Maybe it is just that so many people are still off for the summer, but the way this Spaghetti Monster thing has caught on is amazing. In addition to many news reports, boing boing has started a contest, offering lots of cash ($250K but the pot is up to $1m) to someone to disprove the theory that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't know how long this craze will last, but the fact thatso many people are interested and they are already so flush with visuals and merchandise on cafe press seems to say that it will have some pretty good legs. It could likely backfire as people who have never heard or even considered ID before will start wondering about it. On the other hand, if the only way they hear about it is in the context of the spaghetti monster, that says a great deal about its validity. Anyway, it would be a good option for some students to watch the news develop on it.
My favorite part of the site, other than the awesome images and the attempt to come up with a bible that is happening on the forums section, is the academic endorsements section.
Also, onion promotes theory of Intelligent Falling to contest "theory" of gravity
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Monday, August 15, 2005
Nietzsche and Freud on altruism
The title of this is obviously pretentious as a blog post since I am sure it could be a dissertation in itself, but I have been reading some Freud and have been struck by some similarities between him and Nietzsche. The latter statement makes up for the blog post since it obviously shows how clueless I am that I am just putting these things together. I'll admit that, aside from a basic understanding of the "God is Dead" statement, an inkling of his place in the history of existentialism, and the pop history version of his role in the philosophy of fascism, I really didn't understand the thrust of his argument until a few months ago when I was forced to teach it--an undertaking that was humbling to say the least. Nevertheless, I became clearer on his position on morals and thought it interesting to see the parallel with the theories of Austrians like Hayek as well as the Objectivism of Rynd. Though they all take different paths to get there, they ultimately seem to land up in the same place, namely that altruism is a sort of primitive framework of morality or at least that it is ill suited for modern society.
Oh I am messing it all up by trying to draw these parallels too closely. There are vast differences between these thinker's stances, to the point that a comparison isn't really all that productive. The real comparison that I find interesting is the one that I initially got out of bed to write about, namely the parallel between the Freud of Civilization and its Discontents and the Nietzsche of Geneology of Morals. Though it has been a while since I read the latter, the former is fresh on my mind and one of the lengthiest discussions in it is Frued's discussion of what is known in Christianity as "the Golden Rule:" namely, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Freud finds many logical problems with this imperative. Most of all, he sees it as denigrating the people who one actually loves and who have proven themselves worthy of love to simply dispense love equally to everyone; and he sees it as a risky proposition to give everyone love since there are likely to be people who don't follow this rule and, if you're standing around loving evetryone, you could get screwed.
As conflicted as Freud seems to be with this imperative, he seems to come to peace with it but not because he finds it morally sound. Rather his understanding of it is as a sort of political tool to keep people from giving themselves over to their most violent urges. The latter is probably what the book is most remembered for as it is one of the places (as I understand it) that Freud first touches upon the Thantos or Death Drive. This is posited as a drive which is only somewhat differentiated from the Eros or libido or love/sex drive. He first questions the above moral imperative on the basis of the Eros, seeing it as a way of limiting sexual conduct to heterosexual, monogamous sex for the purposes of reproduction and expanding what he calls aim-inhibited love, or friendship, throughout a much larger group of people in order to help people identify with the nation or other imagined community.
He later says that it is for some measure of security that people submit to this repression of their sexual urges and dilution of their portion of love. when he first mentions this, it isn't entirely clear what he means by security but, after discussing the "aggressive instinct" it is evident that he means security from the violent tendencies of one another, not just the security of having a spouse for sexual purposes. In other words, he saw this commandment of fraternal love, common, he says, to many religions and ethical paradigms, as an necessary tool that the powerful use to keep the masses in line. I say "the powerful" though Freud is even more impersonal about it. I can't find a place where he says, as Stuart Ewen claims in PR, that the leaders of a society must promote some sort of ideology in order to keep people in line, but he does make this seem understandable and even desirable on some level. Still he doesn't give this process an agent, just an object. In this way his understanding of this is somewhat similar to Ellul's extended definition of propaganda which, although it gives a description of the process of propaganda, he doesn't point to any group of people that might be more likely to propagandize than another. In both cases this wouldn't seem to be an elision if they also made it seem that the objects of propaganda were also equally diffuse and unknowable. But Ellul and, especially, Freud seem to indicate that there is one group of people that is specifically being repressed by this process and they are simply, and in an unreflective manner, seen as the non-elites of the society.
