Gene's Footnotes

I have never been impressed by the messenger and always inspect the message, which I now understand is not the norm. People prefer to filter out discordant information. As such, I am frequently confronted with, "Where did you hear that...." Well, here you go. If you want an email version, send me an email.

September 30, 2009

90 Degrees





Rod sent this over to me and I didn't get it right away. Once you realize it is British, then, you just have to turn on the Monty Python part of the brain. 


There is no explanation for the variety of things he reads.  This is from The Register, with the motto "Biting the hand that feeds IT" 


Big Brother is here, but he doesn't seem as funny.

UK Office of Government Commerce cracks one off

Five-knuckle shuffle rebrand outrage
LogoWatch exclusive In April last year, London design outfit FHD proudly announced it would be rebranding the UK's Office of Government Commerce (OGC) - the HM Treasury tentacle "responsible for improving value for money by driving up standards and capability in procurement".
FHD's MD Adrian Day trumpeted to the sound of whalesong: “We are seeing growing demand from clients for consultancy support that spans branding, strategic and stakeholder communications, and this brief from OGC and OGCbuying.solutions is a perfect example of the need for a more integrated, informed approach to branding. We have worked on a number of successful corporate branding projects in the past few months and this project is an exciting new win for the business.” 
Catherine Hastings, director of communications at the OGC, chipped in with: “We were impressed with the integrated approach FHD had to offer, which combined expertise in workings of government.”
So far so good - nothing more exciting than some traditional Strategy Boutique Newspeak. However, the wheels came off this particular rebrand in spectacular style when the new logo was presented to OGC staff.
According to an inside source, the graphic had allegedly already been inscribed onto mousemats and pens in anticipation of its imminent deployment, but it took OGC foot soldiers around 20 seconds to realise why this particular bit of joss-stick-driven madness was going to end in tears (of laughter):
That new OGC logo in full
On dear, oh dear.* Well, at least it appears that FHD really does have expertise "in workings of government", as a quick 90 clockwise rotation reveals....

September 29, 2009

Globistan

Something to check out.  It is nice to remember there are grown ups examining time and tide; you forget that listening to our government officials.  Our military is conversant with the real world, but it doesn't help when the president doesn't talk to them.


You can click on the title, above, if you like, to find a site to purchase.



Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving Into Liquid War

Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving Into Liquid WarAuthor: Pepe Escobar
Publisher: Nimble Books LLC
Category: Book

List Price: $33.94
Buy New: $30.95
as of 9/29/2009 08:57 EDT details
You Save: $2.99 (9%)






Editorial Reviews:

Product Description
Globalistan weaves three parallel and intersecting themes: globalization, energy wars and the Long War. It shows how globalization is not proceeding according to the myth of "everyone profits": instead, it is fragmenting the world into even more explosive inequality, into "stans" - some stans configured as fortresses, some stans at war with others. Energy wars, and the multiple intersections of globalization and war, only increase the polarization. Globalistan argues that the world is being dissolved into Liquid War - a natural consequence of "liquid modernity" , a concept formulated by Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. The book is 80% based on reportage - from China to Central Asia and Russia; before, during and after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; in Iran and in the Middle East; in Western Europe, Western Africa and South America. Compounded with news analysis, it advances possible trends based on how geopolitics is developing now. It is also an Atlas - with maps - of the world in conflict.


Labels:

September 28, 2009

Another Failed Presidency

Irene sent me a link to the American Thinker. Below is an excerpt. There isn't much more to say.  But, I will.


Part of our system has been the inability of any part of the government to become an untempered power. So, we have thrived because the idiots in government are out of the private sector and because they were under control.  The concern today is that the idiots have control and behind the scenes there are non-idiots driving a stake into the Constitution and out traditions. Our idiots have become useful.


We may have another failed presidency, but lets make sure he doesn't take us down with him.



Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt


...But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big.  Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal  put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neithe smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized afive point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us.  He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.
But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course.  It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that....

Labels: ,

September 27, 2009

Sunday #2

I lost a few more hours trying to figure out how to get my book Reality Surfing into a form I can use.

There is a long back story involving some 20 years of fighting software. I should have bought a typewriter. Books require smart software, it seems.

In the 1990s Microsoft Work did a brilliant job of losing footnotes, gone forever, and destroying the table of contents.  Nothing like updating software.  I had great footnotes, they even talked to each other.  I have not used Microsoft Word in a good ten years.

When I updated Ragtime, my favorite page processor, it no longer worked and all the stuff I accumulated for a long time are useless unless I buy a new package for some $800.  It was a wonderful software that permitted a form to populate a publishable document with images, with data, then recalculate internal tables back in 1987. I still can't duplicate that.  A wonderful example of moronic marketing.

