Comments On The Fritz

Enetation is starting to let me down in regards to the comments section. It's been acting weird for several days now, which isn't exactly considered good business practice in the web industry (in fact, it's usually a death sentence). Still, I'm being patient, and even wondering, since they're based in the UK, if with President Bush's visit going on the British blogosphere is aflame and sizzling.

Is that it? Are British bloggers on high-alert with W. in town? Whatever the reason, it's pretty dang weird. When you try to get the comments, you normally will get an archived version of the comments from a few days ago, even though the number of comments will reflect up-to-date comments. Then, every once in awhile, the new comments actually show up. So, in case anyone is wondering, I have no control over this, and I hope that the comments are back in order shortly.

Reading Chomsky

Reading Chomsky's latest. Really like the "superpower" of world public opinion emphasis, as a counter to American state power, among other things. His use of the term "terrorism" in describing American foreign policy is quite dissonant, and also not quite clearly explained and justified to those unfamiliar with Chomsky. Some will be turned off by that.

A few chapters in, and will only say so far that the establishment has a daunting task trying to debunk this. I've been keeping up with Chomsky's work for a decade, and feel qualified enough to rate him at the top of his game right now. Noone should ignore this information. Challenge it, debunk it, discredit it, absorb it, assimilate it, recharacterize it, champion it. Just don't ignore it. It's high-quality information, and deserves consideration and scrutiny.

Oh, The Irony

Couldn't help having a chuckle this morning. Before the war, and immediately upon its inception, I couldn't get the LA Times to even sniff at my letters to the editor, which were clearly against the war. Representative samples are linked to in the previous post.

Now, I finally write and send something seemingly supporting the war, or at least taking care to be aware of our responsibilities if we consider withdrawing, and I get printed. They actually did a fair job of editing the letter, which turns out to be a post I put out a few days ago. Like I've said, the weekend was a wild one. Does this mean I should remove my old post now, since it's the property of the LA Times (at least their edited version)?

So I'm on the record as supporting the war and forcefully implying that Europe should come on board and do the same. The context will be hard to draw from that letter, but it does speak for itself, in terms of reminding everyone the focus should be on the everyday Iraqi not involved in the violence.

The combination of our sanctions over the past decade and this latest military engagement have raised the spectre of a health and immunization disaster in Iraq. Our decisions need to be made with this primary focus, and not whether we have total control over the future of Iraq's government. We need to immediately turn this operation over to NATO, on the military occupation side, and to the UN, on the civilian and institutions side.

This should be enough to win back enough of the hearts and minds of Iraqis to turn the tide against the guerrillas. Maybe. Either way, it's the best chance at this point, in the face of the known risks. Security needs to be reestablished in Iraq, so that international aid agencies and NGO's can get back into the country and serve those who desperately need assistance.

Bringing The Wrath?

A wild weekend of blogging it was. So much so that I actually used the word "wrath", referring to myself. A little overwrought perhaps? Sure. But this is what happens when the San Diego Chargers get my hopes up and then shatter them.

It was a long day. And a fruitful one. Productive. For I didn't just get angry at another blogger for being, in my opinion, spiteful and petty. I channeled that anger. Constructively. Apparently, somewhere along the way I sent an email to the LA Times too. A letter to the editor. They called me this morning, and said that it's scheduled to run tomorrow. We'll see. She emphasized "scheduled", and you never know until the paper is printed.

In retrospect, some of the pettiness in the blogosphere bothers me, and I find it symptomatic of the larger problems of political communication in America. People are less concerned with the ideas, and policies, then they are the personalities. Depending on who's doing something, the value of an action or proposal seems to vary.

I especially get annoyed when assumptions are made about someone. Or a pithy personal attack is launched as a means to undermine another's credibility. I used to run into this over at Kos all the time. Exchanges like this actually occurred as a method of "counter-argument", or meta-commentary (paraphrased from memory)...

"That freelixir is just a little too excitable."

"Yea, he/she sounds like an overeager college student."

"Oh, definitely a teenager or college student."

This kind of crap really does go on. Or quick jibes about being a "troll" or "freeper", when it's clearly undeserved and unsupported. As for being excitable, I'm guilty. That's why I'm here in the first place. When the war propaganda was starting to peak, I couldn't take it anymore. Couldn't stay silent or on the sidelines anymore. So I wrote this.

That's excitable. And sober. You can practically taste my outrage, and see the smoke coming out of my ears. I'm tired of business-as-usual, and exercises in military futility to solve problems that could have been addressed previously in a more civil and egalitarian fashion. Especially without informed consent.

I'm not sure if many people ever read this, as that was my first mass emailing, but I did get some great feedback on Craigslist (along with some attacks by war supporters), where I simultaneously posted to Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago.

When I realized the war was nearly a foregone conclusion, a few days later, and that dissent and demonstration was meaningless to our leadership, I crafted this essay, in an effort to bridge ideological divides and difference and find common ground and vision. Ever since, I've been around The Agonist, Daily Kos, Counterspin, Atrios, and Cal Pundit (among others), bringing these ideas and a consistent vision to the debate.

If you care to get to know me, you need only read those two pieces. They explain why I'm here, and what I'm all about. Base any derision against me on the ideas presented therein, or anywhere else on this site or elsewhere, but please end the personal sniping and attacks.

As John Kerry likes to say, the "politics of personal destruction" is for losers.

Questions For President Bush's Next Press Conference

The New Yorker has published a few questions for the next presidential press conference. It's pretty funny, in that "just skirting on the edges of joking about things that we shouldn't joke about while very effectively stating a few important points" kind of way.

Friendly question: “Sir, although your supporters’ predictions that Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers haven’t been borne out, isn’t it possible that, given the problems with the water supply and the infrastructure in general, there is a serious shortage of flowers over there and that Iraqis might be greeting our troops with flowers if Iraqis had any flowers?”

(snip)

Strategic-planning question: “Sir, now that you’ve acknowledged that there was never any evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11th attacks by Al Qaeda, does it remain your policy that in the event of any future Al Qaeda attack against this country we would still retaliate against Iraq, and, if so, how would you avoid hitting our own troops?”

Follow-up question to strategic-planning question:“If not, then did you have some other country in mind to retaliate against?”

Coalition question: “Is Bulgaria still part of the coalition, and, if so, what have they done for us lately?”

There's many more of these questions if you follow the link. Perhaps humor is the key to getting through to well-meaning but uninformed Americans. Or even to other members of our mainstream media.

Check Yourselves

Noone is safe who posts on the blogosphere. There are sharks, there are vultures. There are also champions. There are the petty, there are the confused.

Here you find clarity. Anywhere you find "freelixir", you will find the same. If you're unsure what the identity is asserting, then check back here.

So you don't make the mistake that Julia made. Disparaging the good name of a man, and bringing the wrath thus deserved.

Me And Julia - I (Revised)

Here are excerpts from the dustup (so-called, really Julia barking at shadows), at Lisa English's blog.

...I still think this debate is weighed too heavily against Nader. The onus and spotlight is too much on Nader and the Greens, and not on the Democrats, their failures, why they won't support the one sure thing that lost them the election (electoral reform), and why beyond that they've lost credibility with independent-minded voters.

Nader DID NOT lose the election for the Democrats. That's cherry picking. The Democrats lost the election on their own, and they may do the same if they don't actually stand up with some spine and principle.

Right now, it seems that many of the Democrats in the ranks, though not the candidates like Dean, Kerry, Clark, etc., seem to think that the only success necessary in politics the next cycle is beating Bush. Who's the reactionary party now?

And that's not real change or progess, as measured from 2000. If people are fed up, which they are, THAT'S the time to throw something ambitious and novel at them! Don't you get it?

Once you're back in the White House, all comfortable that Bush is gone, and getting ramrodded unfairly in the media again by Right wing slush money, what will you actually accomplish? What will be your mandate?

Will you champion anything once back in the winner's circle, or is that good enough? What makes you think you'll come up with an action plan people will get behind AFTER you've already won?

Posted by freelixir at November 11, 2003 04:34 PM


...


I agree with Freelixir, and Richard and Natalie make good points too.

It's very simple. You want the votes of Greens for the Democratic candidate, you earn them. By giving Greens something positive they can vote for, policies they can support.

You don't do it by trying to scare them with the threat of Bush.

I see too many Democratic partisans bashing Nader, bashing Greens, denigrating real progressives in the Democratic party like Kucinich and Sharpton, and then they expect Greens to vote Democratic.

Folks, that ain't gonna work. You may have some short term success in 2004, but in the long term it will only bring the Democratic party down.

And I say this as someone who is likely to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Until the Democratic party treats Greens with respect, it has no right to expect their votes.

