses are layered three, maybe four, deep along an undulating line where the gentle waves exhaust themselves and leave behind their morbid cargo and depart to whence they came.</span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Sunbathing sucks when atop a pile of fish rotting in the summer sun; you want clean beaches for the summer months, then you got to shovel away the dead. Piled black garbage bags filled with fish guts and flies and copious amounts of sand form tar-black mountains on the curb of the street. The mountains are heavy with death, rot, and earth.</span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">And then, the beach is handed over to, in what one human described as “The two species making up the overwhelming majority, after everything smaller than your fingertip is discounted, are </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Larus smithsonianus</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> and </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Homo sapien</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">.</span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The beaches of Chicago’s North Shore are up-current from the mega-industry to the south, and the water was usually clean enough to swim in, clear enough to hunt for stones. Oh, those were good days, when I was young. The world was one long beach. It began with a parking lot, under the looming shadow of The Tower. Adjacent, were crowds of blankets, coolers and pale skin slathered in sunscreen roped in by the floating boundaries of the swimming area; the beach then became private property, more peaceful and solitary, though with a hint of menace that grew as you moved further down the beach, away from the familiar crowds and into the freedom of very rich peoples’ private, and mostly deserted, beaches. </span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I don’t know their condition today. I haven’t been back in a while and have no reliable source to attest to the cleanliness of the sand, or the cold, crystal purity of the water. I imagine the seagulls are still there, since they feed on trash and there cannot be a shortage of trash in the greater Chicago area.</span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The one problem was always people, that was always what would bring you down, and, ironically, you would bring them down as well. To some it is safer to hide than risk the shame of a shared humanity.</span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I learned to drink and take drugs on those beaches at night. Sometimes blind, black skies, with Bic lighters as the only illumination; other times a shining moon and an endless shimmering path reflecting on the water. These brilliant nights could make one believe there was such a simple way into the infinite mysteries of life...no, the true paths are grossly less picturesque.</span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div><div style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Oh, praise the lord, who deposited me on the shores of the lake. Under blessings and immorality, beauty and beastliness, I lived innocently, then not so innocently, then rebelliously, then decadently, then, I would like to believe, maybe morally. I got out of this metamorphosing dance around the lake by finding a new source of aquatic wonder in a different city. I burned most of the memories on my final trip down the track, or tarmac, or where ever I made my escape, I cannot remember.</span></div></div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-27026590240592777202011-01-26T14:08:00.002-06:002011-01-26T14:15:27.839-06:00Revolution in the Middle East<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Tunisian_protests">In Tunisia there were popular protests that caused a president to resign in a currently boiling over endless struggle of politics. </a><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0126/The-US-response-to-Egypt-s-protests">In Egypt there are similar protests going on in another active struggle for democracy.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
In my opinion one cannot "have" a democracy, one can only constantly (re)create a democracy which if it were truly investigated is hardly democracy. Which is why one must keep reaching for democracy as if one does not have it, but this process of reaching for democracy is itself the closest thing to actually "having" democracy. The protests (or to put it in a different way to leave the negative connotations our corporate media has attached to that word): "a conglomeration of public politically active peoples" is a good thing in any country. People need to engage in the political process as individuals not as pieces of an illusory homogenized whole that is then "represented". As an individual against orthodoxy, I would like to explain why I can hold such a view when I am critical of all epistemologies because of internal contradictions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is my belief that the best way to explain anything is to historicize it. How can I justify holding a belief that people within any country no matter how the government is labeled(democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy etc.) will benefit from actively engaging the political process?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Lets start with Egypt, which is the center of a question for US policy right now: Should the US support the protesters against one of the largest recipients of U.S. Aid? Support the protestors against the regime which moderated enough to recognize Israel(thats why the Aid)? Support the protestors against the regime which houses many of their CIA black sites?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The easy answer for the United States is to just be quiet and stay in the background like Tunisia. The problem with that is that silence is violence for the United States, because of its ubiquity in the domestic governments of many countries. Current conceptions of sovereignty which are not fluid cannot recognize that the United States is in many ways a de facto world government. Certain countries have surrendered autonomy in certain places to get things from the hegemon(US). In Okinawa the soldiers can rape, murder, and drive drunk all day. They can't be prosecuted, because of the Status of Force Agreement between Japan and the US. This is in return for the United States military protection of their country cerntrally and military protection of the energy supply more loosely. When the United States does nothing about a spontaneous flare up of democratic tendencies, it is giving an OK to the regime which will tamp it down.<br />
The United States should not take the easy way out and instead follow the advice of Jefferson and MLK jr: democratic revolution. The american revolution was not a divinely ordained event and it did not expose any universal truths. What I mean to say by these two qualities is that the american revolution can be exported, what I mean by the latter is that this revolution is not a universal truth so we should not engage in violence which would be an action of forcing democracy on a people which is a farce as we see in Iraq. The revolution should be exported, but with ideas and support(monetary, logistical). The only problem is that our revolution was too violent, our country was created by terrorists, in order to make sure that part of our revolution doesn't get exported we need to support peaceful revolutions WHENEVER the opportunity presents itself. Like in Tunisia and Egypt. But that is simply an ethical concern, why would I really be able to justify such a strong statement that these flare-ups of democracy are good and crushing them is bad?<br />
<br />
<br />
The only justified knowledge comes from history, so lets look specifically at Egypt. Egypt was a country colonized by multiple powers, but eventually the British got a monopoly. During this time Britain controlled the political apparatus of Egypt through their puppets the Monarchs. Eventually nationalist groups or groups that are united by their national identity starting growing. These individuals felt that monarchs who pretended to be pious while allowing Britain to run the country were not good for their interests. Many nationalist uprisings were slaughtered by the British. In an example of where democratic action was not allowed to happen by an overbearing government. In a policy that is still alive today in Egypt any political parties had to be licensed in a process that no party except those which were puppets of Britain were allowed to exist. In this context the Society of The Muslim Brethren was formed. Religion being the one area which the regime would shy away from regulating. This society was a welfare and community service oriented entity. Through writing, criticizing, and activism using religion as the justification for demands the Muslim Brotherhood made attempts to better the political situation of Egyptians who faced an uncaring colonial power and later an autocratic nationalist regime.<br />
<br />
The next generation of Brotherhood leaders included an individual named Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was put in prison and tortured for his political activism. Many other members of the brotherhood were treated in similar ways. The torture effected Qutb's outlook and thusly influenced the outlook of the entire Muslim Brotherhood, which by this time had proved a huge success (in terms of membership) with international potential. Qutb essentially opted out of the peaceful means of his predecessors. How can one be peaceful and criticize through the language of Islam, but face torture and imprisonment for it? What was the brotherhood going to gain from repeating this process? The people in power will stay in power and people who speak out for Muslims or Egyptians will receive the worst of all possible existences: life as torture. It was time to turn the page on these ineffective attempts at democracy and take a cue from the American Revolution: use violence.<br />
<br />
Qutb became a lionized figure of violent jihad to such a degree, that it is impossible to imagine 9/11 without the life experience and subsequent writings of Qutb. I do not mean to say that Qutb bears responsibility for 9/11 and I do not mean to say that the hijackers, wahabbi, saudi, or pakistan do not bear their responsibility. I am only pointing out that things become possible by their historical trajectory. If Britain had brought democratic reforms they might still be in a great mutual beneficial relationship with Egypt, far more advantageous to Britain in the long run then blowing money keeping democracy down and eventually getting thrown out. If the nationalists had learned from the mistakes of the monarchs/britain and made political parties an accepted part of democracy the Brethren wouldn't have had to go underground. If the Egyptian government hadn't been dead set on imprisoning, torturing, and martyring the leaders of a religious movement maybe violent jihadis wouldn't have so much motivation and empirical evidence for the justification of violence. <br />
<br />
Non-violent democracy should be cherished and supported. If one does not support such events, there are two alternatives: do nothing or actively destroy. Doing nothing is seen as complicity with the current regime, because of the close relationship Egypt has with the United States, they cannot feign ignorance with such a key ally. Which means they lend legitimacy to the efforts of the Egyptian government to actively destroy. This has taken the form of violent counter-democratic actions: beatings, chemical warfare, rubber bullets, etc.<br />
<br />
When groups attempt to achieve their agenda peacefully and are met with violence, these groups learn that they cannot achieve their agenda peacefully. This leaves one option: violence.<br />
<br />
If instead when groups attempt to achieve their agenda peacefully they are met with debate and compromise, that group will feel that they have won and will feel empowered by their inclusion in the political process, reducing the probability of violence to a negligible amount.<br />
<br />
If we don't want more Al-Qaedas and more violent idealogues with the scars to justify such venom, then we should use our foreign policy to support groups who engage in the political process.Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-91619415686257902072011-01-11T14:36:00.002-06:002011-01-12T23:44:17.313-06:00six-legged giraffe(Why oh why didn't I choose the red pill?) by Da Owl<div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">She’s near;</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">hear the tramp of her step,</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">tchick, tchock!</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> like empty, hollow skulls upon an infected tree</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> that sound, like </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic;">jumpin’ jazz riddims</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> banged out in groups of three.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">...a cold night, when the roof loomed low and the walls were like</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> Imperial Star Ship trash compactors,</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">the six-legged giraffe was in a cold corner</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> her two eight-ball eyes locked on me.</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The pit of my stomach: hollow,</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">the weight of my head: 0 lbs, 0 oz,</span></div><div style="color: black; direction: ltr; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">and a marvelous, masochistic tingle in the head of my penis.</span></div>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-65920857960058788852010-12-29T17:40:00.001-06:002011-01-11T14:08:16.101-06:00Dialogue with ScubaA conversation between scuba and I over Steam that was fun. It is rife with unresearched claims and misspellings.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">Never tell your password to anyone.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: dude</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: dude</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i just was reading this declassified military document about the effects of nuclear weapons on my kindle</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and i figured out why you wearing black is functional</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: one sec i'll just copy it</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: "once the victim is beyond the radius at</div><div class="MsoNormal">which light-colored fabrics are directly ignited, even simple precautions can greatly</div><div class="MsoNormal">reduce the extent and seriousness of thermal injuries. Many examples exist of people</div><div class="MsoNormal">severely burned on their faces and arms, but unburned beneath even a thin shirt or</div><div class="MsoNormal">blouse."</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so if you're outside the blast wave of a nuke</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and wearing dark clothing</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: will it retard the absorbsion of radioactive materials</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and you do'nt look at the thing,</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: bam you're good</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: first of all light colored fabrics ignite</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: from the heat pulse</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and then if you happen to be in the direct line of sight for the light pulse</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: if you have clothing it like won't burn u</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the clothing stops the haet</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i never knew that only light colored fabrics ignited at a certain distance</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: loooool</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: that is so weird</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec06.pdf</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: pg 18</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: do you think it has something to do witht he heat being reflected from the light colors?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i found this in this torrent it downlaoded awhile ago</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it has to</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: liek some kind of spectrum is ok some kind is not</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: for this like super brief pulse of heat</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: like dark colors absorb it or reflect it or something</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and light colors just ignite</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: amg</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: At about 0.1 second after detonation, the shock front becomes sufficiently transparent</div><div class="MsoNormal">that radiation from the innermost, hottest regions becomes visible, producing a</div><div class="MsoNormal">second thermal peak. Before the second peak begins the fireball has radiated only</div><div class="MsoNormal">about one quarter of its total energy. About 99 percent of the total thermal energy is</div><div class="MsoNormal">contained in the second pulse. The duration of this pulse depends on the yield of the</div><div class="MsoNormal">weapon and the height of burst (HOB); it ranges from only about 0.4 s for a 1 kT</div><div class="MsoNormal">airburst to more than 20 s for a 10 MT explosion.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i don't think its declassified actually, i think they mad eit public on purpose</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: for ppl everywehre to benefit from their nuke testing so they didn't feel they had to do their own nuke testing</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: that makes sense. your commment that is</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: The response of any given system to the thermal pulse depends on the absorption</div><div class="MsoNormal">properties of the test subject but also to the distance from the burst and the atmospheric</div><div class="MsoNormal">conditions between fireball and target such as clouds, snow, aerosols, and dust. The</div><div class="MsoNormal">atmosphere is not equally transparent at all wavelengths, so the spectrum of the radiation</div><div class="MsoNormal">incident on a target must be correctly calculated and then simulated</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so will aerosol protect us from nukes?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: so the first wave is the blinding light. then its the second wave with the heat</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which contains most of the energy of the heat</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so you have a chance to react</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: right but a quater of all the energy is produced in the wave of light.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but hopedfully the news at least has the balls tob el ike, whast up nukes comin</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so most of the energy when added all up is in the blast wave</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the blast wave goes farther than the heat</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but the timing will only give you a few min at most</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but it goes at the speed of sound so you can get behind shit</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so you'd notice light colored fabrics igniting around you</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that means get behind shit</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: think the blast wave would turn you to vapor?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and you might have been far enuff awy to survive</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: no thast the heat when you're really realyl close</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its like every megaton</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: is one mile of vaporizing it hink</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: or its one mile of like catching everytihg on fire, and a fraction of miles for vaporizing</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: so why dont we still have bomb shelters?