I give up and will use Apple'aPages that will let me just drag an image and click to create a table of contents without having first printing out help instructions and burning sage.  I will no longer deal with those who seem to think a document has to be in .doc. I will stick to .pdf. For those who will write to tell me about the wonderful free software that works in .odt, I condemn you all to purgatory.

Anyway, permit me to offer you Chapter 1 for consideration.  You may think it is a trifle, but I wrote some 200 pages before revisiting it in the last chapter to explain what I was doing. So, I sure hope it is not a trifle.


Chapter 1: Everything You Need To Know


Reality is the religion of my mind.
I ordain myself as God
To rule over my domain.

Yet, we are fallen angels,
Pretenders to the throne.

I ate of the forbidden fruit.
I am the knowledge of good and evil.

Yet, we thirst for the peace of Eden.

From on high, my gaze is judge of all,
Pride comes before the fall.





Labels:

September 26, 2009

Reality Check

We need to verify that the Fulbright story is correct.  It may not be.  So, mums the word even if it says AP on it.

Lets see what happens.

Gene

Indonesian Barry and the Supreme Court accepts NJ case regarding dual citizenship

Just a no brainer, here. Its the weekend. I put this in to remind everyone I am usually a year ahead of the media, so keep up with us.  These items qualify as "told you so."  Kathy sent me this.  We all missed it, apparently.  The article was probably was published in the used car pages.

The joke is at the end of the AP release:  a review concerning Obama's legitimacy, when done, will be handed over to the Attorney General, Eric Holder for review.


Now, lets see. He is a friend of Obama who was appointed by Obama and will now take it upon himself to review whether Obama is president when Holder was appointed, which, if so, would confirm Holder had the right to review the document, there being no other problems with this arrangement like a conflict of interest.

If Mr. Obama is not president, then Mr. Holder will issue a finding that he cannot issue a finding because he is not the Attorney General, but, then, did he have the authority to make such a decision in the first place?  Or, he may claim authority until he makes a determination, then state his authority didn't exist.  In which case his determination that Obama was illegal will be illegal, which, I don't know, seems like logic would dictate two negative make a positive.

Like when babies poop, that is a change you can believe in.


VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES SUPREME COURT




AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. 

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. 
When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.  
Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
A note the press wouldn't catch, being from the Colombia School of Public Relations, it was possible for Obama to have dual citizenship when applying to college. So, he may be only lying a little bit in the application, a con to get money. Not exactly untrue, just fraudulent. However, this does not mean he was a natural American for election purposes.

What it means is that as young man of dual citizenship, when the time came, he was required to reject his Indonesian citizenship formally to remain a "natural" citizen of the U.S.  Apparently, as many seem overly adamant about this, there is no record that he so swore. Hence, bye bye. At least, it would mean that if the Constitution still applied.

=========================

While I am at it, permit me to catch up on old news. I did a blog on the alleged global warming filled with all sorts of graphs, etc., but I think I am in the realm of beating the dead dog. So, a summary:

1. Japan's official position is man does not cause global warming;

2.  Australia thinks it is all a crock (that is how they talk.)

3.  UN folks admit we are in a global cooling phase and have been for a decade or more. They predict thirty more years of cooling.

4.  Obama says we have to work really hard to stop the above warming that doesn't exist and tax people like crazy.  Since man-made warming doesn't exist, cap and trade will certainly work. Al Gore will make a few hundred million more.

Scientists were explaining something about a lack of sun spots and the oceans cooling.  Sound familiar?  Now, watch how all these "scientists" morph and slide away leaving the idiot politicians behind, happy with their taxing authority and a hot audience. The governments don't care about the science, this is all about taxing and controlling.

Labels: , , , , ,

September 25, 2009

Relativist to Consequentialist

Hello, here is another long one, but I can't see breaking it up. I hope it is worth your time. I am working up, perhaps, a book or headache. Have some wine and cheese.  Or, get your computer to read out loud.  Mine actually does that.
-----------------

In the last entry, I mentioned there are differing ideas as to moral philosophy. Of course, these ideas reflect what people really do and try to figure out what is going on; they are not lists of commandments.

One school says there is some sort of objective standard, the other says, ultimately, any standard is personal. Which ever one you tend to be in, you will find the opposite to be strange.


Relativism is on the ascendancy, these days, as we lose or change our Gods, our faith in principles, and deference to laws. Indeed, there is a circle here, one item reinforcing the other. The "me" generation has come to fruition.

Those who find solace and logic in accepted standards are deeply upset, albeit an undefined distress, in the face of blatant relativism. though they are not permitted to object as it would be incorrect, a clever device to spread relativism. When someone stands up to define his standard, he is mocked.