Here he never really comes right out and promotes the idea that there are people who have special qualities that make them eligible for this role; there doesn't seem to be anything essential about the elites that makes them particularly qualified to fill this role. However, the fulfillment of this role of leadership is essential. Though I this is a general feeling I get from the text, there is a specific moment on page 74 where he basically says that the "love thy neighbor" thing isn't enough: if there isn't also a leader to take charge of this 'psychological poverty of groups' then this horizontal identification will be too easily hijacked or enflamed against an incorrectly identified foe. The latter is also a key proposition (seen on p. 72) which is basically a key tenet of modern pratice of nationalism, patriotism, and politics in general: namely that "it is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggression."
There is a certain feel of Machiavelli being justified on psychological grounds here, except instead of the people being merely stupid they are dangerous if left alone. This makes it seem less elitist and more pragmatic and seems to make any attempt at instituting either an ideological or repressive state apparatus (to use Althusser's terms
In addition to discounting for the most part
Oh I am messing it all up by trying to draw these parallels too closely. There are vast differences between these thinker's stances, to the point that a comparison isn't really all that productive. The real comparison that I find interesting is the one that I initially got out of bed to write about, namely the parallel between the Freud of Civilization and its Discontents and the Nietzsche of Geneology of Morals. Though it has been a while since I read the latter, the former is fresh on my mind and one of the lengthiest discussions in it is Frued's discussion of what is known in Christianity as "the Golden Rule:" namely, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Freud finds many logical problems with this imperative. Most of all, he sees it as denigrating the people who one actually loves and who have proven themselves worthy of love to simply dispense love equally to everyone; and he sees it as a risky proposition to give everyone love since there are likely to be people who don't follow this rule and, if you're standing around loving evetryone, you could get screwed.
As conflicted as Freud seems to be with this imperative, he seems to come to peace with it but not because he finds it morally sound. Rather his understanding of it is as a sort of political tool to keep people from giving themselves over to their most violent urges. The latter is probably what the book is most remembered for as it is one of the places (as I understand it) that Freud first touches upon the Thantos or Death Drive. This is posited as a drive which is only somewhat differentiated from the Eros or libido or love/sex drive. He first questions the above moral imperative on the basis of the Eros, seeing it as a way of limiting sexual conduct to heterosexual, monogamous sex for the purposes of reproduction and expanding what he calls aim-inhibited love, or friendship, throughout a much larger group of people in order to help people identify with the nation or other imagined community.
He later says that it is for some measure of security that people submit to this repression of their sexual urges and dilution of their portion of love. when he first mentions this, it isn't entirely clear what he means by security but, after discussing the "aggressive instinct" it is evident that he means security from the violent tendencies of one another, not just the security of having a spouse for sexual purposes. In other words, he saw this commandment of fraternal love, common, he says, to many religions and ethical paradigms, as an necessary tool that the powerful use to keep the masses in line. I say "the powerful" though Freud is even more impersonal about it. I can't find a place where he says, as Stuart Ewen claims in PR, that the leaders of a society must promote some sort of ideology in order to keep people in line, but he does make this seem understandable and even desirable on some level. Still he doesn't give this process an agent, just an object. In this way his understanding of this is somewhat similar to Ellul's extended definition of propaganda which, although it gives a description of the process of propaganda, he doesn't point to any group of people that might be more likely to propagandize than another. In both cases this wouldn't seem to be an elision if they also made it seem that the objects of propaganda were also equally diffuse and unknowable. But Ellul and, especially, Freud seem to indicate that there is one group of people that is specifically being repressed by this process and they are simply, and in an unreflective manner, seen as the non-elites of the society.
Here he never really comes right out and promotes the idea that there are people who have special qualities that make them eligible for this role; there doesn't seem to be anything essential about the elites that makes them particularly qualified to fill this role. However, the fulfillment of this role of leadership is essential. Though I this is a general feeling I get from the text, there is a specific moment on page 74 where he basically says that the "love thy neighbor" thing isn't enough: if there isn't also a leader to take charge of this 'psychological poverty of groups' then this horizontal identification will be too easily hijacked or enflamed against an incorrectly identified foe. The latter is also a key proposition (seen on p. 72) which is basically a key tenet of modern pratice of nationalism, patriotism, and politics in general: namely that "it is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggression."