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lol</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: no russia</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but they still scare us with nukes</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which would make more sense to have a bomb shelter</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but lots of countries with capability</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: bc if its a rogue state or terrorist</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it would be highly localized the intial impact</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and people would want to stay underground to swee which way the wend blew</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i started reading thsi bc i'm interested in radiation</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: get this</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so in debate</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i'm judging and coaching i told u</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but in debate you can have 2 types of impacts</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: overall</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: one is utilitarian the other is moral</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: for the most part, people stick with utilitarian</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: like "if you vote for me i save tons of lives"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: instead of "if you vote for me my plan is morally right so fuck the people who ahve to die for it"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so because most of the arguments are utilitarian/consequentialist/body count</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: everyone links their shit to nuclear war</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so there is this argument called "spark" and I don't know if it is an author's name or what but thats what everyone calls it</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which says "nuclear war good"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it starts by claiming that nuclear war is survivable</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: then it says that our current use of energy leads to extinction</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that there are type I type II and type III civilizations based on energy consumption</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which is their ability to harness solar energy</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: then there is defense</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: like nukes get better with time so now is the best time to have a nuclear war</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: because if nukes get better nuke war won't be surivviable</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: then later they read cards about how in order for us to get off planet we have to become a type II civilization</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lol</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so i want to know how survivable long term a global nuclear war would be</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: because I think that a nuke war in which russia or the us launched any fraction of its stockpiles would lead to extinction</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: because it woudl kill off so many humans in different places and cause them to be infertile and cause a population bottleneck and kill the water and crops</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: its not like they can target every area on the planet though. least not yet</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i guess it depends on the amount launched, but I do believe ther eis a point at which extinction happens when a certain number of nukes of a certain number of megatons is launched</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i dion't know what that numbe ris, but its somewher ein my head</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: humans tend to be crafty though</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nukecloud.png</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: our shits way bigger than 10 megatons</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lets find out though</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: what we woudl launch</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: in my opion</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: is a trident sub</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which could get cut off</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i think they mad ea movie about htis</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they thought they got orders for nukes</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: trident subs are a fail safe</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: to make sure we have second strike capability</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: bombers would be first</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which means they always have to be ready to receiv ea signal to launch</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: what if that signal was sent</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: yeah. they are the back up</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: somehow in some mistake</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they woudl have no way to check it</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: ok</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lets say</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: korea builds an icbm</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: would we retaliate?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: if they could hit the us</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: if they nuked LA</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: they dont have to hit the us.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: if Iran nuked Israel?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: they would just have to hit japan</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and we would retaliate with nuclear capability?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: just for them nuking japan/.?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i mean japan is hearty when it comes to nukes</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they're nuclear grizzled</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: no. we have conventional weapons that would decimate that country</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: no we can't say that</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: we've seen that logic</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: in afghanistan the graveyard of empires</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and mess o' potama</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: potamia*</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: if we didnt have to worry about casualties. we would glass citys with thermoberic shits</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: we wouldnt need nukes</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: bc thats all we'd do</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: is nuke civilians</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: ppl that are basicaly being held hostage by the powerful</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: especially evident in that country</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: afganistan is fighting a guerilla war. armies are not good with guerilla</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: loose dark clothing i guess</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: warfare</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: ick</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: afgthanistan is a tribal land</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it was never afghanistan</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it was a bunch of tribal and local governments</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: we shoudl just get the fuck out and stay out</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: iraq we're never leaving</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: ever</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: until the next hegemon takes over</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its germany its japan its korea its kuwait</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: isnt taking terrioties part of warfare?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: strategery speaking</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#Summary_of_the_effects</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but this isn't warfare</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its not a state</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they've acknowledged that</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its a failed state</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i guess we would have to nuke afganistan</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: thats the logic behind their "enemy combatant" bullshit</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its police action</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its fucking weird</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its a manhunt</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: think about htat fuck</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: this is an effort to prosecute someone for a crime</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and it turned in tot he longest war in US history</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: so yeah. we are still at war right. and 8 year long war right</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they call it conflagaration on this chart when u burn up</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: why did we ever cut taxes?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: yes...</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and i suppose it worked</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he got bitpartisanship</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: got dadt repeal passed</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: got start passed</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but nobody will notice those things</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: or realize how amazing they are</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and in order to do it we pay a really high cost in my opinion which is another tax cut for millionaires</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he was also over a barrel, he had to get unemployment benefits extended</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that would have crushed the economy if it wasn't passed</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but the start treaty and the 9/11 bill should have been nonissues.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: there would be fucking bread lines</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: exactly</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so republicans have better political maneuvers</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they're more cohesive than democrats</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: democrats are pussies</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they're not allowed to be liberal</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: or else they're soft on crime or pinkos or fuckin whatever</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: they dont need to be liberal though.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: or very liberal</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but people should have noticed that republicans were going to force a recession if they didn't get a tax cut for millionaires</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: everybody should have notied that</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but the media is conservative</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the myth of the liberla media is shattered again</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: except for msnbc's marketing strategy now</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which just spits the weak ass liberal shit</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the colmes bullshit</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: bounding the debate on the left</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: the media isnt liberal or conservative. they are just trendy and shallow</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: dude the media is controlled by a few corporations</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: those corporations are very wealthy</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: many of those corporations have actualy companies they own that produce weapons</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i know that.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: if they don't actually directly own them they have huge investments in the military industricla complex</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the media will therefore be pro business, whcih means anti-labor</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the media willb e pro-war, which means anti-dissent</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the media will be pro prison, which means they'll be anti common sense drug laws</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: thats why npr is so epic.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: true</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lots of politicians trying to shut them down</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they say "starve the government"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: thats their platform</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but the things the govenrment is gorging itself on they don't touch</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they kill little tiny social programs like a subisdy for npr and shit like that</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: dude all news orgs and hospitals need to be nonprofit. thats my new belief</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i'm pissed at obama and republican and democrats!</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: th;at could be a good middle ground between public and private</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i don't disagree</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i'd support a policy like that</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: did you see that thing the loner stoner put on my facebook?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: about julian assange's next target being a bank?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: things that are for the peoples benifit should not be allowed to make large profits</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: yeah. heard about that in october</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i totally agree, certain things are social goods and as people with political needs and taxpayers we should protect them from the market</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: because the market doesn't give a fuck about what you want</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: exactly</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: all these banks are refusing to process donations to assange</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but bc of all the media</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he got tons of high rollers to donat ei think</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: the market can totally survive with out trying to make a buck on everything</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: its epic</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: it truly is.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i think he must have known</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that he was going to secure massive funding</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: in order to make such a suicidal statmeent</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: hopefully this is the catalyst the people will need</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: or maybe its like a "if they say i killed myself tomorow, its because i'm about to take down a bank"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: well its not like he is the sole owner of this information.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: well he hasn't relaese it yet</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i mean u got any idea how many spies and keyloggers that guys got?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they prolly know weveryone who has it or the servers that its on</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: yeah but he and his droogies have it and could release it</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that was one of anon's missions was to mirror all the info so that it was literally impossible for the government to censor it</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: its the internet you cant keep shit off it</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i can't vbelieve time didn't make him man of the year</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the online poll was ridiculous</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036_2029037,00.html</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: zuckerbergis number 10</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: ffs</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: he will get it next year when this controversy dies</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so ridiuclous</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: not him but him being the face whatever hes an arrogant prick apparently</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but wikileaks is so fuckign important</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its like the internet culture of open source and opposing censorship flowered and is acting on the real world</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: important people tend to be pricks imo</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: doesnt mean their causes arent worth while</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: oh listen to what i got my sis and bro for xmas</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i got them both the first manga of death note first of all</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: then my bro got 2 tpbs of the boys</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: andy my sis 3 tpbs of irredeemable</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i just saw that there are five volumes of irredeemable.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: wtf!</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: my brother in law loved the boys</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that means a new one we haven't read?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: so many. there is also two volumes of incorruptable.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2039711,00.html</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the people who the tea party elects are fascists</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: dude. im starting to like scott brown</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: whats he been doin?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: pissing off the teaparty</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lol</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lololol;</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they organized that thing fo rhim in boston</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and he didn't show up</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he didn't wanan be associated with them</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i give him props for htat</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i know. cause mass doesnt want a teaparty</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: we had ours</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lol</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: it sure was weird how much got done in the lame duck.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: because democrats are afraid of next term</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but know what i find really interesting.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: wut</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: wiki sez he was one of five republicans who tried to get the jobs bill passed immediately</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: actually i don't know</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: the republicans with a minority were able to strongarm everyone. so when the tables are reversed next session. everyone already assumes that the dems will roll over. even the dems seem to feel that way.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it sez cloture</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i think thats the media</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: creating a narrative</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but no one is trying to refute it.