The universities are filled with those who mock. It is an easy thing to do, requiring no intelligence, especially when the target sees personal attacks as irrational and distasteful, not worthy of response. It is easy to attack someone who has to work for a living and has no time to engage in schoolyard games.

So, Bob says "X," and the relativist aspect of our society attacks him, not "X." They don't understand Bob is following X, they feel Bob is X, all things being relative.

Bob merely shrugs in confusion at the irrational attack. His response would probably be lame, having little time to formulate clever arguments, which will bring on more insults. Bob probably know, anyway, you can't really defend an X by nay-saying personal attacks. He doesn't understand the attacks are planned to control others and marginalize Bob in the eyes of the vaguely aware.

The relativist outburst is not really a conversation, it is never about convincing Bob that X is not correct, that some assumption must be addressed; rather, it is about humiliating him and keeping the bleating audience under control. This is the Bill Mayer school of education. Bob is an idiot. Har, har. The audience is happy. That other "comedian," I forget, can quote something out of context and do his double take. Har, har. Clap, clap. Then, we can have a top ten list.  Chuckle, clap. The orchestra played when the Titanic sank.

For his part, Bob walks away to live his life as honor requires and will vote on this matter, if he ever gets a chance to address it.  He is the "cowboy" universally mocked by relativists. In a failing republic, Bob will see his efforts are becoming pointless. Frustration will build to dangerous levels as Bob is not stupid, nor passive. Indeed, he has been exercising control, as his paradigm requires.

Bill Mayer will continue his mockery; more and more sheep created. Then, as the relativists start to absorb Bob's children, he will no longer be passive, at a certain point. Before that, he will be deferential an assume his children are not being brainwashed.

Sound familiar?

So, we have the contrast between those who find standards to live by and adjust themselves accordingly and those who don't believe in standards at all, just notice a moving framework of opinion and laws. Those who want to become, say, an good engineer and those who want to cash out and buy a new car.  As the relativists say, those who die with the most toys, wins. Character, again, is destiny.

The relativist sees no fixed world and no fixed moral or intellectual standards. They like the idea of investing money to make money, not making a better mousetrap. That is for chumps. This craving for ends at all cost devolves rapidly into chaos, so the relativist rabble will realize they have gone to far and fall in with a tyrant, who will now provide his standard. This is history 101.

The tyrant has his own relative standard that he imposes on everyone else, being smarter and all, as tyrants must believe. The masses, for awhile, having bought in, think of the Helsinki syndrome, and will act as though this relative standard of the tyrant belongs to them and will act to defend it.  This is why the cult of personality is important to tyrants. We need Obama hymns for elementary school.

This scenario brings up to the next concepts to visit:  one I often refer to as means analysis, the other, the yan to its ying, is ends analysis.

Philosophers call the ends analysis "consequentialism."  They have to do that to keep their jobs in a college. We can merely think of the conflict as ends vs. means. This is at the heart of the consternation tearing apart out country. It sounds so simple, but few recognize the importance of how we look at life.  Due process is not a rule to discard to win the game; it is the game.

Again, I raise the compass metaphor. A broken compass, before you leave the dock, will take you somewhere not expected and all the course adjustments you work up will  not help.

A person who is focused on the ends has no need to consider the sanctity of any methods to get there. If the end is justified, then the means are justified.  It is that simple, yet few consequentialists will admit to that as they don't bother with understanding their idea. It just is what it is. Consequentialism is a personal, perhaps selfish, philosophy: I want something, so I will take it from those who have it - why is everyone so upset? Those who object need only be crushed or converted.

This is a simple, essentially emotional response to what is perceived as a simple life.

Gangsters live by this view, violence is very efficient, and it works until other gangsters kill them. In 2001 our ancestral simians fought for food and water, then, one day, the monolith comes along and teaches one group how to use weapons, aka reason, as if there is a difference. There is no discussion of the monolith creating a framework to study how to share the water hole; rather, the viscous apes with the extra ability to enforce stealing, do so.

Flash to 2010. See any difference?

The confusion for the means-analysis people (dentological ethics) is that they just don't get what is going on. They accept standards, rules, laws, moral codes and assume others do as well. This prompts them to meet the strange sounding conflicting apes by having a meeting with them, using their standards, rules, laws, and moral codes. They do not understand the apes have a leg bone, now, and are ready to dent in dentological heads. If you are playing second base, you don't expect the runner to break up a double play by shooting you.

The playing field is not as obvious as the watering hole in 2001, but it is the same. The leg bones are the very laws and traditions accepted by the means people, who, according to their own standards, permit the ends people to operate freely within the standards and traditions.  Those standards were developed over hundreds of years, or, one can say, thousands, and are part of the basic personality of the dented ones. It becomes their achilles heel.