Posted by Al-Muhajabah at November 12, 2003 12:51 PM



I'd really like to see some discussion of why it's acceptable to assume that when Democrats argue against a Nader run it's because they're "expecting" Green votes, rather than because they want them.

It's a trope, and I don't think it's an adequately supported trope.

Posted by julia at November 12, 2003 02:27 PM



Julia, it's because of what Al-Muhajabah just said, you never pretend to earn their support. You just hang the threat of the enemy, i.e. Bush, over their head while haranguing them for the enemy being in charge in the first place (and also while conveniently ignoring the large number of Democrats who voted for Bush).

That's politics at its basest. Like I've said all along, offer electoral reform and no independent in their right mind would not jump on your Democratic bandwagon this year.

It's that simple. No threats necessary.

Just don't give the BS that it's too radical or not possible. Look at what the neocons are doing. That's radical.

Posted by freelixir at November 12, 2003 03:04 PM



freelixir, I've run into you before.

you are a troll.

I don't debate trolls.

Posted by julia at November 12, 2003 08:35 PM


***

(I'm wondering where Julia has run into me before. I've never even heard of her before she met me in this thread and then subsequently banned me. so if you're wondering about the four-letter word...)

By the way, that's how reality goes down in the blogosphere. Julia just can't cope with counter-argument. Who the hell is this woman?

A Word Of Caution

I mean what's said here. That should be obvious. Disparage me all you like, but focus instead on the ideas. This is no joke. People are dying, and I don't give a s@#t who is president. This runs deeper. Here, I'm digging for information, and articulating a vision. Join in.

Internationalizing The Iraq Effort

Europe should join us now that the Bush Administration has come full circle and asked for assistance. There is no time to lose. Beyond the decisive result of the military action itself, the fate of the Iraqi people hangs in the balance. Their health. They need clean water, functioning infrastructure, and immunization programs back on track.

We've taken Iraq from controlled chaos to uncontrolled chaos. The hammer of our sanctions in the past decade is undeniable. There is no more time for treating the people of Iraq as pawns on a chessboard. They deserve some respect, and real action, from those who have spoken in their name but have for the most part consigned them to doom for years.

Put plans on Iraqi democracy and self-determination in motion, but let's not forget our primary responsibility. The health and well-being of Iraqi men, women, and children who are not accomplices in this bloodletting. It's time to secure Iraq, and send a message to these so-called resisters, who are nothing but degenerate thugs, that the world will not stand by silently this time while the fate of the less fortunate is decided.

United, we can bring order and stability to Iraq, and allow them the opportunity to establish their freedom and democracy. For the international terrorists and Saddamist thugs in Iraq, the stooges we propped up in the past at the expense of the people, we should only promise one thing - to drop the hammer.

A Real Lack Of Courage And Vision In The Blogosphere

I am going to take this opportunity to call bloggers on the carpet. Many of you have no class, and even less courage. When it comes to the blogging enterprise, you look to the big centers, the main go-betweens, and aspire to be there yourself. If one of them engages in an action that is deplorable, far be it from you to even consider criticizing them. No, your righteous criticism is saved for President Bush and Darth Rumsfeld.

Why is that? To me, it makes no sense. I push for ideas on this site, and I set up an altar for no cult of personality. Yet, all that said, the venomous Julia over at Sisyphus Shrugged has the audacity to accuse me of a vanity mission. She thinks I'm trying to push my site at her blog. Anyone who's followed my activity for the past few months knows that is absurd.

I don't post as much over at Kos or Atrios, and never cruise back over to the Agonist, where I helped lead the charge against war jingoism in the spring (check the record...I'm all over it), and all this lack of activity because I'm on an intense software project that needs to get done. I don't care about my traffic, and I don't get much. That's fine. When I tried to push it in the early days, I did so aggressively, where there was no question, and I ended up with about 30 or so incoming links.

That's plenty. For now. I will upgrade this site, and make the information in it more accessible, organized, and navigable, but I just can't make that a priority right now. As for people like Julia, who falsely claim to believe in principles and ideals that they aren't willing to practice or actually defend in reality, I refer you to the concept of karma.

Julia is a liar, and even worse, she is a censor. Not only that, but she treats individuals with disrespect, when at the very least she could make an effort for individual communication in regards to differences. I've had differences with many on the Internet, and most have been resolved and settled via personal email. These are primarily individuals who share a similar world view and political orientation, but due to disagreement over a particular issue, and personality factors, somehow escalated to being more than the ideas being engaged.

This is what Julia needs to learn. On the streets, they would call her "a punk". I've never published a comment on Julia's blog, other than the short one that she excised, and have never harrassed or otherwise given her reason to 1) censor me, 2) disrespect me, and 3) misconstrue me.

Even after the Billmon episode, every email I received supported me that I should not have been banned for disagreeing with Billmon. Every one. Nearly every one also said that they disagree with me, and most for Billmon, but that's fine. I respect that. That's all about turning over ideas and engaging in discussion.

If the defenders of American liberalism don't think they can tolerate dissent within their own ranks, then they have a problem. When everyone wants to be the superstar of the blogosphere, and are willing to criticize the "out group" but wouldn't even consider doing so openly in the "in group", there is an even bigger problem.

This is the nature of politics. People kiss a@#. In the "in group". Cognitive dissonance theory is not far away, and I will be bringing it back with a vengeance in the week ahead. Julia will be my latest foil, and the example I will make. Not because I disrespect her, but because she disrespected me, and to make a point.

It's downright silly. If we can't get past "patronage politics" here in the blogosphere, especially amongst those who portend to champion liberal democracy and the inalienable, then this medium will be no different than any other.

I'm going to do my part to make sure that doesn't happen. Don't bet against me. This isn't about my pride, or ego, but about deep-rooted desires to see freedom work and realized in the world. Around the globe. Not just here in America, but everywhere. All men and women. It's time to get over the selfish narcissism that rules politics and consciousness in America today, and see that there is a worldwide struggle today for liberation, and it's been going on for awhile.

It starts with information. America needs to be involved, and taking a leadership position. Will you?

Nanosurveillance - The Emerging Age Of Little Brother And The Nano-Panopticon?

Never failing to blow my mind, The Ecologist has an intriguing article up about the coming age of "Little Brother". I've posted on nanotechnology here previously, but this one tops nano armor and WMD in a big way.

Invisible control is power. The founding editor of Wired magazine once suggested that the more significant a technology is, the less able we are to recognise it as a technology at all. Technologies such as writing and clocks long ago ceased to be noticed as technologies yet continued to be used by those in power to extend control. Today nanotechnology, and microscale technology, already operating in the realm of the near invisible, offer a new platform to do the same. We may be some way away from the molecular surveillance cameras that thicken the air of sci-fi dystopias, but as the fledgling nanotech industry emerges alongside the 'war on terrorism’, a trajectory towards a nano surveillance society is coming worryingly into focus.

One leading nano-commentator, Michael Mehta, Professor of Sociology at Saskatchewan University in Canada, has given it a name: the nano-panopticon – describing the emergence of a future without privacy in which every aspect of society will be tracked, measured and visible from the bottom up. Mehta points to the emergence of nano-enabled devices such as 'lab on a chip' technology which can gives insurers and employers fast and cheap access to genetic data - – and are likely to increase genetic discrimination. Alongside this are being developed a host of miniature sensors and tracking mechanisms that could strengthen state and corporate power and undermine workers.

Like I've been saying all along, a separation of powers, and balance of powers, is essential to the American way of life and government. "The people" need to be added into this equation, along with corporations, and the best way this should be done is by total and open transparency and accountability. The freedom of information.

I'll repeat. If there is going to be a surveillance state, or what I sometimes lovingly call the Diaper State (because of a desperate longing for security in a dangerous and chaotic world), then the surveillance needs to go both ways. The information needs to flow both ways. From the citizens and to the citizens. If we do not assure this, we will surely slide into tyranny and/or totalitarianism. At some point. I don't see how we couldn't, judging by the devastating power of our military, the need for security in the face of terrorism, and a failure of the doctrine of federalism and the separation and balance of powers.

Liberal Bans Liberal?

Man bites dog? And who's wondering why the Left and the Democratic Party can't get their act together? Hmmm.

Dissent In The Blogosphere

There is a deep-rooted problem with dissent in the blogosphere. Bloggers bunker down in ideological encampments, and tolerate very little deviation from the party line. The latest example is Sisyphus Shrugged. Apparently, I've been summarily banned over there, without provocation or explanation, with the unfair insinuation, since she's removed my post, that my intention was to "plug my blog".

It seems that Julia thinks I'm a "troll". I find that very amusing. What I don't find amusing is that people like Julia fancy themselves defenders of America and liberal democracy, but can't seem to find it in themselves to engage in discussion with those who don't see things their way. I'm unclear on the conception of America and liberal democracy this would espouse.