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i think it was an effort at bipartisanship</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i mean it was a compromise</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: a millionaire tax cut sucks ass</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but a bunch of shit got done</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i guess thats what obama said he'd do in the campain is aim for bi part</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: obama was hoping this would be cast as a win for him</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: which people are saying it is</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but then whats next</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he should get some of the other shit he said he'd pass</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he said he'd get the senate to ratify ctbt</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: whats ctbt</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: comprehensive test ban treaty</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: clinton signed it awhile ago</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but it just gets tabbled in the senate</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: there should be a limit on tableing</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he said in the campaignhe'd passit</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: well its better this way for this policy</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: because the military has acted as if the senate were about to ratify it fo ryears</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that document from the army i linked to you</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: said that they stopped testing in 96</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and i was like wtf, ctbt never was ratified</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: that was like jessie helms capstone</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: just an old white supremacist conservative</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: any policy that restrained the military was bad</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he'd be okay with the military being police</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: how about a little work on gitmo</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: whatever</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but the state of the union is in jan</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: gitmo is never going away dude</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: next month we'll hear the state of the union</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: we'll see if he can carry the bipart over</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: nope.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: he wont.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: so people ar ejust going to be in this state of exception until they die at gitmo</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its so fucked up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i know</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: at least he gave like half of 'em trials</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: anybody tlakin shit about eric holder</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he may be a douchebag</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: but him and obama are not bringing the federal marshalls down on states with open pot laws</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and he managed to get a few trials</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: better than nothing</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: scott brown voted for the repeal?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: baller</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: hell yeah he did. he is from mass</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: jobs bill and start</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: not bad</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the eloguence</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lol</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i just wonder how long he will be able to keep this up</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: perfect i'm not even gonna fix that spelling</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: "There’s enough of an underground movement in the Tea Party movement as seeing him as not being conservative enough.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: presidnet of the greater boston tea party</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: shes obviously stupid</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: why couldn't she just be like "there are a growing number of people in the tea party movement that believe he is not conservative enough"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: or like</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lots of people don't think hes conservative enough</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: in my opinion. there is voting witht he party no matter what. then there is doing what you think is best for your state and country.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: underground movmeent in the movement which see things</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: he represents massachusetts</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: underground movement adds a layer of intrigue</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: if he keeps voting for easy bills and not being extremist douchebag he'll get re-elected</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i mean wtf start?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: why would you oppose it?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i know</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its a simple check on accidental launch and proliferation</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the repeal of dadt?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: wtf</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its not like NOW there are gays in the military</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its like we just got rid of this antiquated thing</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but dadt is going to be tricky though.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: yes this is what i have heard</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: with all the fine details.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it might be used to discriminate</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: it will work. its just going to end up setting an example for the rest of the countries policy</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: obvioulsy it will.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: people are still discriminated becasue they are colored.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: which is good</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but no as much anymore</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i mean the firs thting u said</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: yeah.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: it will be. but it will take a while and not fun</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: not be fun</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: modeling is important as well</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: maybe asking is important</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: maybe its really really bad</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: because if they ask</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: they can figure out if there is discrimination</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but they dont have to tell</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: why should they have to</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: if they dont want to bring their sexuality into their job they shouldnt have to.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but. what do you do about dependents for teh gheys</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: do they get the same rights as the non gheys?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: if so where does that apply? only foriegn bases, only certain states?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: does anythign need to be changed?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i don't think so</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: so they can serve but they cant get married?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: well</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lets get that taken car eof</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: cant bring their loved ones overseas? share the same insurance and back accounts?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: if gays wanna make themselves misreable with marraige and die for vague ideas of nationalism then shit we oughtta let 'em</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: well lets get that taken care of!</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: i know right</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: im just saying that dadt is going to have to answer these questions</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: elaine donnely's think tank si called the center for military readiness</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: and those answers will have to carry over to the states the personel live in</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the acronym CMR, can also stand for civil-military relations</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: I hope they are answered correctly</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: me too</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and i'm glad the military supported this</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: me too.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: it shows a very politically conscious military</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: even though they're getting shit on by politics left and right</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: my friend whos in the army brought up some interesting questions.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: maybe thats why i guess</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: lets say there are two people in a unit. ones gay the other has a problem with it.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: then he can suck it up and follow orders lol</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i mean fuck</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: can the commander request transfers on this bases with out violating anyones rights?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: or he gets booted jsut like a white supremacist serviceman beating a jewish or black serviceman</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: they only got booted cause they beat the guy.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: the commander can request transfers and he'll choose whichever he thinks is best</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: exactly</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: at the point its reaching violence its fucking with discipline</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: up until then who cares</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: you may ahte someone u still gotta follow orders</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: but verbal and emotional abuse happen with much more frequency and goes unpunished.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: and u might as well be nice bc you neve rknow if he'll be ur supreior officer down the road</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: thats true, but I don't think this policy was restraining such instances</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: not everyone thinks that way</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i think there were still many instances before this policy, and most people were aware if people in their unit were gay</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: oh yeah it was well known.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: means that others will have to get used to the idea of being exposed to people who may be sexually attracted to them</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: lol</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: we have had queermos in the service for as long as weve had queermos</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: thats what donnely sez</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: its like do these peple not udnerstand that gays wer ein the military before dadt was repealed?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i norite</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: why do people think that every gay person they meet is going to hit on them or rape them?</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: just now the military has to recognize that fact</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: thats the other thing people conflat homosexuality with sexual violence and pedophila</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: which will be sweet, in the end</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: proabably be pretty bitter before then</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: there is possbility for backfire, but we might see a good result in terms of long term acceptance of homosexuality as a social inevitability</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: when those instances are usually done by the straights</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: ok i should hav eleft for work like 5 min ago, i'm supposed to get in to logan at 11pm, and my bro flew today and said that the airports are complete clusterfuck terrible so we'll see</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jimothy: i'll talk to you before my flight though peace</div><div class="MsoNormal">Scuba: later</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
C
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-59593016721880579612010-11-04T15:18:00.001-05:002011-01-11T14:07:02.893-06:00Counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency are the same thing<a href="http://softpowerbeacon.blogspot.com/2010/01/against-coin-for-ct-in-afghanistan-and.html"> This blog made me angry, this is my way too long comment, I hate "experts"</a> They haven't read anything you can't read. <br />
<br />
<br />
Number one: There is no difference between counter-insurgency and counter-terror. WTF, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills! Lets take out the counter and we end up with insurgency and terror(short for terrorism). <br />
WHat is the difference between insurgency and terrorism? The definitions of both are exactly the same they just use different words. A terrorist IS an insurgent it just depends on HOW YOU WANT TO LABEL THE ONGOING CONFLICT: a civil war or a few fringe violent radicals who want regime change. An insurgency is just a larger pattern of terrorism. WTF!? is nobody else seeing this? Is it really that hard? How would "insurgency" manifest itself? violent actions against civilians or government? in order to destabilize a regime? OH SHIT! well how would "terrorism" manifest itself? VIOLENT ACTIONS AGAINST CIVILIANS OR GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO DESTABILIZE A REGIME!<br />
<br />
How can you say, end A, but begin A(with a different label). How can you be so naive as to think the two are different and how can you be so naive as to not realize that we are in Afghanistan until we fall, just like Korea, Germany, Japan, Gitmo, Iraq, etc., etc. YOU ARE ONLY HELPING THE REGIME RE-LABEL AN UNSUSTAINABLE WAR! <br />
<br />
Now I would like to address this next point You said: "The U.S. could "win" in Afghanistan where victory is defined as a stable, legitimate central government that can project power within its own borders." <br />
<br />
There has NEVER been a central government that can project power to all of Afghanistan. As you claim to have some knowledge of geopolitics you should really really know this. Pakistan through the Taliban could never do it, Russia could never do it, and we will not be able to do it. You should also be aware that when you use neutral words like "project power" what you really mean is that the central government has the ability to regularly enact violence in all geographical areas within those borders. We don't need your pedantic euphemisms to efface the utopian violence you are advocating Mr. COIN expert. <br />
Regaining hard power he says. All you "experts" on hegemony have not historicized your discourse. Let me give you a quick history lesson: Its world war I!!!!! omg a multipolar hegemonic system! Many different "poles" or world powers duking it out over vague concepts of ethnicity and economic bitterness. OMG its world war 2!!!! The vague concepts of ethnicity have become completely entrenched in nationhood and are now conflated with "race" in what will be the final act of a multipolar hegemonic system two winners will emerge. CCCP and USA. Now look! A bi-polar hegemonic system! The concept of race's imbrication with nation has been effaced by the feigned revulsion of the holocaust's eradication of the other(even though the need to fill the psychic ontology of the self through destruction of the other is still part and parcel of modernism), now we are on to ideology! Two different poles of thought police: USSR and United States, labeling their justifications for violence "Communism" and "democracy" respectively. who will win!?!? <br />
<br />
There are a lot of ideas about the transition from bipolar to unipolar out there. The only one that matters is the narrative of energy. Without energy the lights go out no more typey typey on computer, no more lithium from bolivia for ipods, no more IPODS!!!!! No more food, no more movement, no more credit, etc. Our current historical trajectory requires immense amounts of energy or else everything crashes. In order to become the unipolar world power the USSR and USA engaged in ideological battles, proxy warfare (for ideology, energy, drugs etc.) but in the end the country that controls energy will be the unipolar hegemon. The USSR suffered internal collapse before any ultimate confrontation could take place: rumors of a travel visa causing the berlin wall to fall. THen glasnost and perestroika causing the fissures of an already troubled society to become apparent. Without the competition from the USSR it was now the USA's turn to dictate the terms of global organization. Actions like Kosovo, the first gulf war(being the iran-iraq war[which was a policy actively supported by washington's agenda:making iran and iraq batter eachother in order to make sure a regional hegemon never appeared]), the other two gulf wars, special forces deployment in Iran, destabilization campaigns in Iran. Were the efforts of the US intelligence community in destabilizing Iran insurgency or terrorism? Do you understand yet?<br />
<br />
A stable democracy in afghanistan, point out a stable democracy in this world. Were you paying attention to the midterm elections? we are a divided country. There is no such thing as some utopian stable democracy, everybody has problems, internal contradictions, and unsustainable institutions. <br />
<br />
Now here is where your argument goes completely off the wall: you claim war fatigue is the undergirding support for your argument!!!! WAR FATIGUE!! in this day and age? Iran and Iraq aren't even on the fucking list of issues this election, nobody gives a shit, war has become entertainment! We eradicate the other through our remote control bombers(which by the way Iran has started building [I hope you're the first one to get hit by one, for advocating terrorism through remote control aircraft in the first place you ignorant americunt]) to create a "stable"(like you say) ontology of self. There are no stable ontologies of self and no stable democracies, in fact nothing in this world is stable we re-create THE ENTIRE FUCKING THING EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY! Why should we be killing people for your utopian dream! because you re-label the violence? <br />
<br />
How will "overextension" manifest itself n00b? lol can't we just....RECRUIT MORE! lol, elect more republicans to cut social spending send more to the military? Well we've BEEN DOING THAT FOR A LONG LONG TIME! Why does this war which is the longest in US history and STILL HAS NOT CAUSED WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT happen all of a sudden now?<br />
<br />
China "free riding" lol what is this mancur olson? Are you aware of the joint military drills China and Russia regularly engage in? are you aware of SEATO and various other asian military, economic, and political treaties? Why would the chinese collapse the dollar? It would destroy their growth and the rest of the world's economies. There is no danger of China calling in debts it knows it can't be paid, in the same way there is no danger from a state launched nuclear missile because of mutually assured destruction. Now comes the real reason you want to get out of Afghanistan: TO REDEPLOY ELSESHWERE! To be ready for various other paranoid "red dawn" fantasies. <br />
<br />
OH no theres more! we will use the money to PAY INTEREST ON THE DEBTS THAT WILL NEVER BE CALLED IN! rofl, this is so epically absurd. <br />
<br />
"Only the B-52 Effect will prevent a resumption of frank civil war along ethnic lines,"<br />
<br />
The B-52 effect is terror of what we can drop on them from above right? some kind of....terrorism? right? <br />
<br />
"To paraphrase the line from Kaplan's Warrior Politics that changed my mind: At the end of the day, America's power to do good is strongest when American hard power is both abundant and largely held in reserve."<br />
<br />
The quote that changed your mind is Kaplan's rehashing of the white man's burden?!!?!? When has the US ever done "Good"? When it happened was it not just serendipity that caused it while the US was pursuing its reified agenda?<br />
<br />
We're in afghanistan to stay, if you're gonna advocate the opposite, at least strap on a nutsack and say it like you mean it none of this re-labeling equivocation bullshit. <br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
Number one: There is no difference between counter-insurgency and counter-terror. WTF, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills! Lets take out the counter and we end up with insurgency and terror(short for terrorism).