I can't find the YouTube video, but a few years ago an arab in Brooklyn was in the street burning an American flag. He was shouting that America has a weakness: free speech. I think he said something like, "We can use it against them."  I wonder if we all understand he was not an hysterical nut, as the film would suggest to a means person, rather he was an understanding consequentialist operative.

The ends people just see methods as a weakness and use the standards as bones. Their goal is to crack heads and steal the water hole. History shows, ends people can do that when the means people are not watching.The force of tradition and history is not to be denied, however, and the ends people get their ends, but to get back on the road of historical development, to a society that respects rules over personal whim, will cost many lives, in many ways.

At least the prototypical mafia guys are upfront about what they are doing. In the past, people understood that lords and ladies are just hitting them on the head, but in a graceful way and with a little twist of the law in their favor. The Marxists, however, have, at least after Marx and Lenin, have operated in the shadows waiting for the time to make their moves to steal a water hole. Surreptitiousness, coupled with the means' peoples lack of attentnion, is a powerful bone.

These ends people call themselves Greens, progressives, community organizers and such, but those packages are all a political facade. During the election, Mr. Obama denied, with a dismissive chuckle (be aware of this technique of mockery) that he is a socialist. If he believes that, we are in more trouble than I thought and of an entirely different nature. Of course, he knows he is. He grew up, on all sides, in the Marxist mind-set. Socialism is as socialism does. Joe the Plumber knows these people aren't interested in discourse or due process.

There are always relevant distinctions that can be drawn, such as socialist leaders are hardly the people they manipulate, look at the money Gore makes, but you can clump everyone together, for a short blog, and say the heart of the socialist movement is:  I need more stuff. I want your money.  I can't or won't start or run a business, but that is your fault, so give me your money. I am entitled to it, see we have a new law telling you to. If I have to I will sit in a government office and not answer phones.


The entitlement to results of others work becomes a moral standard. Finally, a standard, no more relativism or consequentialism. My end is now a moral dictate and any disagreement will be dealt with, as there is no due process, we killed it. There is no moral relativism from now on.


If a business person replies, but I will go broke, people will lose jobs, or I will leave, the response is a vacant stare. They want your money. Don't confuse them with how you get it or what will happen if they start to steal it, sorry, vote to share it.

To the essence of my point: The consequentialists do not respect the Constitution, laws, or moral traditions. They mock traditions and use your silly due process to reach their ends. They will use all means available at any time to acquire their ends, having no comprehension  of or respect for the due process and fairness rules that created the game in the first place.

Consequentialists would stare blankly at one who said the majority of Americans were in favor of school prayer or against feticide, but that the people honored the rules of the society and accepted distasteful ends. To the consequentialist, those who honored their own rules are morons who should be led. They don't understand the wonderful changes coming, so it will be forced on them.

Friends mention that the left, the ends people, have a long view and are executing a plan long in the design. I am not so sure that is true, though there exists a plan book now being used, but that will come to an end. leaving the players to make up plays as they go without the benefit of standards.  I suspect it is more likely ends people refuse to accept any end other than what they want. They merely use all the bones they pick up in the area to work toward it. They work with people who actually have other ends, but, for now, are useful.

The evolution of how this plays out is demonstrated by the history that is no longer being taught in our schools beyond names and dates. Eventually, as the past explains, tyrants take control when conditions are right.

When the tyrants sit back for a second and think, the muse, Hm, other people will do the same thing to get their ends, so we better kill them off, starting with those who led the charge to my end because they know what to do and don't have my ends, the dopes. This is exactly what Hitler and Stalin did. The first to go are the generals, intellectuals, and activists. Recall the movie The Killing Fields? The Jackal, the early terrorist, has even written that it makes sense to work with the socialists, now, to destroy the West.

This is hardly new, google (now a verb) Federalist Papers #10, a brilliant discourse on avoiding consequentialism, a term not in use then. Then, there is Hoffer in the 1950s. Means people instinctively understand what I am saying and the ends people stare blankly and think about how it would be nice if I disappeared.  So, there really is no point to discourse.

This leads us to the reality that there is a power struggle, a civil war, that is not within the rules though it pretends to be a political debate. It is a war between the game itself and the anarchists who pretend to be in the game. It is between liberals, defining the word properly, and conservatives, on one side, and consequentialists on the other. The ends people can be called socialists, communists, anarchists, but the thread is the same: they want your stuff and don't care how they get it. If they win, you lose. Theirs is not to negotiate, it is to win.

The question appears: if there is a war with those who want to destroy your game, the rules inside your box cover, do you use those same rules, the ones you love, to defend yourself even if they will result in your losing?

Do you bring boxing gloves to a knife fight?

The answer is unpleasant, but unavoidable.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he thought he had to in order to keep it.  Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese-Americans when he thought he had to in order to defend their rights to due process.