It's too bad they can't practice what they preach. In the case of Julia, she's banned me and even removed my post, and I wasn't even disagreeing with her, but actually commending her on her post, and asking for an apology for calling me a "troll" over at Ruminate This. Just as in the case of Billmon, if you examine our ideas and beliefs you'll see we agree on most. Why this morbid fixation on disagreement on particular issues? Sloppiness and laziness is probably the best way to describe it, as Julia probably doesn't even know that we are similarly-minded.

And she also is probably one of those who wonder why everyone isn't agreeing with them and voting Democratic. Should we say hypocrisy? Does Julia expect me to believe her, when she doesn't practice what she preaches?

Since this is a family blog, I won't say what I'd really like to say to Julia, but needless to say it would involve a four-letter word followed by "you Julia". Some would call this immature, but I would prefer to think of it as genuinely American.

Casualty Of War - Iraqi Health

Putting aside discussions about the military occupation of Iraq, will we turn our backs on them in other ways should we strategically pull out in the months ahead? In a new report by the medical charity Medact, it is asserted that Iraqis face the prospects of "poorer health for generations [to come] as a result of the war".

Medical charity Medact says this year's conflict disrupted immunisation programmes and destroyed water systems, increasing levels of disease.

Continuing insecurity in Iraq, along with the breakdown of public health services, are exacerbating the problem.

Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage: the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq, the report estimates that between 22,000 and 55,000 people - mainly Iraqi soldiers and civilians - died as a direct result of the war.

Before any decisions are made about leaving Iraq to the resistance, who do not have the welfare of everyday Iraqis in mind, we should at least examine our responsibility for managing the health crisis we've caused. In my mind, we are responsible, and thus need to make whatever concessions are necessary to get the world on board in Iraq.

The world doesn't want to see Iraq fail, and the fate of the everyday Iraqi surely hangs in the balance. Will they get healthcare if the U.S. retreats and the world stands aside? Surely the security situation wouldn't improve fast enough for international aid agencies to get back to work in Iraq promptly.

The dogs of war are unleashed. No matter your opinion of the war, the hounds must be sensibly regathered and secured, if worst-case scenarios and disasters upon the innocent are to be avoided.

Stream Of Commute - Mystical Moments - November 13, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

in the past, when rule was by an iron fist, how bad did you want to resist? to fight back? your family was on the line. they could kill a son, rape a daughter. so you stayed quiet, spread your seed, and hoped for the best. prayed to the Bible. The Koran. The Buddha.

what you wanted was freedom, justice, and self-determination.

so the apocalypse is now, the kingdom of God is here, emergent, in this age. for this is the time when we can cement freedom for and to all men and women. when we can put aside the days of dictators, tyranny, and iron rule forever.

***

don't assume linear. for we keep adding novelty to the system, increasing information, media outreach, and are aiming for a phase transition, where the old systems of rule and religion, which served to control and assuage humanity, will be transcended, and left behind.

***

saudis giving business to family. just like russian oligarchy.

(this thought on the nature of authority and nepotism)

***

challenge is today for freedom. to keep america going forward, and defeating iron rule, and the savagery of tyranny against humanity and family.

Stream Of Commute - Touchscreen Voting - October 14, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

touch-screen misalignment and problems - solutions

1. after every selection, the actual selection should be shown on screen, with the text, and confirmed, or backed up to redo (and an alert sent to poll staff to determine why errors are happening)

by law, this display should be required in code to come from a redirect from the storage file, and not just from memory from the selection screen. this would greater ensure that the information, as selected, was entered into the storage file correctly.

in addition, this storage file should be read-only without exception. any modifications to the vote, initiated by the voter by a perceived discrepancy, MUST be a separate entry, and signed off specifically with the full signature, as opposed to the initial, of the voter, along with a poll worker that such and such modification happened at this time for ballot # X.

2. print-outs must be made, and ok'd/signed off by voter, if even requiring voter initial by each individual selection

#1 and #2 would ensure greatest levels of error handling by attentive voters (those voters in a hurry, or not taking care to see choices, will just initial down without distinction, but these kinds of voters can never be accounted for by any system)

***

allow for "not enough info" option for candidates and issues, so that we know if the information is getting to the electorate to make a sound choice. this could avoid random yes or no votes, and raise the standard by which such measures would pass, since yes's would still be required to have over 50%, or a plurality against the no's and don't know's.

***

one cannot count on each machine's printer to work, so should be networkable to main printers set up at polling place, to allow for paper review of election choices.

***

find a way to have unique id for each vote selection, accompanying the item on the paper receipt, so that the exact day and time of the selection, along with the voter registration number, may be determined (if this is currently associated with the ballot, the voter reg number, if not, then just the time, day, booth, and location). this should work with a complex algorythm, and be able to determine, in cases where fraud may be suspected, that the actual votes, as counted, on the paper receipts, occurred at the times and place that the polling place officials had logged in the voter.

THIS IS A GREAT MEASURE FOR SECURITY

Protests, Pessimism And Political Hate Speech

So this is what the Right Wing thinks it can divide America with in the upcoming elections. Very interesting. At first blush, I must say that this will be a historic and perhaps unprecedented defeat - for the Right. Who's going to believe this nonsense?

For decisions based on assessments and outcomes of pessimism, see the president and his men and women. This is why there is a policy of preemption. Because they expect the worst, and seem to expect it soon. The evidence is not so clear. So is realism pessimism, or optimism encased in a strategy of aggressive and preemptive violence?

I won't even talk about the biblical apocalyptic streak of pessimism that seems to prevail among some Americans, politicians, and generals, but I'll give you one hint...it's not coming in from the Left.

As for political hate speech, well, that's easy. Too easy. If this will be the election of doublespeak, of doubletalk, of just outright lies and distortions, that will play perfectly with the historical record of the Bush Administration to date. Bring it. You better hide your Ann Coulters, Rush Limbaughs, and all the rest of your snarky bunch, because sensible people won't be buying it come 2004.

The Right, and their slush money media and politics machinations, have perfected the art of political hate speech, lying, distortions, myth mongering, and so on. The evidence is all out in the open.

As for protests, I assume they mean freedom of speech. Of the right to peaceful assembly. All gains in the franchise and expansion of liberty in America have come out of the womb of protest. Of speaking out against the lyers, cheaters, and deceivers, those who would hold others down to further themselves and their own selfish interests. Protest is the strength and legacy of freedom in America we should be most proud of. And we are. America is great because of our struggles, not in spite of them.

So bring it. Bring it on. This will be the first election where all the lights will be on, and millions will be on the Internet linking and cross-linking to the available information. An Orwellian electoral strategy of divisive spin may be in the offing, but it will be soundly and resoundingly defeated.

What this world needs is a little less division, based upon spin and selfish manipulation of information, and a little more humility and appreciation of the values of working together and soundly examining the information at hand. For our security. For our freedom. For our legacy.

And, most of all, for our integrity and peace of mind.

Stream Of Commute - November 10, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

imagine the world if we had not won wwII, and hitler had won it, or hitler and stalin had teamed up to win it. what would the world be like? look at the world now. though we make, and have made, mistakes, we in America are not evil. there is no better alternative than what we have accomplished over the past few centuries.

europe ridded itself of powerful monarchs in WWI, and fascist dictators in WWII. they did so because of us. because of our help. otherwise, all of europe would be a fascist alliance with pockets of resistance, perhaps now irrevocably stamped out.

warts and all, America is the champion of liberal democracy. so far.

***

as for my point about self-determination in an earlier post, one example of how this is never totally free may be seen by our example of the Civil War. the South seceded, or tried to secede, and were stopped from doing so. violently. was this a violation of their self-determination (looked at solely from this particular lens)? were their people in support of the secession, or if in support duped into such? yes, and unlikely. the South wanted to do their own thing, and they were prevented from doing that by the dictates of an outside power. other-determination. this other overwhelming the "self" in order to change its image of itself. to a larger self that encompasses the larger wishes of the more fit and winning power.

a war not of extermination, or aggression, but of assimilation.

ecology and evolution.

Stream Of Commute - November 1, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

global movements, mindchange, and American patriotism, defense of liberty

perhaps the answer is the corporate charters? so that movements across nations would become less radical?

answer is defense and expansion of freedom here in America, with its effect on the rest of the world

***

what is terrorism? terror? definition being blurred as the "enemy", or the "other", becomes terrorist. without question terrorism means to use violence as a means to affect political change. is the success of the 9/11 terror attacks unprecedented in modern history?

what I see as near-cowardice amongst some American thinkers and intellectuals in their response to 9/11. for the world didn't change then, didn't have to. it's not the airplane attacks that really scared everyone, it was the anthrax.

regardless of intent by the actors, what is the psychological effect of the anthrax riding side-saddle behind 9/11?

this must be engaged, and dispelled. healing and recovery. trauma lifted.