WHat is the difference between insurgency and terrorism? The definitions of both are exactly the same they just use different words. A terrorist IS an insurgent it just depends on HOW YOU WANT TO LABEL THE ONGOING CONFLICT: a civil war or a few fringe violent radicals who want regime change. An insurgency is just a larger pattern of terrorism. WTF!? is nobody else seeing this? Is it really that hard? How would "insurgency" manifest itself? violent actions against civilians or government? in order to destabilize a regime? OH SHIT! well how would "terrorism" manifest itself? VIOLENT ACTIONS AGAINST CIVILIANS OR GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO DESTABILIZE A REGIME!
How can you say, end A, but begin A(with a different label). How can you be so naive as to think the two are different and how can you be so naive as to not realize that we are in Afghanistan until we fall, just like Korea, Germany, Japan, Gitmo, Iraq, etc., etc. YOU ARE ONLY HELPING THE REGIME RE-LABEL AN UNSUSTAINABLE WAR!
Now I would like to address this next point You said: "The U.S. could "win" in Afghanistan where victory is defined as a stable, legitimate central government that can project power within its own borders."
There has NEVER been a central government that can project power to all of Afghanistan. As you claim to have some knowledge of geopolitics you should really really know this. Pakistan through the Taliban could never do it, Russia could never do it, and we will not be able to do it. You should also be aware that when you use neutral words like "project power" what you really mean is that the central government has the ability to regularly enact violence in all geographical areas within those borders. We don't need your pedantic euphemisms to efface the utopian violence you are advocating Mr. COIN expert.
Regaining hard power he says. All you "experts" on hegemony have not historicized your discourse. Let me give you a quick history lesson: Its world war I!!!!! omg a multipolar hegemonic system! Many different "poles" or world powers duking it out over vague concepts of ethnicity and economic bitterness. OMG its world war 2!!!! The vague concepts of ethnicity have become completely entrenched in nationhood and are now conflated with "race" in what will be the final act of a multipolar hegemonic system two winners will emerge. CCCP and USA. Now look! A bi-polar hegemonic system! The concept of race's imbrication with nation has been effaced by the feigned revulsion of the holocaust's eradication of the other(even though the need to fill the psychic ontology of the self through destruction of the other is still part and parcel of modernism), now we are on to ideology! Two different poles of thought police: USSR and United States, labeling their justifications for violence "Communism" and "democracy" respectively. who will win!?!?
There are a lot of ideas about the transition from bipolar to unipolar out there. The only one that matters is the narrative of energy. Without energy the lights go out no more typey typey on computer, no more lithium from bolivia for ipods, no more IPODS!!!!! No more food, no more movement, no more credit, etc. Our current historical trajectory requires immense amounts of energy or else everything crashes. In order to become the unipolar world power the USSR and USA engaged in ideological battles, proxy warfare (for ideology, energy, drugs etc.) but in the end the country that controls energy will be the unipolar hegemon. The USSR suffered internal collapse before any ultimate confrontation could take place: rumors of a travel visa causing the berlin wall to fall. THen glasnost and perestroika causing the fissures of an already troubled society to become apparent. Without the competition from the USSR it was now the USA's turn to dictate the terms of global organization. Actions like Kosovo, the first gulf war(being the iran-iraq war[which was a policy actively supported by washington's agenda:making iran and iraq batter eachother in order to make sure a regional hegemon never appeared]), the other two gulf wars, special forces deployment in Iran, destabilization campaigns in Iran. Were the efforts of the US intelligence community in destabilizing Iran insurgency or terrorism? Do you understand yet?
A stable democracy in afghanistan, point out a stable democracy in this world. Were you paying attention to the midterm elections? we are a divided country. There is no such thing as some utopian stable democracy, everybody has problems, internal contradictions, and unsustainable institutions.
Now here is where your argument goes completely off the wall: you claim war fatigue is the undergirding support for your argument!!!! WAR FATIGUE!! in this day and age? Iran and Iraq aren't even on the fucking list of issues this election, nobody gives a shit, war has become entertainment! We eradicate the other through our remote control bombers(which by the way Iran has started building [I hope you're the first one to get hit by one, for advocating terrorism through remote control aircraft in the first place you ignorant americunt]) to create a "stable"(like you say) ontology of self. There are no stable ontologies of self and no stable democracies, in fact nothing in this world is stable we re-create THE ENTIRE FUCKING THING EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY! Why should we be killing people for your utopian dream! because you re-label the violence?
How will "overextension" manifest itself n00b? lol can't we just....RECRUIT MORE! lol, elect more republicans to cut social spending send more to the military? Well we've BEEN DOING THAT FOR A LONG LONG TIME! Why does this war which is the longest in US history and STILL HAS NOT CAUSED WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT happen all of a sudden now?
China "free riding" lol what is this mancur olson? Are you aware of the joint military drills China and Russia regularly engage in? are you aware of SEATO and various other asian military, economic, and political treaties? Why would the chinese collapse the dollar? It would destroy their growth and the rest of the world's economies. There is no danger of China calling in debts it knows it can't be paid, in the same way there is no danger from a state launched nuclear missile because of mutually assured destruction. Now comes the real reason you want to get out of Afghanistan: TO REDEPLOY ELSESHWERE! To be ready for various other paranoid "red dawn" fantasies.
OH no theres more! we will use the money to PAY INTEREST ON THE DEBTS THAT WILL NEVER BE CALLED IN! rofl, this is so epically absurd.
"Only the B-52 Effect will prevent a resumption of frank civil war along ethnic lines,"
The B-52 effect is terror of what we can drop on them from above right? some kind of....terrorism? right?
"To paraphrase the line from Kaplan's Warrior Politics that changed my mind: At the end of the day, America's power to do good is strongest when American hard power is both abundant and largely held in reserve."
The quote that changed your mind is Kaplan's rehashing of the white man's burden?!!?!? When has the US ever done "Good"? When it happened was it not just serendipity that caused it while the US was pursuing its reified agenda?
We're in afghanistan to stay, if you're gonna advocate the opposite, at least strap on a nutsack and say it like you mean it none of this re-labeling equivocation bullshit.
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-22720529897042910502010-11-03T12:56:00.002-05:002011-01-11T14:36:48.672-06:00"32" of Liquid Crystal anodyne" By The Owl<div><u><b>Got a contribution from a friend of mine The Owl, this is what he writes: </b></u></div><div></div><div>Empty is modern life. Void of a purpose, we live in physical comfort and security but writhe in mental anguish at the dismal aspect of meaningless existence. How the fuck, then, do we get by?</div><div></div><div>Reading Kaczynski's Manifesto, among what amounts to paranoid venom against an innately evil, yet strangely ambiguous, "technology", something of a truth appears. Modern man, supplied with all the necessities of survival, obtainable with a minimum of effort, must supplement his psyche with "surrogate activities." These activities are our jobs, aspirations, hobbies and passions. They are, in the accepted morality of today, all of what constitutes a healthy and useful life.</div><div></div><div>It is unfortunate, however, that they are all bull shit. At the root, each an every pursuit not focused on the basic survival or gratification of the basic senses is a pathetic attempt at fulfilling that empty hollow hole we all feel deep inside.</div><div></div><div>Whether Kaczynski is right to blame technology for these woes is a mute point, since it is obvious that technology and humanity walk hand in hand. Thus, to denigrate technology is to denigrate homo sapien as well, which, all of us being human --or am I writing for future A?I-- is pointless.</div><div></div><div>Taking technology, and all its circumstances, as a priori, we see that this vapid, wasteland of purpose is unavoidable and must be dealt with as a force outside our control.</div><div></div><div>How to deal? Suicide? Hedonism? Some form of blinder that allows us, in the words of Peter Gibbons, to "just come home and think I've been fishing all day or something?" Or is the ability to deal simply, turn a bilnd eye to what's apparent and plow on ahead, what most of us term "growing up"?</div><div></div><div>Last weekend, these existential woes had me deep in a shadowy valley. A highly anticipated day off from work, without school or any other obligation, should have been blessed, but instead I awoke with a terrible feeling of anguish. I could think of nothing to do, or more to the point, nothing that I wanted to do.</div><div></div><div>So, at her suggestion, Ellen and I wandered down to the Charles river to watch the regatta. (By the bye, did you not know that I now live with my girlfirend, ******?)</div><div></div><div>It was boring. The boats moved endlessly down the river and it was impossible to know what you were watching. Who was winning? Who was racing? The fluid strokes of the rowers and the boats cutting through the water were aesthetically pleasing, but so were the clouds in the sky and I could have watched them just as easily (which I did).</div><div></div><div>The most notable aspect was the veritable fair the grew up along the river banks, having nothing to do with skulling or Vespolis and everything to do with Consumption. Apparently, the Head of the Charles is a great place to stock up on free samples of junk food, shop for overpriced clothing and be more or less cerebrially inundated with commercial ectoplasm. I had no wish to push through a crowd like an infant pig to the fat teats of the Dunkin Donuts truck handing out free shot glass sized Pumpkin Spice Lattes, so I applied myself to naviating safely through the masses and not sobbing out of pity for the all those present.</div><div></div><div>This has nothing to do with my overall argument other than to set the scene for my emotional state of mind. Any other day, any other time, the setting and circumstances are different, but the basic story is the same. Without a surrogate activity, I am depressed, lost, confused, antisocial and altogether, so pathetically, sane.</div><div></div><div>Now, the day continued in this blase manner, growing ever more tedious and unendurable. Naturally, my ill feeling permeated the air around me and infected my significant other (who doesn't share my former sentiments, or at least refuses to acknowledge them) until we were both exhausted with the effort of living effortlessly.</div><div></div><div>Towards evening, Ellen brought up the current Best Buy sale. Our apartment was without a television, one white wall in our living space glaringly vacant, the whole room some how incomplete. We were living in American sin. She suggested we atone for this sin by buying a TV, and in the process, though this was not stated, only implied, supply ourselves with a purpose.</div><div></div><div>Consuming - not the food we need, nor the sights, sounds, smells and touches of an active life- but commercial goods, is an extremely effective surrogate activity. From the moment I agreed to the plan, I felt immensely better. We looked up bus schedules, purposefully gathered the necessary cards, bags and clothing for the trip, all the while feeling more and more sure of our own agency. Throughout all of this, I was aware of the fiction, and yet it still affected me positively. I knew how pathetic, how false and, may I use the word, EVIL this turn of events was, but like scratching your ass in public, once you give in to the craving, even the disapproving glare of a beautiful girl cannot stop you from sphincter spelunking.</div><div></div><div>We took the trip, the deal went down. All the way home we guarded our precious new purchase like it was the physical manifestation of that happy feeling. It really (and this is totally without sarcasm) was a wonderful night. All because we were able to fill that drafty void of existence with this greedy, self-centered activity.</div><div></div><div>You could argue that there are many other surrogate activities that are not so base. But with each example, e.g. jogging, reading philosophy on the internet, volunteering at a hospital, smoking phat-ass blunts etc. you must acknowledge that at the root, these are all desperate attempts to paper over a structural fracture at the cornerstone of our being.</div><div></div><div>There is no conclusion here, only complaint. Please respond.</div><script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-91112224924934133292010-11-01T14:31:00.001-05:002011-01-11T14:02:41.905-06:00Please do not vote for Mark Kirk tomorrowFor those of you who have not read this blog(thats everyone but me), I have been paying close attention to Mark Kirk since he first became a congressman. I would just like to write down the reasons why I would vote against him even if he was running against Satan. <br />
<br />
<br />
1.<u> Mark Kirk claimed that he had special classified intelligence that confirmed the fact that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq we just had to trust him</u>(I cannot find this cite online [the Giannoulias website sez its chicago daily herald, 10/27/02; Chicago Daily Herald, 10/8/04] I have not managed to confirm that).<br />
Now kirk claims that Bush lied to him! <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/gop-senate-hopeful-bush-official-lied-iraq/">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/gop-senate-hopeful-bush-official-lied-iraq/</a><br />
<br />
but please take 10 seconds out of your day and watch this youtube video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gupBSG09YpY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gupBSG09YpY</a><br />
<br />
I might be crazy here, but I think he got Bush and Saddam mixed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