When the game box itself is under assault, the rules to the game will be put aside; it will happen. One can worry about the idea that the game is lost, if you dishonor the rules, but in battle, only the pacifist has the ability to suffer the consequences not resisting.

Most of us, in the end, become consequentialists, a primitive, yet, human condition. When this happens, civilization itself is in the balance, even where one of the desired ends is to return to a government defined by means. Any war, lets lose its dogs, on both sides, and dogs are consequentialists.

Labels: , , , ,

September 23, 2009

Definite Relativism



Much of our discourse, these days, is about the good or bad of conclusions. We muddle about, with poor definitions, in the areas of capitalism, socialism, liberalism, Keynesianism, and so on.  These isms are categorized and analyzed, sliced and diced, but it would be beneficial to work backward from these conclusions masquerading as beliefs.  As with calibrating or repairing a compass before a voyage, it is easier to arrive somewhere if you start at the beginning, where things "gang oft agley."

As I mentioned to classes, character is destiny. You may not have thought about it, but it is true. It is a constant theme in literature, especially Shakespear. You will be taken to where your 12-year old morality takes you, unless you are remarkably conscious. Let us not divert, here.

Sometime ago, some author, somewhere, was talking about Bill Clinton's belief in a relativistic morality. It was not a canard, merely a statement of what was given as fact on the way to some other observation. I thought it interesting that Mr. Clinton actually had an opinion as to his view being relativistic. So, what does that mean?

Let me back away from the former President and address the concept generally.

A relativistic moral philosophy rejects any normative morality, no matter what it is called. Hence, even the bible would not be a definite moral code, the Constitution would be just some rules. It can be said a relativist looks at morality the way most of us look at aesthetics. De gustibus non diputandum.  Of taste, no dispute.

This is a wonderful-sounding "liberal" thought. (The term "liberal" thoroughly confused, but used.) The politically and otherwise correct can pride themselves, and they do, with the idea they are not judging other's ideas as wrong or morally wrong. To an extent, this is probably a majority of people.

Darius of Persia asked some Greeks if they would eat their dead parents. The Greeks were horrified, they burned their dead. Then, he asked some Callatians if they would. Of course, they said. They were horrified at the idea of burning their dead. This is the sort tale that induces a thinking that morality is relative, even if you get mad-cow disease from eating dad. Relativists look at those with solid rules as bumpkins, the unwashed, small-minded, and mean old conservatives, using the non-political meaning.  Relativists are good at sneering when someone makes a qualitative statement or, as comes to mind, says this or that is unconstitutional.

I suspect you feel that way. After all, this is tolerance and enlightened people will abjure any sort of judgment. Right? We are all God's children.

The problem is relativism is logically impossible and sloppy thinking allows it to survive a moral philosophy, a morality of no standards. Stick with this, it is important.

Here is the gravamen of the argument against relativism:  According to relativists, there is no normative moral position - a people can have a view that is moral for them, like eating dad, but not others.

This said, we must take note that there are prejudiced and racist groups of people. Therefore, they are morally correct.  Hence, apartheid was morally correct for the people who held the view. Hell, slavery must be a moral good for a plantation owner. A relativist cannot object to racism, yet they will be the first to express outrage. This is contradictory.

A relativist cannot claim to be tolerant. Only a person who is a non-relativist, say a strongly religious person, can be tolerant by permitting another view to exist. A relativist can't do that; they have to get on the subway with everyone and have no opinion as to what anyone there does because all views are equal to all others. See where this is going?

A relativist cannot be outraged at the KKK as they have the same right to a moral position as anyone. No one has a right to say they are wrong.

This is not semantics, please understand that.

Anyone who claims to be a relativist and, at the same time, hates racism, slavery, or the National League is ignorant, at best. Many are just liars.

Well, you might say, racism is wrong even though you don't like to impose your own views on others.

If you do, you have a fundamental belief in something that you know to be morally correct. Hence, your moral philosophy is one of a free-floating contradiction where your feelings lead to conclusions, there is no other path.

So, take this logic out of the world of the academe and into the real world. It is here that you will find relativism is a tool used to pry loose the firm opinions of those with annoying beliefs in such things as law, God, personal honor, and so on. A relativist says we must permit anyone to do anything because it would be wrong to impose your morality on others. This is a creeping moral and rational anarchy.  When you are trained not to object to prostitution, drug use, cheating, and so on. Laws disintegrate.

In Vermont, when the Supreme Court somehow figured the Dread Scott decision required the legislature to make a law permitting social contracts, at the same time the criminal law had a provision against sodomy. It still might. Here is the problem with emotional conclusions dancing around the real world.