***

my project now the intersection of global activism and American politics. the "global mind" and patriotism. how we can bring this back home.

lose the radical edge.

soften the edges.

Stream Of Commute - November 9, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

the dangers we face. uncertainty. if the ship might go down, we may as well do so living and acting out the principles we preach. it's either that, or sacrificing everything for safety and to become a hypocrite.

***

why freedom before democracy?

meditating on this. democracy is the "power of the people". heridotus. the only problem is that anyone can get elected, including Hitler. so we have the difference between liberal and illiberal democracy, as zakaria would put it (the future of freedom). the problem is that we can no longer tolerate the proliferation of illiberal democracies.

so perhaps freedom before democracy would mean that the free nations of the world, banded together, would assure the rights and dignity of humanity, in the rule of law, globally. we would use our current advantage of force, along with our legitimacy of force as exercised by the state, to essentially force all nations, no matter whether democracy or other form, to abide by full transparency, and the inalienable right of humans. eventually, this would more likely than not lead to global democracies, but that would be predicting the future.

what we need to focus on is the establishment and protection of liberty, everywhere on the planet, along with the cooperation that will be needed to assure the protection of the planet's ecology. with the current pace of consumption and population, we must do this, there is no going back.

thus, we don't worry about establishing democracies, which would be an empty measure at best, since votes can be spun any which way, and we instead focus on the inalienable. now, it's possible that there really is no way to establish this other than alongside the establishment of democracy, but that again is speculation. interested nonelected elites wanting to keep power may just play by the rules in order to stay in charge. sooner or later, one would guess that would pass into democracy eventually.

this needs to be fleshed out too since the dominant form of organization in the world today is the corporation, which is hardly democratic. so there is a base realism to this strain of thinking too.

by saying liberty before democracy, we remember what we're fighting for. the inalienable. dignity. the rest follows. morally. practically, these would seem to follow from a system of democracy, with the monopoly of force in the state legitimized by the people.

***

if we're going to have a surveillance state anyway, which seems nearly inevitable, then surely we need to assure the balance of power between people and state, in the tradition of constitutional liberalism, do we not? this would mean transparency and accountability. in fact, full transparency and accountability would more likely than not improve global living conditions to the point where the fanatical apocalyptic may go away. there would still be the lone psychos and serial killers, but much could be improved here. regardless of the conditions which lead to despair, if there's going to be surveillance, it needs to go both ways, and include the corporation along with state, church, and society in the balance of powers.

***

example of the legacy of the Civil War. we didn't conquer the South and establish democracy there. we fought for the inalienable (among other things). the South was already a democracy, and wildly in support of slavery. so the means of democracy was not good enough here, until a fitter and more just system was implemented in its place.

Synchronicity At The Book Shop

I go into the book store yesterday with an inkling for something in the Current Events section. In this particular case, it's the Political Science section of Borders. The last time I came in, I started from the beginning of the alphabet, and didn't make it all the way through, so this time I start from the end of the alphabet.

The very first book I see, that catches my attention, is tucked into the edge. Black, but with interesting colored lettering. The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria. I glance it over and I'm thinking...wow. This is right on the theme of "freedom before democracy". Or along the same lines anyway.

So I buy it. Along with Superpower Syndrome by Robert Jay Lifton, which comes at things from a psychological perspective. I'm enjoying both of these books, and really didn't know anyone was thinking along these lines. You don't really hear it out here.

It almost seems impossible to keep up with all the books that come out though, to even know who's pursuing what ideas outside the political and media mainstream. I know that here in the blogosphere, ideologies seem to harden fast, and the rest is pure struggle and conflict between believers. Not a lot of independent thinking going on, to put it another way.

Putting aside our partisan political battles, and coming up with solutions for today, for our political malaise, for our challenges around the world, seems of the first order. We don't really have time to wait until 2004 to start coming up with original ideas and effective plans for dealing with our reality as we experience it today.

With that in mind, what is the future of freedom? How can we secure freedom and peace in the world?

I'll report back on Zakaria's book in a few days. In the meantime, the following Stream Of Commute is also from last night.

Follow Up On Freedom Before Democracy

I'd like to emphasize that walking the talk is essential when it comes to rhetoric, and I'm the last to believe that George W. Bush has done a total reversal in favor of "power to the people". I do see it as unexpected that he came right out and pronounced our errors in supporting "dictators for oil" for the past half-century. Don't you?

I'm guessing that Noam Chomsky isn't going to believe the rhetoric either, but the president of the United States just basically "fessed up" to some of the main currents of Chomsky's "radical" criticisms of American foreign policy.

Not that Bush touched rhetorically on our Israeli policy, another main component of Chomsky's criticisms (and I'm not holding my breath for that), which would mark a complete vindication. Could you imagine if he did though? I would be left breathless, Chomsky wouldn't have to write any more books, and President Bush likely would garner the endorsement of Billmon. :)

(and this will mark my last jibe at the great American blogger Billmon for banning me and disparaging freedom of speech and dissent)

Stream Of Commute - October 26, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

why do american people believe that saddam and aq linked?

perhaps due to use of "evil"? that it goes without saying that evil will shack up with evil? what more needs to be said. it's us against them. good against evil. of course they are allied, and working together, because they are evil, and enemies of good, of us.

***

nothing wrong with mixing sharia and rights doctrines. we do it here in America, having still remnants of moral law based upon our religious traditions. we also have laws on decency and obscenity, of which rights and harms are not the prevailing imperative.

so all is well with sharia. but if it means women can be killed after being raped, by family members no less, then the free peoples of the world will not stand passive. affronts on basic human dignity, and life, will not be ignored. to do so would be to endanger ourselves.

no, a bedrock of human life and dignity, of the inalienable, must be established, and determined, and respected, by all peoples, everywhere. those who choose to violate these foundational principles will be at war with the free peoples of the world. for where any man, or woman, is not free, we are all in chains.

***

distributed model of information, aka the internet, a military project, is a brilliant plan. against terrorism. by distibuting power centers, information centers, centers of free peoples and liberalism, we assure the survival of America and civilization.

this military project has initiated the greatest defense of freedom ever established. perhaps not as intended, but the in the open, free market, the values of freedom, justice, and dignity will prevail. these memes will spread and have countless centers, and the ideas and virtues of what America stands for will germinate, multiply, and flourish.

***

challenge is literacy and education. reasoning and rhetoric. communication and engagement.

***

many becry the threat to, or end of, civilization. here is your response. your strategy.

***

what does quantum theory, evolution of science, spiralling technology, postmodernism, mean to non-western cultures? to islamic world? to the "non-moderns"? these are challenging questions.

Stream Of Commute - October 14, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

stream of consciousness rant - never quite know where it's going to go

***

bloom in WSJ. examine his rhetoric, appeal to his authority as historian and academic, vague and generalistic references to Rome, appeal to another authority, and then a sudden shift into endorsing Clark because he's a general. weak.

***

study rhetoric and persuasion. psychology, philosophy, and rhetoric. philosophy and scientific method for determining level of certainty, rhetoric and persuasion for techniques to manage uncertainty in the aims to influence.

***

in and out group relations. use this as analysis tool of history, of progression of freedom, of efforts to expand enfranchisement and further inclusion.

***

all students should be taught how to rhetorically parse newspaper and television. ads and features. for messages, values, and norms. for ways and means of influence, attempting to operate on them.

***

rhetoric needs to be expanded to take in the psychology and study of influence and persuasion.

***

the rhetoric of liberation

Freedom Before Democracy

It seems that much has changed since last month. George W. Bush seems to be gaining greater awareness and information beyond his immediate circle. This has to be seen as a good thing, not to mention a bit of self-defense against a coming political firestorm in regards to "the slack in Iraq". His expression of regret for our "errors" of the past, in regards to fostering elites to sustain our free lives of privilege, is a welcome development. There is a lot of blood money and suffering repressed people to acknowledge.

As for spreading freedom and democracy around the globe, we need to be more precise with our language. Freedom is what we should spread, as a means of peace, and we need to do the same just as powerfully here at home. By adopting full accountability and transparency. The freedom of information. For on the scarcity of information, and the curtain of secrecy, all corruptive elites thrive.

Looking back at history, democracy isn't good enough by itself. Democracy with a certain measure of liberty isn't good enough either. Hitler was elected. And then he used the people against themselves to transform political instruments of liberalism to repression. The same could happen anywhere, and has happened frequently in the past century.

Checks and balances are in order. The people need to be the first order check and balance, and this can only happen in alliance with a free and independent media. With this in mind, full transparency and accountability are not only desirable, but necessary, in order to assure the growth and survival of freedom. Not to mention peace. Eliminating the dictates of secrecy would remove much of the malfeasance that escalates to extreme elite deviance in the case of war.