2. <u>Mark Kirk claimed to have been in Operation Iraqi Freedom</u>, which is to say he claimed to have killed hajis in the Iraq war in order to make us safe. This article explains how he equivocated out of it, but any intelligent person wouldn't buy his bullshit <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/kirk_campaign_mum_on_another_a.html">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/kirk_campaign_mum_on_another_a.html</a> <br />
This is part of a larger pattern of packing bullshit behind claims of military service: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeFf4JNx3tc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeFf4JNx3tc</a><br />
<br />
3.<u>Mark Kirk claimed to have been the Navy's "Intelligence officer of the year"</u> a claim which gets broken down by research at this blog: <a href="http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/details-on-kirks-award-show-kirks.html">http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2010/05/details-on-kirks-award-show-kirks.html</a> Long story short he claimed the navy gave him an award the navy doesn't give. Claimed it was a prestigious award with a similar name even though it wasn't. Claimed that he was intelligence "officer" when in fact it was given to an entire "combat wing". Kirk's role within that combat wing is marginal at best. <br />
<br />
4. Now I want to dwell on what we haven't been addressing directly: <u>MARK KIRK IS A SPOOK!</u> Kirk is a spy! He works for the ONI(Office of Naval Intelligence). The intelligence community works to achieve the agenda of wall street, the 1% of the 1%. A spy will never represent what is best for you, a Spy will do whatever it takes to barely stay in office in order to push money to his real constituency. But you may just say: "ONI is the oldest intelligence agency and its within a branch of the armed forces, whats so bad about that?". So I ask you to read this quote: <a href="http://cryptome.org/kirk-cia.htm">http://cryptome.org/kirk-cia.htm</a><br />
"To my knowledge, there are only three current Members of Congress who work with the CIA: our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the author of this amendment; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons);and me, who is detailed to the CIA from navy intelligence." So as of 2005 Kirk was "detailed to the CIA". Now is it a little more apparent? Intelligence is an area of the executive in which a shadow government can be created because THERE IS LITTLE OR NO OVERSIGHT. During wartime (not our bullshit wars of choice, but wars like world war II) it may be justifiable to have a robust intelligence community with some independence. But when there is not an existential threat we do not need the lesser evil of a shadow government within the executive to check the greater evil of a total collapse in government. The more we let the foot soldiers of wall street infiltrate the legitimate political apparatuses of the United States the more we will see more militarization in our policy: <u>Imperialism abroad</u>(kirk's efforts to lie in order to get a war with Iraq, then say anything to make people forget/forgive for the lie), <u>repression at home</u> through the expansion of the drug war/prison industrial complex(The only bill Kirk has authored in recent history is a bill to make incarceration/penalties harsher for more potent marijuana[thats right if you have bad marijuana its a lesser sentence than if you have high grade marijuana{this is such a perfect example of a wall street policy}]), and <u>anti-progressive fiscal policies</u>(tax cuts for the rich[because rich people have to eat too!]). Those are the three themes you will find in wall street's agenda. Now I'm going to move to the borders here.<br />
<br />
5. Another thing that wall street loves is money laundering. There is a good deal of evidence that vast amounts of money are laundered through US banks, stock markets, and corporations the most famous of which being: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/imf-loans-to-russia-sold-on-sly-alleges-skuratov-1119438.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/imf-loans-to-russia-sold-on-sly-alleges-skuratov-1119438.html</a> The massive IMF loan to Russia to stabilize the rouble before the turn of the millennium saw a large portion of its money rerouted through US banks most notably the Bank of New York. As you can imagine this influx of liquid can have very positive effects for an economy, and thusly it is in the interest of wall street to make sure that the United States stays a haven for money laundering. In order to achieve this agenda the banks most be quite independent, there must be very little corporate financial oversight, and there has to be massive amounts of illicit money sloshing around in the economy. This is one reason why the CIA who was providing the Hmong militias in the plain of jars with funding and logistics necessary to keep the barracks open(as a tripwire to communist chinese land invasion of southeast asia) and the poppy fields plowed (exports of opium) ensured that some of it make it to the United States. I'm not going to go to in to the specifics here if you are not familiar with this then check out (professor at University of Wisconsin) Doctor Alfred McCoy's book "politics of Heroin". The reason I bring this up is because <a href="http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0403/coup.htm">a non-fiction book "shadowplay" by Tim Marshall</a> (not to be confused with the novel of the same name) <br />
<pre>"<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">He quotes one source, q<u>uoting Mark Kirk a US intelligence officer saying that: <i>'Eventually we opened up a huge operation against Milosevic, both secret and open. We gave KLA both military, technical, officers as directors, logistical support, we smuggled drugs, ran prostitution rackets and murdered civilians, and blamed all this on the Serbs and Milosevic.'"</i></u></span></pre><br />
I had to give you the background because some people would ask: "why would an intelligence officer slang drugs and pimp hoo'ers?": Its the economy stupid. Specifically the most important part of the economy the cash economy. Because if you have cash, you can borrow more! Credit can't get you more credit, but cash? cash gets you more credit.<br />
<br />
<br />
6. This one is rumor, but I have to at least mention it after Kirk voted against the DADT repeal. Certain males have claimed to have had relationships with Kirk in the past and recently. <br />
<br />
Thats right folks Mark Kirk is a spy, a pimp, a drug dealer, a liar, an anti-gay closeted homosexual, murderer, and the only legislation hes written is to make pot more illegal. <br />
<br />
Mark Kirk's career may be in intelligence but attempting to brand Bush a liar as the sole source of WMD info when <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gupBSG09YpY">this youtube video</a> is one click away, shows what he thinks of your intelligence. United Statesians may have a short memory, but it cannot possibly be this short! Please do not vote for this man tomorrow.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MARK KIRK IS NOT A MODERATE: "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs_b4LSI8SQ">I will lead the effort to repeal"</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNT1vAHUefw">"we're well on our way to making this guy a one termer"</a>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-67351875740149692172010-10-25T13:32:00.002-05:002011-01-11T14:01:40.429-06:00halloweenI've thought about this before and it is probably well known, but it is interesting to note. Writing off the top of my head so no real research I suppose, but it is popular knowledge that Halloween stems from a holiday known as "all hallows eve" or something along those lines. I don't intend to claim this is universal, but just in my certain(anglo) historical trajectory this is where Halloween is situated historically.<br />
All hallows eve was the point in time in which the border between the world of the dead and the world of the living became most porous and started to strengthen itself again. This is much like other pagan(for lack of a better metonym) rituals in which the waxing and waning of natural phenomena were encoded(pine trees at the winter equinox, fertility symbols at the rebirth of spring). But instead of something that we have encoded in to scientific discourse(like the cycle of seasons because rotation around the sun and pine trees not losing needles in winter because of their evolution) this border between the world of the living has been effaced with Halloween. Not to make it seem like this was the agenda of someone, this was just a result of one more successive layer of dialectic atop an ever more specific historical trajectory. The culmination of structures of micro-power or the "mutual, indefinite blackmail" of power relations reifying yet one more concept by shuffling it through the zone of exception.<br />
<br />
Halloween originally meant that one had to disguise oneself from shades and creatures who might happen to cross the border between the world of the dead and the world of the living. Old religions along my historical trajectory mostly did not have a heaven, simply a world of the dead and a world of the living. Greek religious structures, Roman, Assyrian, and Old Testament all have/had a world of the living and a world of the dead. The idea that there is third world in play is a relatively new innovation. This need to be disguised from the ghouls and lost souls meant a subversion of the general social order. Much like episodes in the winter equinox(x-mas) throughout history: spontaneous ceasefires, the replacement of the king by a town drunk or possibly insane person and killing the unstable individual at the end of the day to symbolize the death and rebirth of the kingdom itself(Sacea). These older rituals that have become encoded in to our culture represent points in time where subversion of the general norms WAS the norm.<br />
<br />
So now most people regard Halloween as a day in which dwelling dwellers buy candy and give it to people who come to their door. These people are children dressed in costumes and their guardians. But there is also another halloween in which the older nature of Halloween is made apparent: gender roles, specifically the female role of "slut". I don't mean to slap you in the face with the word, but this is the best description I can come up with. There is a role out there for females to play: "slut", but this role is considered not what "good" females do. For the most part the role that we have created for female demands that they not derive pleasure from sex and not desire sex. Most importantly though: that they never notice the power that comes with sex and exploit it. Such male paranoia about such obvious things has bled in to modern ideas of femaleness. Lets be honest here we all derive pleasure from sex(assuming its not terrible sex), we all desire sex (not all the time but often), and we all seek our own agenda using most of the tools available to us whether it be sex or not. But even though logic cuts through these roles quickly and easily we are still shackled by these roles (male and female alike). We are all stuck policing each other in to these roles.<br />
<br />
This other Halloween still celebrates the old pagan rituals' theme of subversion of the existing order and it is adult Halloween. The double standard of "pimp vs. ho" in which men are celebrated and respected for being sexually involved with multiple partners. In colloquialisms these are referred to as "conquests" and other loaded words that betray this double standard. Women on the other hand are ostracized and placed in counter-factual roles if they are perceived to be sexually involved with multiple partners. During Halloween there is a subversion of the existing order in that as we are policing each other in to these reified roles, we no longer can place women in the "slut" role as a result of their knowledge of their own sexuality. On Halloween women having knowledge of their sexuality is normal, so have fun. But keep in mind the reason I am bringing this up, is because it is so apparent when it is not Halloween. Without a subversion of the existing order we may have never known that this double standard is not a universal truth.Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-35415780608581484962010-08-17T13:33:00.001-05:002011-01-11T14:00:50.910-06:00Muslim Paranoia (THE mosque at [emotional heuristic here])I will not say the same shit. I will not say: "In this country we have freedom of religion!". We do not have freedom of religion we have an old document that says we do, many in the USA do not have freedom of religion. It is also too simplistic for the people who don't have a reason for their objections to a mosque somewhat spatially near the wound in Manhattan. I will not say: "Islam is different than other religions, it is significantly more dangerous!". Islam is whatever Muslims (and non-Muslims) make of it. It is an idea, if that idea is used to kill people than is it any different from our ideas of law and war? Do we not justify our own killing? Every breath we take is a breath stolen from someone else, freedom=inequality. <br />
<br />
I would like to side-step to explain the phrase" "immutable ontology". First the word immutable means to never change...EVER. The second word traditionally in philosophy means the study of the body or bodies. Recently in philosophy it has become the response to the question: "What Am I?", "What is Human?", or "What is Being? or to be?". The way I like to use ontology in this phrase is to imply a bordered area or metonym (when used in this fashion a metonym is the area which a word represents[if you and a friend both picture a chair in your mind's eye, you will never picture the exact same thing, but you will both agree that each other's picture was a chair]). These definitions of ontology and metonym are not in most dictionaries, so please don't think that this is something I didn't look up. These words attain different meaning depending on what stimuli you expose yourself to. In my research ontology and metonym are great functional words for communicating ideas. <br />
<br />
So you have probably figured out what I'm getting at by "immutable ontology" by now. The idea that something has the potential to not change: whether it be ideas, non-living or living things. The modern world pits humans against impermanence, locking them in a losing battle to attain security through immutable ontologies. These privileged identities of security are illusory. Reality is random and nothing will ever change that. Existentialism teaches us to adopt a lifestyle based on the assumption that you could die tomorrow. This kind of idea is one of acceptance of death, and therefore to live your own life better. This seems to be a better response to paranoia.<br />
<br />