There is a certain feel of Machiavelli being justified on psychological grounds here, except instead of the people being merely stupid they are dangerous if left alone. This makes it seem less elitist and more pragmatic and seems to make any attempt at instituting either an ideological or repressive state apparatus (to use Althusser's terms
In addition to discounting for the most part
Sometimes you just need an ass instead of a hummer
By land sea or donkey
msnbc
KANDAGAL, Afghanistan - Frustrated with the limitations of using its fleet of modern Humvee four-wheel-drives in rugged mountains with few roads, a battalion of U.S. Marines has enlisted a mode of transport used for centuries by Afghan villagers - donkeys.
About 30 of the animals have been rented from local farmers to haul food and bottled water to hundreds of Afghan and U.S. troops on a two-week operation to battle militants deep in remote mountains in eastern Afghanistan's Kunar province.
"With all the smart bombs and the modern stuff in war nowadays, this is the best way for us to resupply our troops there," said Lt. Col. Jim Donnellan, commander of 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, which is based in Hawaii. "It's also much cheaper for the U.S. taxpayer for us
to rent the donkeys than for everything to be air-dropped."
msnbc
KANDAGAL, Afghanistan - Frustrated with the limitations of using its fleet of modern Humvee four-wheel-drives in rugged mountains with few roads, a battalion of U.S. Marines has enlisted a mode of transport used for centuries by Afghan villagers - donkeys.
About 30 of the animals have been rented from local farmers to haul food and bottled water to hundreds of Afghan and U.S. troops on a two-week operation to battle militants deep in remote mountains in eastern Afghanistan's Kunar province.
"With all the smart bombs and the modern stuff in war nowadays, this is the best way for us to resupply our troops there," said Lt. Col. Jim Donnellan, commander of 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, which is based in Hawaii. "It's also much cheaper for the U.S. taxpayer for us
to rent the donkeys than for everything to be air-dropped."
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Carlos Part 2
I should definitely be in bed now. But for whatever reason, Carlos came into the room with me. That was the reason I was sleeping on the couch for most of the weekend--I knew he'd follow me in there. This would be perfectly fine, even welcome, if he weren't dead. But knowing that it's just my imagination, that he really won't be jumping up next to me, curling up and sighing as he licks his chops in that very thick, warm way he did when he was exhausted. These things will not happen. And no matter how we search, there will never be another Carlos. Something might fill the void--I'd hoped it would be my field statement, but so far it hasn't seemed as cuddly--but it won't be him.
I just got finished watching Tarnation on DVD as I packed to go to California tomorrow. The guy is obviously brilliant--and hence a bit crazy, pretentious and self absorbed--but he also shows a patience for people's mental illness that made me feel a bit guilty about putting down a dog with such soft floppy ears and cute reactions to his favorite words--even if most of the time the ears were cocked and his reaction was to bark incessantly. He was a great pet. And tonight, in this quiet, empty house, at this late hour, I wish that pet was actually going to follow me to bed and curl up at my feet. Every time I see a picture, I say I am sorry. And I am--to him for ending his life and for me because I no longer have that life sharing my space.
I just got finished watching Tarnation on DVD as I packed to go to California tomorrow. The guy is obviously brilliant--and hence a bit crazy, pretentious and self absorbed--but he also shows a patience for people's mental illness that made me feel a bit guilty about putting down a dog with such soft floppy ears and cute reactions to his favorite words--even if most of the time the ears were cocked and his reaction was to bark incessantly. He was a great pet. And tonight, in this quiet, empty house, at this late hour, I wish that pet was actually going to follow me to bed and curl up at my feet. Every time I see a picture, I say I am sorry. And I am--to him for ending his life and for me because I no longer have that life sharing my space.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Carlos Part One
I just went on a walk with carlos. Instead of wearing all the gear he has to wear now--Muzzle, shock collar, sad eyes--we went out with only his choker chain. It was late on a Sunday night--early Monday morning even--and I thought it worth the risk to give him a last evening jaunt unimpeded by these new instruments that were meant to help give him the confidence to face his fears by making him so afraid of us he would forget about those. It didn't take. He was very obedient and docile in the training, only giving us a bit of stubborn behavior. Like in all the other training we did (on leash anyway: he's never been a kept dog off leash, though this last training began to help that) he learned quickly and seemed like a smart, disciplined dog. As the past few weeks have shown, however, this was far from the case. He got more aggressive than ever around people he'd already met several times. It was heartbreaking to watch and led me to understand just how irrational he was, just how unchangable he is, and just how unfair it is and has been to everyone who's put up with his frightening behavior.