Indeed, in a world of deadly weapons of mass destruction and genetic engineering, state or corporate secrecy is really not a valid option anymore. Institutions, both domestic and transnational, which assure global transparency from the get-go will work far more effectively, and at a much more reasonable price, than open-ended and hopeless investment in competitive human intelligence, which is not a win-win game.

The world is no longer an innocent place. It never really was. Here in America, and around the globe, we're awaking to the potential and threat of the future. Of the present. Of business as usual. Now is the time to open our eyes and make sure we can see everything we need to see to assure our freedom, security, and peace of mind. This is not a radical proposal, in the light of common sense and reason, but is truly revolutionary when it comes to politics and elite deviance as usual.

Just speaking for myself, I love challenges. And this one has so many dimensions, and has so much at stake, that it's the challenge of all challenges. Will we realize freedom, and peace, or will we eventually perish in a spiralling world of violence and despair? We make the call.

Stream Of Commute - October 8, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

free market and information scarcity and availability

information is skewed and manipulated in order to sell

advertising and public relations

so the idea is not actually to sell you what you want, that you get what you want, but that you get what you are convinced that you want

open trickery

in response to claims that political communication is by nature more skewed the economic and social communication, or information exchange. why would this be so? by what principle of information exchange? reality?

***

is labor just another commodity?

I would say no, as we need to include "agents" in a more expansive economic theory

a commodity does not "act", or "communicate", or spin "information", as an "agent" does

also, a more realist theory must ground itself in moral doctrine - the prevailing one in society, not a fanciful self-interest theory

the inalienable

all human created equal

life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness

this is moral core

these people, or agents, are labor. labor is not differentiated per se from investor, or owner. these are varied roles of agents within system, not qualitatively different, and each guaranteed the inalienable before economic analysis and modeling (reasoning) begin

commodity and capital are not agents. do not communicate. do not share information. they are units. agents are not units. labor is not measured in units. not primarily.

units are given value by agents. wants and desires of agents determine value of a particular unit. unit does not determine this. not in its nature. its nature may be harmonious with perceived desires of agents, i.e. consumers, but this is a social quality. information and value always reside in the agent.

labor, owners, investors, and consumers are agents. playing different roles.

Stream Of Commute - October 7, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

bush - cult - where he gets his information - only from trusted advisers - no outside sources

***

philip morris - buying stock - limited punitive damages - movie about guy who leads property assault on philip morris stockholders - goes to trial - only does so for publicity - in the end agrees with torn prosecutor who becries tactics even if robin hoody - calls it off when convicted - explains only to cause controvery, so information would be reported

***

corporate purpose - high punitive damages against philip morris probably doesn't work - shift more sales globally to marketing to kids and bring profits back to pay judgements and to regroup politically and pay politicians and lobbyists - how to stop this would be to require corporate purpose style legislation - you must obey american laws to operate in america - WHEREVER and WHENEVER you operate - in order to avoid race to the bottom - if evidence can be shown that living two codes, and breaking american charter responsiblity, then death penalty - trial by jury - this the only way to effectively combat race to the bottom globalism - since our market has so much money, you either play by the rules, or be consigned to the poorer markets where you can prey - little practically we can do about that - but we can control our own ship, and determine who is worthy and honorable enough to do business with us

Stream of Commute - I've Been Neglecting

Seems I've got a backlog of my meditations, while reading the news on the way to work, that I've been neglecting to put up here. This project is about total transparency, and since I don't always have time to flesh things out, it's sometimes just as well to throw them out unedited. These truly are stream-of-consciousness, as I'm chilling on the bus wondering how we can make this world a better place, so take them and develop them, or criticize them, but please don't attack me about them. They are unfiltered by any political membrane other than my most deep-rooted beliefs about freedom, democracy, accountability, transparency, responsibility, and the freedom of information.

With that in mind, I'll drop a few out a day, until I catch up. Also, I will note the date of the stream as well.

Cheers.

Stream Of Commute - September 25, 2003

American values, liberty and justice, little guy championing the underdog, growing bigger, in danger of becoming the very thing hated from the beginning, the bully, rather than the benevolent big guy.

first duty as citizen to vote, to be informed, to be involved, to participate, to provide for the means of education for the young and old, ongoing and continuing, critical thinking and current events, knowledge of the workings of the world in terms of citizenship before anything else. no duty to economy, or to anything else. as citizen, to vote. as family member, to support. critical thinking should be taught at all levels of education, in various disciplines but always coming back to current events, the stuff of everyday politics, what's in the newspaper. on the news.

***

free labor. labor must be free. otherwise, no free market. if capital can move without restriction, and labor cannot, how fair is that? how free? to whose advantage? only in free nations can labor be free. only in nations where the monopoly of violence is with the sovereign people, citizens. otherwise, as can be seen, violence will check labor, constrict it, enslave it, not just in the backwards parts of the world, but right here in America, where Cesar Chavez was getting beat up not long ago.

otherwise, we make a risky deal with the devil, by asserting that "free" trade will help liberalize and free the rest of the world, rather than have the opposite effect of undermining the freedom and security of free labor at home, by lowering standards and costs by taking advantage of "hostage" labor.

labor cannot move. cannot follow market. politics and violence stands in the way. capital and investment has much more play, and power. this is an unequal condition, that speaks less of a free market than an oligarchical one, a return to feudalism-of-a-sort. a new aristocracy of corporate chiefs and board members, where the company investors buy the right to vote.

you can't call it free jazz if the rhythm section must play from the songbook, without variation, while the saxophonist and guitarist can improvise to their heart's delight. either all are free, or free is not the way to describe it. a little food for thought...

Stream Of Commute - October 1, 2003

(these are spontaneous thoughts, flowing from head to keyboard, on the daily commute)

crony capitalism must stop

1) iraq profit center - bush's cronies
2) dirty tricks in un
3) no un debate
4) deride democratic leaders listening to own people
5) slander and defame long time allies for disagreement
6) exaggerate, distort, and mischaracterize evidence
7) cover up this exaggeration, distortion, and mischaracterization
8) stall and avoid discussion of risk and costs of war (in favor of only emphasizing "not" going to war)
9) no-bid contracts to halliburton, cheny's cronies, and little benefit seen from it (iraqi firms way cheaper)
0) question patriotism and loyalty of those who opposed the war
X) blow cover of undercover cia agent as response to man's criticism of evidence concealment and exaggeration, not only for revenge but as message and intimidation to any others who may consider revealing the truth

war against truth

deception, dirty tricks, and corruption

la times - u.s. advised to invest in its image - "changing minds, winning peace" - Edward Djerejian

why should Iraqis pay for our damage? is this why we are so eager to push the meme that it was saddam who allowed the infrastructure to lag, rather than us merely blowing the stuff up and/or failing to secure key ministries and facilities from looting when saddam fell?

schism in Republican and Democratic parties, between moderates and conservatives/liberals. this is why we need IRV. it's time for a third major party, that fuses the moderate centers of the two main parties into a centrist party, with a conservative and liberal party the other main parties.

the two-party system is breaking down. it's time for at least three, with room for others to have a voice with IRV.

Consequences Of Immediate Pullout From Iraq

Yesterday, I was meditating on the future of Iraq. Given complete self-determination, as peoples led by their chosen leaders, it seems almost beyond contention that Iraq would become three separate nations. Iraq, as is, is merely an imperalistic construction. The model wouldn't be Lebanon, but Yugoslavia, in the sense of decomposition into more natural groupings.

Unfortunately, in this world, there is no such thing as complete self-determination. If we immediately withdraw from Iraq, after having removed Saddam Hussein as the prevailing influence for the three peoples (Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds), we will also no longer be exerting a palpable influence on its future.

With that in mind, the Iraqis are free to do what they want, right? Wrong. There are other nations just itching to expand their influence in the area. Iran, with the Shiite lands. Turkey, with the Kurdish lands. Perhaps Syria, with the Sunni lands. Essentially, you'd have three strong and competitive nations coming into to compete for the scraps, while the Iraqis would be left, on their own resources and organization, in chaos and seeking assistance from the first caller.

This would be a foreign policy recipe for disaster, and is the real reason why noone with any sense is calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Imagine the fate of the Kurds. Would this again be an abandonment of them? Would they be better off or much worse?

No, as foolish and misguided as rushing into war with Iraq indeed was, it would only make matters worse, in the bigger picture, to just cut and run now that the going is getting tough. It's only President Bush's fault that he's been bragging about our success, and making it inevitable that in comparison to the reality on the ground people would be worrying about a quagmyre.