Instead responses to paranoia usually take different directions, but are easily mapped. Both groups create an immutable ontology concerning Islam. The reasoning for this creation is because of a media blitz after 9/11 that blamed Muslims to the extent that the USA went to war with a country completely unrelated to the attacks(as of the time of this writing the US is still engaged in the occupation of Iraq, and with that massive military base it'll be a wonder if they're not there for good). But lets just ignore the flawed reasoning that led to United Statesians associating Islam with terrorism to the point of crippling paranoia, when terrorism has a slight fraction of the body count the United States military actions have racked up. If it is more likely the United States will murder than a Muslim will murder in the name of Islam, than at what point does the racism become some Freudian protection of the ideal self image. <br />
<br />
So both groups construct an immutable ontology of Islam as uniquely violent and uniquely worse than other world religions. <br />
Group number one's immutable aspect of Islam is that: "Islam did 9/11". Therefore group number one thinks that a mosque being built near the world trade center site would mean that Islam not only did 9/11, they won the war! Pretty soon it'll be like red dawn, only this time it'll be like green dawn or Quran dawn. We'll have to take to the hills and use Cuban revolution tactics to destabilize their regime! Wolverines! <br />
<br />
Group number two's immutable aspect of Islam is that: "Islam is uniquely violent over all other religions". In this respect the mosque represents an action of bad taste, that should be deferred for later. For example: making a joke at the expense of a recently deceased celebrity, and then asking 'too soon?'<br />
<br />
My personal opinion is that Mosques are not a fucking issue. This is exactly like gay marriage: another non-issue (wedge issue) brought up for no apparent reason and the agenda setting corporate media shoves it down our throats for fucking months before an election. If people wanna build a center of worship to zuul at ground zero more power to 'em if they can afford to put it up, who gives a shit? At a very basic fundamental level you personally: how often are you personally going to walk by that site? New Yorkers like to think they're the big apple, but they ain't that big United Statesians are spread pretty wide and NYC is just another city. If you don't spend time in NYC: SHUT THE FUCK UP! It has no affect on you whatsoever!? Why do you want to play the role of policing Muslims? Just because you can get away with it? Just because thats the role TeeVee told you to play? Is this Zimbardo's prison study? Ok, not you you, but the individual people, wtf can they think their interest is in this issue that they can tell people what they can and can't build? The last thing that bothers me about this issue is that these people telling people what they can and cannot build are the same fuckers who thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I still can't stress it enough ladies and gentleman: read about 9/11. Read the crazies and read the whitewashes, but to be honest with you the in-between is just a bunch or bullshit, its actually more like a bullshit sandwich though where the normality such sources convey is the bread, lulling you in to a false sense of security before the taste of bullshit fills your mouth and nostrils. <br />
<br />
In my opinion they should build whatever they can fucking build on, near, and around ground zero. Not that I think the immutable ontology of capitalism (infinite growth) is real, but because when you live in a city sometimes you can sense its soul. To have such a wound on the city, cannot be good for its soul. I would like to see a museum that would quickly be filled with bullshit regarding 9/11, but it would provide a geographical space in which to struggle for the visibility of certain subordinated truths from that day. <br />
<br />
I wanted to talk about one last thing which I will label "Apocrypha": The World Trade Center worship/spiritual center. The world trade center had at least one non-denominational center of worship. So I would like to point out that Islam already was practiced at the WTC. People have opposition to this mosque, because they believe that it represents a change from the status quo, but hopefully this can help them realize that there has been no change if we continue to allow worship of any deity on or near the world trade center. <br />
<br />
<br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-73976584143660505622010-06-18T12:47:00.001-05:002011-01-11T14:00:03.173-06:00The Political philosophy of Jeet Kune DoIn early history sovereigns were conquerors and it was well known. The violence was apparent and easy to identify.<br />
<br />
Now sovereigns are law givers who ask you to die for the country/race.<br />
<br />
To paint a romantic picture of the age of conquer as better than the effaced violence in our age of laws is too fall in to the same utopian trap. It is also worth pointing out that attempts to create romanticized golden ages usually result in overt totalitarianism. We should be looking to the future, where technics/biopower/disciplinary power will usurp the life-taking power found in the conqueror and the eloquent justifications of violence found in the law. These new sovereignties will amplify old powers of sovereignty by locking them in to pre-established patterns that are insulated further and further from human action. Slowly ceding control over humans' social world to machinery and science in the from of economics. The path we are on leads to an omnipresent panopticon. <br />
<br />
We need to find some kind of sovereignty outside of these 5 metonyms, or at least excise the portions that are just baggage.<br />
<br />
One possible way to accomplish this may be to resort to Jeet Kune Do. This is a martial arts methodology developed by Bruce Lee, the full name is Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do (Jun Fan being Bruce Lee's chinese government name), or: Bruce Lee's Way of the Intercepting Fist. <br />
<br />
In martial arts one is expected to choose a style or a few style and master them. Bruce Lee decided instead to create a methodology: the way of the intercepting fist. This method was to take what was most valuable from all the styles he knew and discard those elements of the styles which were non-competitive in comparison. In this fashion a specific type of "way of the intercepting fist" arose: bruce lee's way of the intercepting fist. Bruce was very explicit concerning the fact he was not creating another style, but a methodology to create one's own style. <br />
<br />
The philosophy of Jeet Kune Do much like the name implies is a counter-offensive method. Meaning that Jeet Kune Do does not involve naked aggression, but counter-attacks. In Jeet Kune Do one does not attack until attacked. Once attacked, the fist is intercepted, and a counter-attack is used. <br />
<br />
I think that Jeet Kune Do may present a space in which to construct new ideas of sovereignty from the discarded husks of previous epistemes. To create a democracy that will not allow sovereign emergency powers under any circumstances we will need to utilize the whole human knowledge both at present and throughout history. To create a sovereignty that includes easily available participation in politics, some sort of permutation of direct democracy and micro-computing we have to be prepared to discard antiquated theories. Such as: democratic peace theory, libertarian corporate de facto ownership of the world, communist government de facto ownership of the world, or realism's inability to recognize why people care about friends and family (because you should be at war with them). <br />
<br />
<br />
At the same time we are enacting an idea that has not been thought of yet, we will also have to be escaping the traps: Hobbes's trap: in order to overcome a great sovereign power, one must always resort to the use of an even greater sovereign power. How can one practically overcome this? Schmitt's trap: politics is marked by defining friends, and enemies. One cannot have politics without enemies. <br />
<br />
<br />
"I have not invented a "new style,"...On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds... My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy...Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back."<br />
-Bruce Lee<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-35224666956836145432010-06-16T12:48:00.001-05:002011-01-11T13:59:12.072-06:00the revolutionMany individuals seem to believe that the current systems of control are oppressive. <br />
<br />
Most of these same individuals believe that if they were the sovereign that things would be better. That under their control the world would know true justice. <br />
Others argue that if they had their way the current system of sovereign control would be eliminated. Not under their control, but under their guidance the world would know true justice. <br />
<br />
What I mean to say is: OK, revolution whatever, now what?<br />
<br />
It seems centralization of power or control over massive amounts of people leads to tyranny. But complete decentralization is not possible, theoretically anarchists cannot paint a picture of a post-sovereign world. Communists would abolish private property. This is a basic practical fact of how to achieve "communism". Anarchists would abolish sovereignty. Both these actions seem simple, but we cannot truly define private property or sovereignty. We cannot make concrete linkages between these metonyms and their physical representations in physical de facto reality. Even if such linkages were established they would be inter-subjective in nature and subject to drastic changes over time. Not simply because of the evolution of language. This would be a result of the constantly detourning meanings of powerful words. Every individual in this world occupies a tactical position, every meal you eat is a meal another person cannot eat. Rewarding yourself with altruistic chemical rushes if you pull the convulsing fly from the web out of pity only means you have effaced the spider's suffering from starvation. Think about the debate over our current inter-subjective construction of "terrorism". Every different political agenda has a different definition for this word "terrorism", even every agency in the US federal government has disparate definitions. To create a world free of private property or state sovereignty would only mean to create a world in which the meaning of these words has been effaced. The definition of these phrases can be stretched so far as to make it impossible to ever accomplish the tasks of Communism and Anarchism. <br />
<br />
CommunisM:<br />
Private property can be construed to mean anything under the immediate dominion of a living human body. To wear clothes is to possess them, if only for a short time. So in application: the abolition of private property would mean a huge increase in state power. Essentially there are two tactical positions: the state and the individual. There may be intermediate entities, but for the most part they will fall on one side or another of the border. Organizations with any type of fiat or veto power over individual's lives and/or actions can be grouped with the state. Any organization that does not control human action through implicit or explicit force would fall on the side of the individual. <br />
<br />
At the point where the individual does not possess private property, the other tactical positions outside of the ontology of "individual" will receive the private property. We cannot define pieces of reality out of existence with wordplay. At the point an entity controls whether or not you are clothed or housed they are controlling an overt amount of veto and/or fiat power over your actions: they are grouped with the state. The abolition of individual private property can be phrased in a different way: The complete ownership of all non-human matter by the state. When phrased in this way the teleological aspirations of Communism seem more like totalitarianism, than democracy. <br />
<br />
Sovereignty:<br />
<br />
And now I must backtrack. First of all my grouping of entities with the state relies on my own definition of sovereignty which is the exercise of veto or fiat power over individuals. If you pull a gun on someone and steal their shoes you had sovereignty over that individual. And you will say: thats not a state, its not recognized by the UN or some shit. Bullshit. Sovereignty resides in individual actions their perception of truth and responsibility. Just because your robbery can be prosecuted does not mean that the entity prosecuting you is not a fucking criminal! <br />
<br />
State Sovereignty:<br />
<br />
States are just criminals that got so big they couldn't prosecute each other for criminal action, this does not change the basic fact of sovereignty: it resides in the individual. Sovereignty is (re)produced every single second of every day in the words, thoughts, and actions of individuals. If we all decided that the situation in the city where the police have the guns and we are unarmed should be reversed, it would be. If one by one Nazis refused to pour the Zyklon B, there would have been no holocaust. Soldiers that decide to put down their weapons and even interact with eachother because they have holidays derived from the same proto-holidays: Sacea, Winter Solstice, Christmas, etc. have denied the preceding day's truth of sovereignty. But much like Sacea the spell of absurdity/revelry fades as every other individual who refused to go along with the new tactical position of the revelers assimilated them back in to the old paradigm. This definition relies a great deal on Foucault's definition of power as "mutual, indefinite blackmail" (in Power/Knowledge). The popular definition of a state or sovereign state is one that is recognized as a sovereign state by other sovereign state. How tautological a definition in the first place? It sounds like a rule the winners invented to make sure nobody steals the legitimacy that arrives with the title "state".<br />
<br />
Operational definition:<br />
<br />
The reason I point out and defend this definition is because I essentially pushed on the definition of words to make sure this argument went through. Without seeing the reasoning behind the "mutual, indefinite blackmail" it is sleight of hand to use my operational definition of sovereignty in order to deconstruct two emancipatory goals. <br />
<br />