If one still likes the feel-good notion that they can't reject other ideas, one is lost in a sea of emotion, a sea that is easily whipped up or becalmed. One is a prisoner of others and their emotional prompts. You will be expected a join in contempt for those who hold a definite position as they are intolerant and small minded.

In today's world, there is an elitist notion that the others, the simians, are not enlightened sufficiently to appreciate we are all individual creators of morality. They feel, for example, one should not say that Iran can't have an atomic bomb because they are a country just like the U.S., that the Moslems can have religious fanatics in charge who mutilate young female children, and so on. This is insanity and the cause of much of the political turmoil extant. It is the source of the complaint that our society is being destroyed from within. It is.  Character is destiny and relativism is entropy.

We simians try to get along and be good, which we are told is to not offend others, but pushed too far, we will encounter the lines that define our moral philosophy. We are at these lines in many cases, today, as those in charge of destroying lines, of "change," are pushing on all fronts expecting that new laws will change the population.  They do not have a moral center, so cannot appreciate people who have a compass.

Those with a defined sense of morality can only be pushed so far. They may not feel, for example, disgust at feticide is a relative morality. It is one thing to defer to the ruling that is OK for three months is one thing, but deference does not change anyone's mind. That which is permitted out of tolerance does not live on an equal footing with that which permits it to exist. Again, relativists can't appreciate this. They figure a few laws will change things, people will get used to separate but equal moralities.

Christ is quoted as saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner." This is tolerance, the acceptance of our shared humanity; it is not a statement of moral relativism. It assumes "sin."

Our instinctive tolerance is being used to cloak a contrary philosophy, that there is no morality, other than what one believes in.  For relativists, morality is a set of local taboos and if you disagree with their belief that no one view is wrong, then you are wrong. See the contradiction?

Labels: ,

September 19, 2009

The fuse is simmering

While America sleeps:


Iran Update, Qods Day, 18 Sep 09, Part 5

September 18th, 2009

Shiraz -1730 (summary report). the people attempted to gather in Namazi Circle in the morning, the security forces were already present. The people started walking towards Setad Circle and Paramount Intersection. During the march the Basij intermingled with the people. The plain clothes security people recognized the leaders and attacked them suddenly, separated them from the crowd and made the leader sit on their motorcycle which then departed immediately. Many of these leaders were saved by the people. Many more were taken away. Those attempting to rescue the leaders were sprayed with pepper spray.

There were a lot of people present. The chanted “death to the dictator” most often. The crowd consisted of people of all ages. However, the security forces primarily attacked the younger people. The leaders of the security forces were mostly old men who cried, “let us arrest these dirt and take them away and chop them into pieces.” The concentration of military force was such that it appeared as if there was a war going on in the city. (There was.)

List of photographs and movies. These may be found on the World Threats page at You Tube.

Khameneie is a Murderer - Footage of protesters in Rasht and Tehran. At one point the protesters chant “Down. Down . Dictator”.

Large Crowd with Helicopter - Footage of protesters with a helicopter overhead fro part of the time.

Large Crowd in Tehran.

Basiji People in Karimkhan.

Booing Basiji.

Death to Dictator

Mov02315. People chanting in Tehran, Iran.

Mov02318. Longer clip of people chanting. Tehran, Iran.

Labels: ,

September 16, 2009

Getting the scent


One interesting and one scary item:

Track the approval index on the left near term. It will be interesting in the next few weeks.

The President's PR blitz is over. There was a little green movement as green line people watch TV news shows. The green boost did not come at the expense of the red.

If I could just pick real stocks that go from 15 to 42 in seven months.

I would say, if we were looking at stocks, there is a 5 to 10 degree upswing on the red, say moving to 44%. The Green corrected last week, but the trend predicts a a 10%, more or less, drop to get back to the trend line at 28 percent. One would say it is trending lower.

The current barrage of Alinsky-styled confrontations may speed things up.

A really scary thing from Rasmussen:

Investor confidence today reached the highest level of 2009





Labels:

FOCA: 600 Catholic hospital would close


In July 2007, Barack Obama promised a group of his supporters that, if elected president, he would sign a particular of legislation. Such an event would be the end of some 40 years of incremental lying. I've mentioned this before.

When I was young, the hysterical push for freedom from anti-abortion law was sweetened with the promise that is was just to get rid of mean old laws that forced women in to back alleys, not that I knew any of them, and no government money would ever be used.

I knew even then, this was a lie. We are now at the three yard line on this drive.

The "Freedom of Choice Act," or FOCA isn't about "freedom" or "choice." Its just part of the PR-language game that works so well with morons. We no longer understand that Roe v. Wade struck down a state law. No, people, now, think it established a "right" and, with FOCA, it is a right that will be enforced or paid for. Do you understand what "incrementalism" is?