It's going to be a "long, hard slog" in Iraq, and unfortunately it has to be done. We need to bring the world on board. Iraq should no longer be our trophy, and hunting ground for Halliburton and its ilk, and instead we should join with our long-time allies and bring NATO and/or the UN in with real power and influence in this operation.

The fate of Iraq, the world, and terror hang in the balance. Iraqis need to be free, even if they will no longer be Iraqis, or even if there will no longer be an Iraq. But we can't just leave it to the wolves because the resistance is smarter and tougher than we realized. To have invaded Iraq for the result of a greater Iran and Syria would seem like a truly dastardly and blitheringly idiotic enterprise. Keep that in mind.

At this stage, the people of Iraq will only become free, or less so, through the influence of others. Conditions on the ground seem to dictate this. Should these "others" be the free world, or should they be the repressive Islamic theocrats? You make the call.

Just Another Tequila Sunrise

What a night. Finally got finished moving (upstairs no less), and got thrown out of a neighborhood bar. All in the day's work I guess. It's tough being me, and tough being free, but dammit I'm going to speak my mind.

The most disturbing thing to me is the idiotic cheerleading and gangbanging that goes on in the blogosphere. The piling on. It's very hard to communicate a point out here without triggering a string of partisan brushfires. I come out condemning terrorists who time barbarous attacks on the Red Cross for the beginning of Ramadan, and make a point that we should not back down, or let this tactic succeed, and I've suddenly become a supporter of President Bush, his war, and the whole of American foreign policy for the past century.

It's kind of funny actually. I honestly enjoy reading the trash talk and piling on. It's amazing the things that I say that I never say. Hell, even I'm against that guy freelixir sometimes, the way he's mischaracterized. Oh well. Like I said, it's tough being me.

Now if I could only figure out why Billmon endorsed and unendorsed Howard Dean strictly on the merits of his perceived opposition to Israel. Anyone? Is it that easy to get Billmon's vote? Does Billmon actually believe that Israel runs American foreign policy, and that this is the most important issue to base his vote on (ignoring for now the unelectability of an Israel-bashing platform)?

And, as a preemptive by the way, I share many of Billmon's sympathies in regards to our Israeli policy (ouch...I know this element of subtlety is very painful for some of you). It's going to take a little more from a candidate to get me on board though. Check that. A lot more. I suggest they start with electoral reform.

Banned By Billmon

Wow. That didn't take long. Not even Little Green Footballs managed to ban me for straying from the party line, and directly challenging the blog host, that fast.

It's hard to believe that as I was typing how blogs, in general, whether left or right, Republican or Democratic, rarely tolerate independent thinking or dissent, that Billmon was at that moment banning me!

In case you're wondering, I was typing that in a comment on Billmon's blog. Who would have guessed? Anyhow, I had a lot of respect for Billmon before today. We have a lot in common, and share many ideas. Perhaps he should have checked that out first.

Update: I challenge anyone to objectively read this thread over at Billmon's blog and explain the justification for banning me. Especially when I just made the point about how dissent is not tolerated. Talk about bad timing.

Digging Deeper Into My Last Post

I had a feeling that the tone and direction of my last post would be a bit dissonant, but I hardly expected to be called a "blithering idiot" and "brain dead" by a leading blogger (who will go unnamed).

As anyone who reads here knows, I have been a fierce opponent of the war, in the sense of how we justified it, and the crooked politics behind it, but my reaction to today's bombing of the Red Cross is not partisan, and is based upon reality, and where we stand today on the ground.

The sheer audacity and utter criminality of bombing the Red Cross is beyond defense, and goes without saying. For whatever cause or resistance. Such an act should not ba a rallying cry for the Islamic world, but a moment of reflection as they start Ramadan. Is that what they want to stand behind? The murder of those who are only in Iraq to help innocents who are suffering in a war zone? Targeting a clear and principled neutral party?

In my mind, in the face of these acts, and their timing, there should be no retreat, and no surrender. This should not be construed as a defense of Bush's policies, just a show of support for decency. I certainly don't hear many bloggers saying we should turn tail and go home. Especially in the face of these bombings. If not, what's the alternative to what I'm saying?

Any party or individual who does not see the evil in such a deed, in the bombing of the Red Cross, who fails to denounce it, and who actively opposes us, should meet their doom. I mean that. Whole-heartedly. For example, if Iran sees the wrong in bombing the Red Cross, they should say so. If they don't, they are suspect, and not worthy of relations with the free world and liberal civilization.

I can't exaggerate the extent of my offense and shock at the targeting of the Red Cross. In no way, shape, or form should such an act be justified in any way, including any signal or sign of retreat or weakness in response. Anything short of outright condemnation, at least in my mind, is irresponsibility and naivete, if not cowardice or malevolence.

And I repeat, this does not mean that I have forgotten the ills and misadventures of the Bush Administration. They are still clearly in view. Nor have I forgotten the blatant manipulation and corrupt justifications we used to initiate the war. Still, that is not salient for an attack on the Red Cross.

It's one thing to ridicule Bush for constantly overplaying how we are "winning" and "succeeding", and quite another to hint or assert that we are "losing" or "failing". We aren't. The damage is already done, we are on the ground in Iraq, degenerate forces including terrorists are on the scene, and the Iraqi people and prospect hang in the balance. We will succeed, one way or the other. We must.

And for the good of the world, we are. Really. We will not, and are not, being defeated. Would anyone actually advocate leaving the peoples of Iraq to these thugs? If so, please explain that foreign and security policy. I'd love to hear the whole vision and strategy.

Targeting The Red Cross

Today's attack on the Red Cross in Iraq marks a new low in warfare. Not even the most ardent defenders of Saddam Hussein can justify such actions, under any circumstances. It's clear that any such force, or conflagration of forces, which would attack and murder individuals seeking only to help the injured and suffering needs to be destroyed.

If these attackers believe that such an attack, along with those against U.S. allied forces, will cause a retreat, they are sadly mistaken. If anything, it points to an absolute necessity to stay the course, and root out every one of these evil individuals and disarm, imprison, or kill them.

No sympathy will come to the resistance of Iraq through such actions. Very little was forthcoming in non-Islamic lands to begin with, and now, with the latest outrage, much pressure will now rightfully come down on Islamic lands to turn their backs on these mercenaries as well.

Any party who does not speak out against such an attack on the Red Cross leaves itself in the crosshairs. Even as the Bush Administration has badly blown capitalizing on international sentiment in the wake of 9/11, by forcing this war in Iraq, so the various resisters and terrorists fighting in Iraq may ironically do the same, for their own cause, by bringing a reluctant and bickering world to common cause and realization of threats and enemies.

The world should not stand aside while the Red Cross is being targeted. No moral actor would do such a thing. If any act deserves global solidarity and combined aggression, this is the one. Despite any initial misgivings about Iraq, or hesitancy in getting involved after stating clear opposition to the bumbling Bush Administration, the pressure of the conflict has brought certain things to bear. Actions speak for themselves. All we need is to witness them, and we will learn much about the participants.

After the Red Cross bombing, it is not hard to see that this war is necessary, no matter how poorly initiated, or justified, in that those who actively resist it, with savagery, are clearly dictatorial and brutal thugs, and be they Saddam Hussein's supporters, Al Qaeda, or any other organization, failure to denounce this action signals complicity, or sympathy, and deserves a rightful and definitive response - defeat and annihilation.

(who would trust such an actor? in a world of devastating technological power?)

Dissonance, Columbus, And Democracy

We live in a dangerous world today. All over the globe, relations are falling apart, suspicions are growing, and arms are spread at virulent rates. Under these conditions, calls for security and rebellion, depending on which side of the equation you view yourself on, will only grow. This is the setting upon which I write today. That we have freedom today is a blessing, that we keep it in the future is largely dependent on how responsible we are in defense today.

Part of that defense is fostering and promoting democracy worldwide. The difficulty of this mission can best be seen in our own history. Christopher Columbus, by the standards of today, was a genocidal maniac who committed severe crimes against humanity. By the standards of his day, however, by which he in the end can only be judged, he cannot be treated as harshly. That was "the way it is" back then, and it didn't change for a long time after.

Here in America, the ignorance and brutality of our early history, as compared to our understandings today, highlights the difficult transition from tribal narcissism and hatreds. Our great Constitution itself is stained by references to individuals of dark complexion as being a fraction of human. We brutalized, murdered, and raped countless people with this particular skin complexion, and did it all the while trumping the greatness and inalienability of human rights.

Following Columbus' lead, we slaughtered and railroaded millions of native dwellers of the American continent. The eminent Ben Franklin himself saw the only solution to the "savages" problem in their inevitable extermination. America, the shining beacon of freedom, justice and liberalism, committed repeated and infamous "crimes against humanity". Why? In the pursuit of property and wealth, disguised in a beautific vision of "manifest destiny", but which in reality was less beautiful than barbaristic and stained with the blood and life of innocents.