If I didn't provide valid reasoning for sovereignty as the exercise of veto and/or fiat power over other individuals, then I would be succumbing to the same trap that attempts to put in to praxis these emancipatory ideals fall into. I do not wish to complicate further the pallimpsest of inter-subjective definitions, I want to simplify. Our non-material world is already too complex. I believe that this complexity leads to what social psychology calls paralysis of choice. The idea is that if there are 20 different cereals to choose from it would take forever to choose without some heuristic: brand name or maybe price. Cereal is a terrible metaphor for every choice a human makes. When a human makes a decision they do not write it down and weigh it down, they do not have a long time to figure out the pros and cons. Most of the time a human accesses what they know quickly and using the mental heuristics they have established to come to a decision. <br />
<br />
Complexity of knowledge => Paralysis of choice => stupidity<br />
<br />
I believe that the paralysis of choice has led to a plague of stupidity in humanity. This pestilence is not tamped down, but exacerbated for profit. Use of cheap psychological tricks in marketing (and everything is marketed today) amounts to mind control as it seeks to usurp veto and/or fiat power from your own mind. Such marketing may be sub-narrative, this is not pseudo-science subliminal messaging. These are the reproductions of the dominant episteme through what is not said. One cannot help but read between the lines. These sub-narratives condition individuals to never think of certain questions. To question the wisdom of a presidential administration's justifications for a two front illegal war located in two countries that were not primarily responsible for 9/11 is never even thought of. <br />
It is not that the question is taboo, but that the question just never forms in an individual's mind who has immersed themselves so fully in the dominant paradigm. As the complexity becomes more paralyzing the adaptive youth become less susceptible and the envelope gets pushed. This is the status quo. This scourge spreads as marketing gives us false heuristics and normalized sub-narratives. Marketing is imperialism of the brain. Not simply metaphorical like Kalle Lasn talks about, it is real. Your thoughts are real, not only are these thoughts physical chemicals being tossed around your skull, but they create the conditions for physical reality. One cannot write a word until one thinks of it, one cannot build an object without a plan in mind, the only thing that grants continuity to our perception of this reality is knowledge/memory. As technology allows for proliferation of the nodes of knowledge normalization, the further immersion of individuals in to the current paradigm is a foregone conclusion. As Hegel said: <br />
<br />
"What is 'familiarly known' is not properly known, just for the reason that it is 'familiar'. When engaged in the process of knowing, it is the commonest form of self-deception, and a deception of other people as well, to assume something to be familiar, and give assent to it on that very account"<br />
<br />
As technology changes our physical reality by making stimulus that comes from entities rather than individuals the norm it is easier to make these agendas in to "truth". Like Goebbels says:<br />
<br />
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”.<br />
<br />
Bounding the thoughts of your own mind, limiting what you see, the words you use, and the questions you ask. This is the the imperialism of the brain that is everywhere you look and listen. I do not know how to fight the modern contagion of stupidity, but its existence seems obvious at this point. People just gotta level up. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to Anarchism:<br />
<br />
Although Anarchism has a valid aspiration and seemingly better thought behind it than other domination ideals. Liberalism/democratic peace theory is an ideal in which the world is conquered by liberal democracy. Libertarian theory is an ideal which would create a world in which all non-human matter will be owned by corporations. These involved domination.Communism required abolition of private property, which meant ceding of property to some non-individual entity. This would mean domination by a state or corporate entity. Anarchism seeks to overcome all these ideas by destruction of the state, to remove the tool of domination is to prevent domination.<br />
<br />
Anarchism suffers from the same fault of all teleological ideals: Ends just provide a justification for immoral means.<br />
<br />
Anarchism suffers from the same outcome of libertarian ideology and communism: where is the power displaced to? We see the power of private property displaced from individuals to entities in communism and libertarian ideology. Where is the power of sovereignty (de facto) and law (de jure) displaced to in anarchism? The power is displaced to individuals, in this fashion war is made a relic. But in our effort to erase war, we focused too much on the definition of war as a contest between state entities, by eliminating state entities we eliminate war. The praxis of such an ideal would mean that war between individuals would take the place of state war. We moved the borderlines of definitions in our heads, but there is still murder and injustice. The potential to kill another individual at will shall always reside within the human, nothing can remove this potential. <br />
<br />
Any ideal to emancipate individuals from the tyranny of an oppressive power, has to become a more oppressive power in order to subordinate the original oppressive power. This is Hobbes' trap. <br />
<br />
The most damaging turn to anarchist ideals in practice comes with the aftermath. In a world without state sovereignty nothing prevents tribes/nations from forming and engaging in war. So as soon as a revolution to destroy the apparatus of government has succeeded, 10 other governments will form in its place. <br />
<br />
This is why I brought up my original question: ok, revolution whatever, now what? <br />
<br />
<br />
We have not found a way out of Hobbes trap. Schmitt further entrenched us. <br />
<br />
How do we overcome a great power without resorting to the use of a greater power? If there is no way to do so then sovereignty is inherently totalitarian and democracy is nothing but a dream for the future. As long as a head of state can proclaim their state of emergency which justifies their torture or disobedience of the Geneva conventions law on POWs; as long as the sovereign can proclaim themselves outside the law through this emergency, then law created by the people is an illusion.<br />
<br />
The law of the people/representation/suffrage is a privilege that will only remain as long as the sovereign's whim allows it. Don't tell me that this is the fluke. There is no such thing as democracy in practice thus far. Until the exception/emergency/new norm falls outside the sovereign's power there will never be democracy. <br />
<br />
Then the question is: where is the exception/emergency/new norm displaced to?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-5347925682354359062010-06-11T15:08:00.001-05:002011-01-11T13:57:58.880-06:00nadaSo why am I writing this. I had thoughts in my head, but writing them down <strike>doesn't</strike>...it seems...no it is self-indulgent. I like reading things that I have written before. I hope that a few people have read a bit and gotten something from it. That is at the back of my head, but to make it my focus would be to think that I have something to say that is more important. The aporia of life, the fact of existence being a denial of some other existence. If you save the fly, you starve the spider. We are all in a constant process of deferral of our moral responsibilities. Myself most certainly included, I bear personal responsibility for the choices I make. Nobody can deny free will or the sovereignty of the self. There is no escaping this fact. Every living thing has a tactical position that they defend and push. If this was not true, these living things would have chosen to stop living. Anyone who can read this, any living thing has a reason for existence that keeps them going, a tactical position that must be secured against the randomness of suffering, and an agenda in order to further secure such illusory safety. Again, identification of all security narratives as false hope does not mean that I have found the true hope. This does not mean that I can see the truth, but only that it seems apparent from the de facto state of reality that the future can never be predicted. Not simply the social activities of complicated life forms, but the entire fabric of reality. The amount humans do not know is staggering, we know god damn nothing about death. We do not comprehend insanity, is it simply socially constructed abnormality? completely biological? completely psychosomatic? permutations of these? Death, sickness, insanity, etc. can happen to any individual at any time. No matter how effective we become at tilting the probabilities in our favor. God does play dice with the fate of the world, every fraction of a second of every blink of an eye trillions of dice are rolled where the stakes are human lives and suffering. Empirically proven systematic ways to shift probabilities lead to the fantasies of immortality and invulnerability for the wealthy ubermensch. The finish line, the winners circle: celebrity. It is not a profession to be on television it is some sort of pseudo-religious ritual. One does not want money anymore, only to have their image reproduced and beamed to the far corners of the world. The reward is their clones spread out, repeating the thoughts and words: making them significant. The american dream is ....cliched. But this is another word for normal. <br />
<br />
Vocations are a joke in this dream. Vast swaths of individuals sitting at desks pretending to do work. Their high credit limit gives them the fleeting feeling of celebrity. The feeling flees, because it is being chased with such bloodlust. The ignorance as to the cost: the slavery. The husb/ife the slow (re)production of magistrates, professionals, and land owners. The drugs. Be honest: The drugs. Something to dull the noise that crescendos as years pass. The stress, the isolation, the long hours, the money troubles...the divorce. <br />
<br />
Then there is labor. Labor sells the hours of a human's life for gold... Well... you know... metaphorically; literally labor sells the hours of a human's life for fiat currency. But the deal is rigged. The contract was written by the boss's lawyer. The contract is enforced by a jurist who is the boss's BFF. But this is Upton Sinclair shit. Nowadays labor is no longer useful, it is obsolete. A sign of an older paradigm of economic growth. It is not a worthy profession, it is looked down upon. In the same way that smiles' self help gave people canon which legitimized not feeding the poor, the homeless non-people. That you and I see often when we walk in the city (that is any fucking city or town, humans without money to make rent are everywhere). This same mentality affects the working class. This condescension that "they are not doing the best they can considering their tactical positioning" that exemplifies attitudes towards the homeless is now how people look at labor. Which is silly considering the shrinking of the middle class and that the strike-slip fault lines of global laissez-faire capitalism are becoming apparent. The laborer spends a large portion of their time working, but not actually getting paid. In fact, they spend a large portion of their time working, and paying for the privilege to be able to do so. They spend their time and money procuring the correct attire for the environment. They spend the time before punching in waiting to be able to punch in not getting paid.Commuting an hour there and an hour back (if you're lucky). The commute means you pay before you even work: either exorbitant gas prices or overpriced antique public transit. But these are very simple little things. Now that the industrial economy is in its death throes (I do not say this like it is bad, I don't fucking know whats good or bad, just a subjective observation). The service industry. I want you to ask yourself how many people do you actually know and chill with that work in the service industry? If you are young or a minority my money is that the answer is a lot: Bartenders, Waiters/waitresses, cooks, cashiers, landscapers, essentially these are all things that people can easily do for themselves, but they pay a premium to others in order for them to do it for them. I mentioned earlier how the middle class is shrinking. This may seem to be unrelated, but in my opinion there will be a strong correlation. As the middle class shrinks(go into this next) they will have less disposable income. Less disposable income will lead to less consumption of service products: They will just make their own coffee, or their own drink, or mow their own lawn. If this correlation is true, than the service industry will suffer a decline leading to an extended period of high unemployment. I do not know how this will be alleviated, clearly these individuals will seek training and other jobs. But such an extended period of high unemployment, would have other repercussions on the entire economy. But most importantly would further catalyze the dissolution of the middle class. Because the people who utilize the service industry the most are the middle class. I love eating out, getting a delicious plate of food with a friend or two. But I am just passing the service industry paycheck I get to another worker and letting the bosses take a cut. If there was a database of individuals and their skills (free schools and post-crash sites starting to do this) I could just go to the cooks house and trade a service directly for a delicious plate of food. In this fashion there would be no graft given to the bosses. Most other service industry workers are the same way we perform a service others could easily do and we use our disposable income to do the same. Bartenders and waiters/waitresses are the best tippers out there. The service industry keeps itself afloat, because they are not paid a living wage. So two jobs, and your disposable income is the chance to play the role of the wealthy for a short period of time by consuming a service. To express fiat power over another human, to command and to have obeyed. A small taste of sovereignty of the other, a small taste of control, but it costs money. Ironically the people who daily (re)produce the bourgeois ideology of self-help that made homelessness a crime and labor a dirty word will be the same people slandered with it later. The edges of the service industry is where this is clearly evident, but this vicious cycle will spread until it engulfs the entire economy if the rules of our game don't change.<br />
<br />