MIKE HUCKABEE:

It's about forcing each and every American citizen -- regardless of his or her view on abortion -- to support abortion-on-demand not just as a "fundamental right" but as a taxpayer-funded entitlement. But the compulsion wouldn't stop there. Because FOCA would also run roughshod over the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and hospitals that oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds -- forcing them to provide or counsel for abortion or face professional de-certification, loss of funding, lawsuits, and even prosecution. Not only that, FOCA would immediately strike down any and all state restrictions on abortion -- even those with wide popular support, such as prohibitions on partial-birth abortion and parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. Make no mistake: FOCA is the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed, one that would go far beyond Roe v. Wade in making abortion a government-protected and taxpayer-supported "right," through all nine months of pregnancy. That's why I'm asking you today to support HUMAN EVENTS in its efforts to stop this outrageous piece of legislation before it ever reaches President Obama's desk.
Of course, these people don't bother with that trivial Constitution except to create rights under its name, an act the Constitution was created to bar, but who cares when you are a fascist? Only control matters and if there are some poor saps who still believe in the law, then this will get them.

There is no section under the Constitution that enables the federal government to take control of what they consider medical care. This is where we have come since Roe v. Wade, when, those old white men I constantly hear about, decided a 3 month old fetus is not a human, but, in a Solomon act of wisdom, decided a 4 month old one is. Now, we see you can't let insanity get its foot in the door.

When I was in Vermont full time, Roe v. Wade was used as the basis for the court ordering the legislature, another unconstitutional act, to create a law that permits the social contract, a deal giving property rights to a same-sex partner. It doesn't matter that you may approve of the end, the means are crazy, a carefully selected term, and unconstitutional. A case saying a three month old fetus is not a person is the basis of ordering insurance companies to provide benefits. The insane are in charge of the hospital. Just make stuff up when you have the power - the end of a nation.

If a people decide there is no moral implication to killing a fetus, fine. OK, we believe in killing inconvenient truths, but think about the insanity of carrying the banner of insanity like the Roe decision. If you carry insanity as your banner, what does that make you?

If you do decide to kill off annoying DNA, there being no sacramental aspects to life, then why not make it available for any age? At least, to two years old, so you can see if you want the child or sell it. Call it a post-natal abortion, which will sound very important and legal. What's the bid deal about capital punishment. You can't permit abortion and be offended by killing off a murderer. What are you thinking?

From Medical News Today:

Some Catholic Bishops To Close Hospitals If FOCA Is Enacted, St. Louis Post-Dispatch Reports

Roman Catholic bishops are threatening to close more than 600 Catholic hospitals if the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade, is enacted, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. FOCA's sponsor, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), intends to reintroduce the bill, which failed to pass out of subcommittee in 2004, now that its former co-sponsor President Obama is in office and the Democrats control Congress, according to Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesperson for Nadler.
That is right. SIX HUNDRED hospitals. This is not an idle threat, as political hacks and amoral people would believe. They don't understand non-relative morality.

Abortion is contrary to the religion, as well as other religions, and will not be done after sucking in one's price. This is not like having to wear a seat belt when you don't want to.

So, what happens to this medical care insanity when 600 self-funding hospitals are gone? What happens to, what, hundreds of thousands of medical professionals?

Why do we not even consider the consequences of our acts?

We are, really, at the end of the American experience. It is morphing into another deranged socialist cess-poll while China is buying our best resources and preparing to take over the auto business, which it will being a great capitalist country as its cost per employee will be $180/mo. China and India are run by economists, engineers, and business people while the we are run by amateur Marxist ideologues.

It is time to teach the children you haven't killed Mandarin.

Labels: , ,

September 15, 2009

Acorns and Lies


Just keeping up with things:

Item 1: ACORN DOGS

Bob stresses that these people are American heroes. Here is an article, if you have been too busy to keep up. You can see why papers are covering this story.

For more than a year I hyperventilated about a particular community organizer for ACORN and what that meant. In return, I mostly heard crickets.

Now, the nation is rubbing its eyes and wondering if it missed something during a year long coma - ACORN is a psychotic organization bent on some low-level notion of socialism and amorality. They act in secret to control the normal people who are busy at work. Of course, they are operatives - so it is time to find out who is behind the left's strategy.

As I also repeated, this is the group Mr. Obama went to work for rather than try to keep a real job as a lawyer. Now you know who a community organizer works for.

ACORN is also the group Mr. Obama engaged to do the census. Most people don't care much about the census, but it is a critical battleground for taking your money and increasing control over the population. If you don't know how, read up. Its your life.

Congress has dumped money all over ACORN in gratitude for the wonderful election fraud, until last week. The free money has stopped.