We moved through those times, however, and proved that the presence of a conscience, both individual and national, has great power to move the minds and hearts of men. The originally enfranchised white men expanded the establishment, after great resistance, to women and to those of any skin complexion. This was never done without resistance and struggle. By the disenfranchised standing together, arm in arm, defeating fear in their hearts, and appealing to the conscience of their fellows, both similarly disenfranchised or enfranchised.

This is where we stand today, only having emerged into our own vision of freedom and justice for all in the last half-century. This stance is by no means bedrock either. There are those who would yearn to return to the "way it is" back in the good old days. Which brings us to dissonance. For we expect to bring freedom, justice, and democracy to all, for others, in a relatively short amount of time as part of critical security efforts, when it took us a few centuries to do it for ourselves. The standards have been raised worldwide, as the standards of free democracies have grown, but also as most of the world pretty much stayed in place, continuing to live in tribal communities and band together against "outsiders".

In this process, we can also see our own standards beginning to slide. We hold prisoners without trial or recognition in remote prisons and torture them. We proclaim this will continue indefinitely, with no clear end game. We pass laws, which were previously only the stuff of fiction and the conspiratorial imagination in popular consciousness, allowing the government to see any books either borrowed at the library or bought at the bookstore by any American. We have a leadership which is unparalleled in its homage and devotion to secrecy, and to its brash ambitions for power. We are surrendering gains made in transparency and accountability in past decades, rather than pushing to expand them, and seeing the erosion of the separation of powers in favor of an executive-favored pyramidal power structure of elite privilege, corruption, and deviance.

With all of this in mind, we need to be fair when stretching our view to the rest of the world. How their cultures and societies are structured, and what impediments stand between each unique culture or tribe and its fulfillment of destiny and homeland. In Iraq, for instance, you have a country, a political grouping, which has no basis in reality or affinity, only in history as established by a colonializing power. As in the collapse of Yugoslavia, which was only previously held together by the unique political force molded by Tito, the natural destiny of Iraq, unimpeded by any interfering outsider, would be to devolve into at least three states. By natural affinity.

That this is not even a plan on the table shows that the freedom and destiny of these peoples is not our concern. Instead, we are only worried about ourselves. Our security. Keeping Iraq together, as is, somehow helps our security, helps us, and with that conclusion in mind, we then seek to explain and persuade why it would be good for them too. This is the ideological and narcissistic version of the Bush Administration's abuse of the scientific process. Form conclusions first, based upon fear and suspicion, and then seek out evidence to confirm them. Ignore deviant information, condemn those who would promote this information, and when necessary manufacture the evidence you need to make it persuasive enough in the public arena.

This is selfishness of the highest order, and not self-defense by any sane measure. Only in the sober and rational analysis of the information at hand, tempered by emotional insight into the parties involved, and certainly not overwhelmed by emotion oneself, can the state of security be soundly assessed, and a course of defensive correction, where needed, implemented competently and with a measure of success and foreseeable closure.

Cognitive dissonance keeps us from seeing this. We are so blinded to ourselves, and what we're doing, that everything else plays off of that as a prop or foil. The people of Iraq, who are actually a number of peoples, who have no natural affinity for each other, deserve better. They deserve freedom and justice. Self-determination. Only they won't get that, and aren't getting it, because we are "determining" their future for them, based upon our own irrational security concerns. It is not about them. If you insist that it is, you are a damn fool. It is about us, and they are a prop in the great drama.

It's time to turn the great drama again back to the homeland. Back to the founding vision of America, and our continuing progress to realize it. We can help promote freedom and democracy around the globe, but only by doing so radically different than we do so today. In order to change strategies, we literally need to change the way we think about it, change our minds, and cleanse ourselves, once again, of the ignorance and errors of history.

The vision needs to be this. Maximum transparency and accountability, along with the freedom of information, as the bedrock for that particular power known as the "people". In regards to the separation of powers, there needs to be at least four, with the "people" being the core and root. This standard must be implemented here at home, rhetorically championed and won before our allies and other free democracies, and then taken to the rest of the world whether they're ready for it or not.

Again, these are dangerous days we live in. There is no time to waste. Weapons technology is only getting smaller and more powerful. With advances in genetic engineering, the risks only become greater. It's time that freedom and democracy went global, and that arm-in-arm we then surround and suffocate any oppressive elites who continue to impede the freedom and destiny of a people. Literally, that means we surround them and hold a gun to their head, as brutal as that may sound, while we choke them economically into submission. As we do this, the council of free nations allied will grow, and, as it grows, the threat will diminish, along with oppressive and brutal elites desperately holding onto power.

This can only be accomplished effectively, and in the name and aims of freedom and justice, with the requirement and guarantees of "power to the people", for constitutional protections of the freedom of information, and for full transparency and accountability implemented and protected by law. Otherwise, the trust that will be needed for this venture to succeed will dissipate, and fracture into suspicion and conspiracy, and we all will be less secure as a result.

For those who claim there is no liberal vision for security, you have your response. Compare this to what Dick Cheney has to say, and then ask yourself not only which is more appealing, which more "realist", and which more practical in action. The burden of civilization and humanity ought not to be carried on the shoulders of one nation. Sharing the burden, and gaining strength in numbers, is the saving strategy, and the one we've clearly been ignoring up to this point.

Addiction Is Not A Laughing Matter

Millions of Americans are addicted to psychoactive drugs, among other things. Today, we find out that Rush Limbaugh has a serious drug problem. Is it an addiction? Who knows. Often, to escape the clutches of the law, individuals will feign addiction in order to be treated with more kindness and compassion.

In regards to painkillers, it is very likely that Rush Limbaugh is an addict, whether or not he truly believes it. Perhaps more important would be his self-realization that he has a "problem", and whatever the nature of that problem, he needs to get help. For it is seriously impacting his life, and driving him to illegal behavior.

I've never liked Rush Limbaugh, the personality, and do not know the man. I disagree with much of his ranting, if not all of it. Let this episode be a lesson to him, and to his followers and listeners, that acting and responding with compassion is a good thing. That not being too strict with the law, in cases where one's capacity to make sound judgements is diminished by addiction, or other means, is a free decision and option for our society.

We have options. Rush has options. In a strick law-and-order state, there would be no escape hatch for law breakers through the claim of addiction. That there should be this escape hatch, in the sense of acknowledgement that intent is 3/4 of the law, and that addiction greatly affects the perception and intent of an individual, is obvious. To a compassionate heart. To an empathetic soul.

So let's hope this experience changes Rush for the better. Causes him and others like him to see that there are a lot of gray areas, and we need to adapt to them with flexibility and with heart, not just shows of reasoning and strength. Perhaps this episode will lead to an authentic outbreak of "compassionate conservatism". I would welcome it, as would the hundreds of thousands of drug offenders currently behind bars in America today.

Amending My "No More Recall" Statement From Last Night

Actually, I do not support eliminating the recall altogether. Overall, I think it's a great idea, and a necessary check-and-balance. With that said, the threshold for forcing the recall, in terms of the number of signatures needed, is too small. Too easy.

I'm going to do a little research, on the threshold as it stands today, the reasoning behind it back when the law was created, and the reality of today, and then report back on this. I'm leaning towards around 20-25% of voters in the prior election for the office in question, but I'm sort of shooting in the dark on those numbers at this point.

Toss The Recalls

It's time to do what's necessary to alter this law. Less than 10% of Californians should not be able to foist this kind of cost or effort on the state. There should not be another recall. The Democrats should give up the idea of turning around and recalling Arnold. Bring it in 2006, and in 2004, and spotlight the issues. And please get rid of this recall law.

Thoughts On A Schwarzenegger Victory

First, congratulations to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Though I don't think he deserves it, and that he benefited from lax reporting on issues surrounding him, the reality is that this happened, and he won. With that, good luck to the big guy.

I'd love to hear some more creative exit polls once in awhile though. Like how many voters, upon leaving the polls, were aware that Arnold had met with Ken Lay just days after the worst of our energy crisis. Further, how many of these voters even know that Enron gamed the market to make the energy crisis worse than it was. Or how many know that George W. Bush and Ken Lay are good friends.

Alas, these are film room misgivings, and there is no game next week. So be it. At least we can be assured of getting some federal support for a change. Finally. President Bush did exactly jack s@#t for us during the energy crisis, and has done nothing to help out the vast majority of states who are struggling in red ink and a failing economy right now.

My suspicion all along was that the federal help would come after the recall election, in hopes that Arnold would win, and thus could help shore up the Republican name in California during tough times. Careful what you wish for would be my only advice. The state is such a mess, along with the federal treasury because of Iraq and tax cuts, that the feds can do very little to help us now anyway. Regardless, here's to hoping that Arnold is a miracle worker, because the interests of this state come before partisan politics.