On our walk he did his usual business outside in the bushes next to the back door of the condo complex and then we walked up the sidewalk towards the pool. He was calm and relaxed, smelling the leaves and grass, wet with a lite rain from earlier. There were so many times that I saw taking him out as such a chore; more than a few nights that I asked him a few times to go out, but didn't press him if he didn't jump up, knowing that he would hold it until morning. Many times I would get frustrated with him if he was taking too long, even yelling at him sometimes if he took his time in the rain. When he has begged for me to take him out, day or night, I have often taken my own time, sometimes even letting him fall asleep for a nap or till morning simply because I was being selfish. Tonight I was just happy to have that time with him. A few precious moments walking with him in the rain, watching him look fearfully into the night, the bushes near the building then turn to me for comfort and knowing that, very soon, I will be asking someone to end his life. I will do this not necessarily because of the fear he has of everything other than Jill or I; nor will I do this because sometimes it's a pain to take the dog out at 12:00 in the snow or rain. I will do it because, despite the fact that he has now come over and has quietly curled up underneath the desk, despite his cuddling up with Jill and I on the couch earlier tonight and with my feet right now, I know that not too far beneath this placid, fuzzy, puppy, lies an 80 pound animal that is afraid of just about everthing and that this makes him a danger to other people. I have subjected my friends and family to this danger and most of them have, again and again, stepped up and tried to give him love, affection, and even tried to help with training.
Few of them, maybe just a handful, have ever become close enough to him to have him be comfortable, i.e. to have him stop eyeing their every move and growling at their every noise. Those that have seem to share our love of him and have added a few places where he could feel safe. The rest have nobly attempted to understand and coexist with an animal that has nothing but animosity for them: this was done for us, not for him. I have always appreciated the people who he's let into the circle, but rarely have I thanked those that simply stuck it out despite being obvious candidates for a bite to the ass. But to all of them I owe an apology. In exchange for my being able to have a comfy, cozy foot warmer, I (and Jill, by extension--though she was always more aware) I made everyone else deal with their deepest fears at pool parties, christmas dinners and other get togethers. Mind you I loved this dog with all my heart and I always believed that there would one day be a way where everyone else could experience the feeling of him calmly breathing, sighing deeply when you pet him or he got more comfortable. As I experience it for one of the last times, I assure you all that it is very special to me and I had hoped you'd feel it too. But I sincerely apologize for having been mistaken and for have exposed you all to this for what seems to be no reason at all.
Well. I am fairly exhausted. I will go to bed and wait until late in the night, when Carlos thinks I am sleeping, to feel him sneak onto the bed. When I am sleeping, I am almost oblivious to this, something he has learned well. So he waits until that happens and then cozies up next to me. This has always made me contort myself into strange positions but when I wake up between him and Jill, it is always such a comforting, warm feeling. I am glad that I will still have Jill next to me, but I will miss having Carlos there.
On our walk he did his usual business outside in the bushes next to the back door of the condo complex and then we walked up the sidewalk towards the pool. He was calm and relaxed, smelling the leaves and grass, wet with a lite rain from earlier. There were so many times that I saw taking him out as such a chore; more than a few nights that I asked him a few times to go out, but didn't press him if he didn't jump up, knowing that he would hold it until morning. Many times I would get frustrated with him if he was taking too long, even yelling at him sometimes if he took his time in the rain. When he has begged for me to take him out, day or night, I have often taken my own time, sometimes even letting him fall asleep for a nap or till morning simply because I was being selfish. Tonight I was just happy to have that time with him. A few precious moments walking with him in the rain, watching him look fearfully into the night, the bushes near the building then turn to me for comfort and knowing that, very soon, I will be asking someone to end his life. I will do this not necessarily because of the fear he has of everything other than Jill or I; nor will I do this because sometimes it's a pain to take the dog out at 12:00 in the snow or rain. I will do it because, despite the fact that he has now come over and has quietly curled up underneath the desk, despite his cuddling up with Jill and I on the couch earlier tonight and with my feet right now, I know that not too far beneath this placid, fuzzy, puppy, lies an 80 pound animal that is afraid of just about everthing and that this makes him a danger to other people. I have subjected my friends and family to this danger and most of them have, again and again, stepped up and tried to give him love, affection, and even tried to help with training.