Now, until ACORN will have to morph, as the worms are squirming about in the sunlight, before sneaking back into the banquet. That will take time, the most critical element in this counter revolution. There is little time to take back the government and there is little time for the government to intervene to shut off critics. The game clock is under two minutes.

Bob pointed out how clever the two were. They released one video tape and after being attacked, which is the stated reaction of the White House, as showing nothing but a few bad officials, they released another one which took place in New York City. I hear there is, at least, one more. I guess these are heroes.

I haven't followed the story much. Nothing new for me, here, but it is important to recognize that a twenty year old just pulled a leg out from a very unstable and tippy platform. It was the leg that got Mr. Obama elected, his brown shirts, his former employer. ACORN was about to defraud the nation, again, by taking the census in its own scrutable style.

The young journalists, a term that used to apply to network news readers, have work that is not over, the media's attention is awakening, and, most importantly, thousands of people now realize they can make a video and put in on YouTube - who needs the ministers of propaganda in the "media?" As you probably saw, a new poll shows 80% of American disbelieve the major news outlets.

For that matter, who needs the talking heads of the right? There is a grass roots upheaval taking place, look at the bi-partisan protesters in Washington D.C. last weekend. bob mentioned that Rush Limbaugh will spend the week trying to pull back listeners from killing off Republicans as well as Democrats in office.

Like they say: lead, follow, or get out of the way.

There is no knocking the ACORN videos by sniffing at Internet news. The Internet is a dagger, the one not under control, aimed at the leftist movement, which means the White House will go after it, but there is little time for that. In addition, there are too many crises to control and PR speeches from the leader just don't work.

Best of all, the White House is surrounded by wildfires and the Saul Alinsky method to attack the system doesn't work when you are the system. Indeed, it is the young couple who are the community activists, part of thousands, who are engaged in the Alinsky method of daily confrontation. The center cannot hold.

Unlike Mr. Bush, who just let the left vent and went about his business and was hammered by the media and politicians, Mr. Obama keeps shoving himself onto TV to tell us what he wants. He doesn't seem to work, just give talks and speeches. He is over-exposed which means he is exposing who he is.
---------------------------------

Item 2: Lies

The excerpt below is from examiner.com/Albany, which I can't figure out at all. It looks like a news aggregator (like a paper, I guess) with local hooks and has adds.

Joe Wilson was sitting in the well of Congress last week and piped up: "You lie!" when Mr. Obama said illegal aliens would not get medical coverage. There are two aspects to this.

First, Joe was a little stressed out, trying to read the bills flying by, or was looking at the House of Commons on T.V. where all sorts of hooting goes on. [Watch it, great stuff. Leaders have to know what they are talking about and respond with facts, as well as barbs. Could you imagine Nancy Pelosi having to react to questions and laughing?] Anyway, Joe apologized for speaking out during a speech; it is not traditional in the U.S. He did not apologize, however, for what he said, I guess he read the proposed bill.

Second, Joe was right. Nancy and friends were all set to attack Joe, you know - kill any opponent as a strategy, but it seems he was right. There was a "loophole" that did provide coverage. Yeah, a loophole.

The news cycles are moving faster and Joe is becoming old news, so the whole "Let's hang Judge Bork" game has become irrelevant.

Perhaps, I am too harsh; it is likely that Mr. Obama still hasn't read any bill. He may be ignorant more than a liar. Take your pick.

In the meantime, the Democrats have been endlessly repeating the notion that someone said Mr Obama is a liar. They object to the place and time, not the content. This is not smart.

The philosophical question remains: was Mr. Obama's comment a lie or stupidity? There is meaning to the answer.

Boston Republican Examiner

Democrats' planned public humiliation of Representative Joe Wilson could backfire badly

September 14, 2:40 PMBoston Republican ExaminerJohn Kinsellagh

I sometimes wonder if liberals were born with a genetic predisposition to overreach.

A gleeful and malevolent Nancy Pelosi, not satisfied with his previous expression of remorse, is attempting to humiliate and publicly rebuke Representative Joe Wilson by putting him in the well of the House of Representatives and forcing him to recant his blasphemous words before that legislative body.

Yet, whose ox will be gored by such an action? Republicans? Representative Joe Wilson?

Hardly…

Wilson has already apologized to President Obama for his indecorous comment, "You lie!" lduring Obama's health care speech last Wednesday to a joint session of Congress. It is interesting to note, that subsequent to Wilson's comment, the White House admitted that there was a loophole in the existing proposed bills that would have allowed illegal immigrants to avail themselves of the cooperative aspect of the health care exchange. The Senate closed the loophole shortly thereafter.

Furthermore, House Republicans tried twice to amend the existing proposed bill that would have included simple language to the effect that illegal immigrants would be ineligible to receive health care benefits; twice the Democrats voted the amendment down. Why?....







Labels: , , , ,