As for the election itself, the only mystery left is who will get the most votes - Gray Davis (NO) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (YES/ARNOLD). It's a dead heat as I post this.

If Arnold Wins...

Get ready to hear the California "break up" talk again. Arnold will only win, if he does, because of support from Southern California. If he becomes governor, this may be the rallying cry and momentum swing that the split-California crowd is looking for.

In other words, this recall is much more tumultous than anyone has yet imagined. It could lead directly to the end of California as we know it.

Why Can't Anyone Remember Anything?

Seems like we have an epidemic in today's society. Amongst our accountable and responsible leaders. They can't remember anything. Either they're unorganized, and keep losing their notes, or not taking them in the first place, or there's some kind of strange affliction going around. Call in Mulder and Scully, this is downright weird. Arnold can't remember seemingly anything, Condoleeza Rice little more, and the list of names and the lost just goes on.

Even worse, when reminded, we hear the lamest excuses and rationalizations from them. Vague denials and obnoxious justifications. Those things that haven't been forgotten, unfortunately, but have come out contrary than expected, are even more strangely spun as if they are in fact coming out as expected. Weird. Like David Kay's sleuthing around Iraq, which essentially found nothing, but is even now being spun as all the justification needed by the Administration.

Good grief. Fire all of them. Not a single liar should be defended further. The world only gazes upon us with disdain, and silent pity. To our friends and allies around the world, I can only say one thing - I'm sorry.

Arnold, Enron, And Getting Lay'd

I'm unclear why the mainstream media seem to be completely ignoring Arnold's meetings with Ken Lay of Enron, only a matter of days after the energy crisis here in California. Surely this deserves more scrutiny, if not at least some followup questions after Arnold claims to have forgotten the meeting. Ken Lay and Enron screwed us, and it's damn near certain that they gamed the market to make things worse.

Sure, the boorish behavior towards women is newsworthy, and not to be ignored. But it seems that the scrutiny ends there. It's off the radar that fellow black bodybuilders have painted Arnold as a white supremacist. At least these charges could be explored and dismissed. Along with them, Arnold makes up stories about gang banging a "black" girl. If he made up the story, why would he be so specific in the details, and especially about her race? (He didn't make up the story people...wake up)

Most important of all, the scrutiny needs to be on the energy crisis. Its timing, just after the election of George W. Bush, who did absolutely nothing to help us. Then, immediately after, a meeting led by Ken Lay, George W. Bush's close friend, to address the energy crisis. Only we didn't know at the time that Lay's company, Enron, had gamed the market into and during the energy crisis.

Now, after all of that, no scrutiny against Arnold. About this meeting. And to add sharp insult to injury, the people running Arnold's campaign, who is running as an outsider, are the same crowd who were surrounding former governor Pete Wilson, who not only raised taxes during his tenure to deal with tough budgets, but also came up with the crazy energy deregulation scheme in the first place.

Yes, Arnold needs to answer questions about the energy crisis, his opinion of Wilson's deregulation scheme (which incidentally was practically bought by PG&E and Edison), his meeting with the Ken Lay, chairman of Enron, who screwed us, and his idiotic championing of the Hummer, which will never be an energy-conservation-friendly vehicle.

Arnold is a sign of much that's wrong in California today. True lack of vision, and inability to see the big picture.

Forgetting Man Remember

Try your hardest Arnold. Breathe deep, and pore through the eminent caverns of your mind. The epic recesses. You can do it. Leader of men, conqueror of women. Remember. Those fateful times when the lights went out. When they turned off the great machine.

You met with Ken Lay, chairman of Enron, who we have come to learn was hustling us into and during the crisis. What did you guys talk about? Remember. Now is your chance to be a true champion of Californians. Expose the subject and content of the meeting. Surely you didn't know that Lay was double-talking you, and gaming the system while claiming to have a fix for it. Remember. Or were you too focused on Lay's assistant's butt to take notes?

Seriously Arnold, it's time you come clean. Or we will ride you like a broken pony in heat, have our way with you, and give you a taste of being the big leader only to take it away from you in another recall. It's time you recall. Total recall. Remember. What were you, or they, scheming back in those dark days?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The Elite Forgetting Man

In meditating on the entire candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and all the reasons why any sane individual would avoid putting him in a top leadership position, the most disturbing thing to me is Arnold's views of the common man (let's not even broach the common woman).

These views are unforgivable, and not American. Unlike Arnold, this site promotes a vision of grassroots democracy, real democracy, transparency and accountability, the freedom of information. Not as a point of contention, but as a departure. A root. Freedom Century champions these as values, as following from a literal and direct read of the Declaration of Independence. It's no joke.

So it deeply offends me to hear Arnold discussing how most people are followers, and desiring a powerful leader "in the know" who will instruct them what to do. This vision of elite governance and information "privilege" greatly disturbs me. It also doesn't wash with a professed championing of education and children. For if most people truly are like this, why would you even bother spending so much money to educate and raise them?

Indeed, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the very picture of elite breakdown governance that plagues us today. He has money, and fame, and with that has become the favorite. That's it. He has no compelling policy suggestions, and claims to be an outsider at the same time he has resurrected the staff of former (and horrible) governor Pete Wilson.

Ignoring the merits of the recall, there is no excuse for voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger as our governor. Unless you wish only to be led, by a charismatic figure, into unknown and uncharted waters. I don't. At the most essential core of my being, and radiating through every muscle fiber and tissue, I feel a deep disdain for Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is not a champion of the people. As his own words betray, he just wishes to be the charismatic elite leader who tells them how it is, and what to do.

The Final Desperate Strategy

The Bush Administration, and the Right wing ideologues who support them, have one last and desperate strategy in the face of the Valerie Plame affair. War against the CIA. Essentially, for political survival they need to set up an all-out conflict with the CIA. Why? In order to keep their ideologuees in camp. Breaking ranks is a definitely possibility for many, left without any coherent reasons left, who have been zealously defending the administration.

I don't call the strategy desperate for nothing. It won't work. It might placate and keep the wing nuts in camp for awhile, and even get a prominent defender in the Wall Street Journal, but it reeks of imminent failure. The one, last grand strategy to explain all the failures of the Bush Administration since September 11, except the economy of course.

"We weren't able to respond adequately, and on a timely basis, or to prevent the terrorist attacks on September 11, because of the CIA! Their failures! They should have had Predators in the skies shooting down commercial airliners like any competent modern intelligence agency!"

(The FBI is blameless.)

"We were forced to out Valerie Plame, a deep undercover CIA agent in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, the very crux of the war on terrorism, because her liberal turncoat husband was sent by the CIA to debunk our war justifications, which later forced us to admit that the justifications were anything but, and not built upon evidence!"

(We still believe the case is good, if totally unproven.)

"We can't find the Saddam's WMD because all the places that the CIA clearly told Donald Rumsfeld there were WMD, there either wasn't, or the CIA killer predator drones didn't take out looters who spirited the WMD out to the black market and inevitably Al Qaeda as the highest and most interested bidder."

(The flypaper strategy took into account that we didn't secure suspected WMD sites in Iraq during the ground action. Brilliant!)

Again, this is a desperate strategy, to go to war against the CIA and its valuable and respected agents, and will only work on a very short-term basis, and intellectually on a very limited ideological basis, for the true followers and suffering defenders of the Right and Administration. It attempts to putty up the leaks on the ship, so that it doesn't sink while other remedies are explored. It won't last.

A clear federal crime, not to mention serious national security lapse, was committed with the exposure of Valerie Plame. Not really for revenge, but to defend a version of untruth. Or lies. An ill justification (to put it friendly). A woman charged by our nation to monitor and track weapons of mass destruction, has been wantonly exposed along with all of her contacts and operations. Keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the wrong hands is the very crux and great challenge of the war against terror, as weapons technology continues to evolve smaller and more powerful. What the hell are we doing?

All of this was seemingly condoned and even gloated over by Karl Rove, the so-called mastermind behind the Right wing political apparatus. Whether he knew or not about Plame's true status, somebody should have, and put a stop to it. When it first started going public, back in the summer, at least then something should have been done about it. No action was taken.

There is only one real solution left. The perpetrators need to be discovered and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and articles of impeachment against President Bush need to be considered. Unless Bush and the administration come clean, end their war against the CIA and their valuable agents and operations, and stop the political madness which has so greatly weakened and divided us.

(A little humility can go a long way.)

Forgetting Man Fiction

Arnold Schwarzenegger says he made up the story about the "gang sex" in the gym. Perhaps. In light of accusations by former black bodybuilders that Arnold acted in a racist fashion, I then have only one question:

When he made up the story, why did he specifically say the woman "gang banged" was black?

Just wondering...