But why would the middle class shrink and the answer is two things, which we should be thinking of as one thing: Transportation and Energy. I even capitalized that shit. Cars. The personal automobile. An entire country constructed around the institution of the personal automobile: the highways, taxes for maintenance, subsidized steel, subisidized auto-industry. A history written by the personal automobile: The suburbs, white flight, property, status, fashion. A future of blood in the name of the personal automobile: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. In order to defend its tactical positioning the United States must ensure access to energy. Whoever has the energy can divvy it up for political allegiance. I'm not saying its a simple handshake thing, but Japan isn't thinking about invading the mainland for oil anymore. Its the energy stupid. And if a country spends such a vastly disproportionate amount of money on military spending like the United States does then they can afford to "control" the oil fields. As long as massive amounts of money are funneled to the military industrial complex then the oil fields can be occupied. As long as the oil fields can be occupied then the United States can maintain global pre-eminence. This is how our security is constructed. The security of our overconsumption. The bliss of never having to build a civilization that can fly. Even if such security is not an illusion, it is predicated upon the insecurity of others. <br />
<br />
Labor is not the correct translation for how the products we consume are made. Our clothes, our shoes, our electronics, our everything. They are made by slaves. I will not say that there are certain places where children are and putting children to work is bad. The united States was putting children to work years ago, who are we to chastise when it is our own fault. We chastise, because in that way we can deny our responsibility albeit ever so slight. We know that we buy shit those slave children make, you and I know we share responsibility. But if we can do a two minutes hate every once in awhile. Kathie lee, nike, etc. Then we can ignore our complicity, we ignore the fact that it was not a few bad apples and we ignore the fact that there might be a solution. We ignore the fact it is not just children. There are more slaves today than at any other point in history. Let me give you the meta picture: There are two ways to develop an economy today. Number one is to protect your industry, because they may be new and can't compete yet on the world market. This runs the risk of making an inferior product and inferior industrial infrastructure in the long run, because of lack of competition. But in developing nations the only indigenous entity with the money/credit to build industry is the state. If a country wishes to maintain control of their own natural resources or control of their own product they have very few options. Most of the time this import substitution industrialization does end up creating products that can't compete in the world market. The other option (to develop while maintaining sovereignty) instead of industrialization is to produce a cash crop or natural resource. This can create jobs and infrastructure for an extended period of time, but there are downfalls. First of all if a country is selling off its natural resources they are being used to create a different product. The amount of money and jobs that would be created by an industry that created an end product would be substantially more, but would have the same pitfalls mentioned before. Nothing is infinite, eventually the natural resources will dwindle and what will a developing economy rely on then? Where will all the laid off workers go? These are just internal problems. The main problem with a cash crop or natural resource is that it is all you have. If you don't sell this fucking copper, your country will go bankrupt and they'll overthrow you! But there is one country that buys most of just about everything. The United States. So who do you think decides the price of copper?<br />
<br />
*ring Ring*<br />
United States: Hello?<br />
Country A: Hey Sam whats up? oh boy it is your lucky day, have I got a shit ton of copper for you!<br />
United States: O rly? You selling it for what 10 bucks a ton?<br />
Country A: Haha! ya right, you old sly fox. Same as last year 15 a ton. <br />
United States: ouch. See the thing is I just got off the phone with Country B and she just said that she had copper for 12 a ton. <br />
Country A: Country b!? those assholes? You know you can't get better quality than my copper Sam. <br />
United States: I mean that is an awful lot of mon-Click- oh one second I have another call. Hello?<br />
Country C: Sam Listen, you drive a hard bargain but I'll do 9. <br />
United States: One second -click- That is Country C on the other line telling me he'll sell them to me for 8 bucks a ton, if you don't make a better offer I'm hanging up...<br />
<br />
and on and on. <br />
<br />
Its called a race to the bottom. So what ends up happening you ask? Countries run out of resources, their currency defaults, there is a revolution, there is a slump in commodity prices and: enter the IMF. The IMF believes the only way to economic growth is through foreign direct investment (FDI). Essentially they want to make the country in to a stock and sell it on wall street. In order to do so a few conditions have to be satisfied: privatization of nationalized industry; massive loans with interest rates and payment schedules everybody knows can't be met; and the transfer of sovereignty to economist-priests. But why would they do that then? Two reasons: 1. Its the boss who signs the document, if shit goes down he'll just ship off to the caymans. 2. The only other choice is to disqualify themselves from the world economy. <br />
<br />
One resource that does not suffer from all these predicaments is humanity. Humans are being shit out by the billion. Developing nations just as any nation have ample human resources. In the same way the proletarianization of the american immigrant took place global capitalism spreads with CIA death squads instead of pinkertons. Humans are not given a living wage, in order to survive their children must work. Everything is so fragile the second an income producer becomes sick or injured their security collapses. Why don't they quit? you ask. Why don't YOU quit? The same reason I don't quit I think: because I don't know any other way to live. This is how I've figured out how to manage so far. In same way a simple narrative of a farm family that had two sons. Meaning the farm was split in half. Maybe one of them sold his to share croppers, maybe one of them let it go to waste, maybe one of them sold it to a big landowner, maybe one of them sold it to the other to have enough land to actually farm and left for the city to seek wage work. Why did he go to the city? because that is where the narratives say is opportunity, in the same way they lied to american immigrants it was not opportunity it was fresh meat for the grinder. New humans to subordinate to some great inhuman machinery of wealth manufacture. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Last time I checked 85% of the world lived below what the United States calls the poverty line, which is somewhere around 18.5 I think.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
But this is only pseudo-economics. I did not even touch upon the state of the police state. And even more topical I didn't even mention that eventually we're going to run out of oil. We need to build a civilization that can fly. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7677076.post-45470684792543412412010-03-25T09:08:00.001-05:002011-01-11T13:56:31.527-06:00framing<a href="http://guerrillaunderground.ning.com/profiles/blogs/framing-1">Originally Published Dec 31, 2009</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/31/2783377.htm?section=world">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/31/2783377.htm?section=w...</a><br />
<br />
<br />
The above article is about a group of protesters in Egypt who are opposed to the blockade of Gaza. Most likely if you are reading this it means that you have yet to fall in to the trap of the post-literate world view and are probably aware of Cynthia McKinney's attempts to protest the blockade as well which ended with her being released from an Israeli detention facility.<br />
<br />
Many things about this article piqued my interest, but one glaring omission is what motivated me to try to share this with others.<br />
<br />
Where are the Palestinians?<br />
<br />
In this article there are no Palestinians. There are no Palestinians with a voice. They have become palestinians, this idea/word that steals a voice, that de-politicizes, and therefore dehumanizes. Maybe Palestinians love the blockade its like the greatest thing thats ever happened to some of them. But I don't fucking know that if I view the world through the stimuli available to me such as Disney's ABC. In this life where the world comes to me in sound bites, articles, talking heads/pundits, etc. I have been distanced from the Palestinian, I have been told of the palestinian, that amorphous blob of victims that deserved the collective punishment because they are inhuman.<br />
<br />
How am I to know the palestinian? We all know that direct action whether peaceful or violent only has an effect if it has publicity. If I have no methods available to me to access what direct actions Palestinians are taking and what words they are writing/saying I am only learning about how others view the Palestinian, so I am truly only learning about the palestinian.<br />
<br />
Where is journalism? Without it a democracy cannot function. Where are readers? Without them a democracy cannot function.<br />
<br />
What, if anything, is available to me as an action to effectively achieve the abolition of the blockade? Will these same means help abolish the Cuban blockade? From what I can tell the ability to directly effect either of these things is beyond my economic means(lobbying/corruption), beyond my charismatic means(trying to lead a popular movement), and beyond my intelligence(hacktivism). The only means I have are to speak to others to see if they also see the divide between the human Palestinian and the de-politicizsed palestinian. If I had access to more words of the other, I could disseminate such words this would be effective resistance. Not to speak for the palestinian, but to put the words of the Palestinian through my, albeit small, megaphone is an act of resistance against the blockade. The blockade itself can only be achieved because of the conflation between inhuman de-politicized palestinian and Palestinian in the mainstream media. I can cut away at those assumptions by reproducing the truth of humanity in Palestinians. The truth of the everyday suffering of any human who is proclaimed less than, who is proclaimed a second class citizen, a criminal, a terrorist, who must have their construction helmets marked with a spraypaint X. It is not enough to proclaim the less than human status of the Palestinian, they must be marked off with borders to demarcate where order ends and chaos begins in this fashion the state/identity one was born in to looks so safe. When the other does actually get over the border(because depoliticized subjects make for a great cheap labor source) to do some construction work for example, make sure to spraypaint a large X on their helmets. When a palestinian gets over the border we must mark the border with an X. With this X we can demarcate this inhuman, de-politicized, realm of uncivilized savagery to help us remember that we are peaceful and democratic.<br />
<br />
I can't find the picture on the internet, big surprise, and can't remember which book it was in, but palestnians were wearing badges of an x on the helmet when in Israel at certain sites. When certain press outlets found this slightly too dehumanizing it changed because people got angry. We all know that our participation in the dehumanization of Palestinians is part of what keeps it going, but we also know that its wrong. Every last one of us knows at some level as situations like this prove when too big of an increment of change in the ongoing process of dehumanization occur that people actually do get bothered and change it. But of course the adage holds true if you throw a frog in boiling water it jumps right out, if you bring the pot to a boil with the frog in it he'll boil right up. And no the Palestinians are not the frog, you're the frog, we're all the frog who need to re-examine what we take for granted. For example that the water is 10 degrees hotter than it was 10 minutes ago, or that Palestinians are human and have a voice and deserve the opportunity for some sort of self-determination which usually takes the form of the creation of a nation-state as it did for Zionism. Just don't fucking get it, the answer to a depoliticised, dehumanized subject is: a voice, self-determination, and usually a state/autonomy. The problem in creating autonomy/state is everyones already got territory staked out. But in this situation there is already a large chunk of land that nobody has a more legitimate claim to than the Palestinians. They also have the UN backing because Israel according to a UN directive has to relinquish "territories gained in the recent conflict" the UN thing that was written in 1967. The de facto "being on the territory" combined with a UN directive is more than enough legitimacy to create a state. Not to mention that Jordan has formally forfeited all claims on territory outside its current borders.<br />
But Palestinian states have been proclaimed, multiple Palestinian leaders have stepped forward to offer Israel recognition in return for their own recognition. Why is Palestine still not a state?<br />
<br />
http://www.amazon.com/Sharon-My-Mother-Law-Ramallah/dp/0375423796<br />
This book "Sharon and my mother in law" by Suad Amiry is an incredible read. It is the words of a Palestinian the voice of a Palestinian, not Disney giving voice to someone speaking for a palestinian. The book is incredible I noticed two great themes in it. First of all the mundane nature of the occupation from an individual's point of view. The occupation is always there a sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's head, but it articulates itself in such interesting ways. The absurdity of the form the occupation takes and its intervention in to the daily lives of humans trying to survive and help their loved ones lends itself to this Kafkaesque world that is: occupation, dehumanization, etc it is all these things. Many argue that Kafka was an anti-colonial writer (this article you may have to sneak on to a college campus library to look at it if you're really interested i can find it and copy paste: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/tae/v008/8.3kohn.html ) that article focuses on the book "in the penal colony". If you've ever read Kafka you will find this book doubly amazing. Of course Edward Said is a Palestinian whose book "Orientalism" was apparently just purged from Scribd.<br />
<br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>Jimothy J. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905981969497836967noreply@blogger.com0