Few of them, maybe just a handful, have ever become close enough to him to have him be comfortable, i.e. to have him stop eyeing their every move and growling at their every noise. Those that have seem to share our love of him and have added a few places where he could feel safe. The rest have nobly attempted to understand and coexist with an animal that has nothing but animosity for them: this was done for us, not for him. I have always appreciated the people who he's let into the circle, but rarely have I thanked those that simply stuck it out despite being obvious candidates for a bite to the ass. But to all of them I owe an apology. In exchange for my being able to have a comfy, cozy foot warmer, I (and Jill, by extension--though she was always more aware) I made everyone else deal with their deepest fears at pool parties, christmas dinners and other get togethers. Mind you I loved this dog with all my heart and I always believed that there would one day be a way where everyone else could experience the feeling of him calmly breathing, sighing deeply when you pet him or he got more comfortable. As I experience it for one of the last times, I assure you all that it is very special to me and I had hoped you'd feel it too. But I sincerely apologize for having been mistaken and for have exposed you all to this for what seems to be no reason at all.
Well. I am fairly exhausted. I will go to bed and wait until late in the night, when Carlos thinks I am sleeping, to feel him sneak onto the bed. When I am sleeping, I am almost oblivious to this, something he has learned well. So he waits until that happens and then cozies up next to me. This has always made me contort myself into strange positions but when I wake up between him and Jill, it is always such a comforting, warm feeling. I am glad that I will still have Jill next to me, but I will miss having Carlos there.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Iraqi telecom conference--selling their airwaves as well
This Iraqi telecommunications conference is being managed by a surviellance technology firm called International Procurement Services . I haven't had much time to dig deeper, but it seems strange that it would be managed by such a firm.
The website for the conference, unlike this e-mail from the US department of Commerce below-- makes no mention of the coming auction of mobile licenses. I think this indicates that these licenses will be owned by these firms. In the discussion of private property going on, this seems like the ultimate understanding of "eminant domain:" ownership via invasion. The statement also mentions that it will be important for whoever "wins" the contracts to have a concern for intellectual property rights. I wonder what this will mean about the development of the Iraqi communications infrastructure. In addition to creating a free market utopia there, perhaps there will be more of an expieriment with the kind of totally controlled infrastructure media corporations desire in this country.
Text of an e-mail yesterday from the US department of commerce:
This Iraqi telecommunications conference is being managed by a surviellance technology firm called International Procurement Services . I haven't had much time to dig deeper, but it seems strange that it would be managed by such a firm.
The website for the conference, unlike this e-mail from the US department of Commerce below-- makes no mention of the coming auction of mobile licenses. I think this indicates that these licenses will be owned by these firms. In the discussion of private property going on, this seems like the ultimate understanding of "eminant domain:" ownership via invasion. The statement also mentions that it will be important for whoever "wins" the contracts to have a concern for intellectual property rights. I wonder what this will mean about the development of the Iraqi communications infrastructure. In addition to creating a free market utopia there, perhaps there will be more of an expieriment with the kind of totally controlled infrastructure media corporations desire in this country.
Text of an e-mail yesterday from the US department of commerce:
Mobile Telecommunications Licensing Conference
July 21-22, 2005, London, U.K.
The Iraqi National Communication & Media Commission (NCMC) will
host a mobile licensing conference in July 2005. This event is the pre-cursor to
the mobile license auctions scheduled to be held at the end of 2005, the most
important Iraqi telecommunications project of the year. For more information and
to register for this event, please see the attached event flyer and event
website: http://www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org/idp/imt/ncmc.htm
. Don't miss this opportunity to learn about Iraq's latest plans for mobile
telecommunications licensing!
Monday, June 20, 2005
On the MLG-ICS
Having just come from the MLG, I can only say that I don't know if I can count myself as one of these theoretically and politically aware audience members and, therefore, I don't know what purpose the Institute played for me. I heard some smart papers and witnessed some unique interchanges between speakers and audiences. The confidence and consideration that the participants had for themselves and one another displays not only a deep self awareness but also a sense of community. In this way, I might describe my experience there as somewhat anomic.
as a side note I am becoming habituated to only speaking with people I know at conferences. I can't actually recall meeting anyone at a conference since my first at KSU when I was the only person from GMU who attended. This is a combination of a wierd egotism that inspires introversion. I say it is because I do not want to force my views on others, but deep down it is because I secretly don't beleive they could stand up to scrutiny. Learning more about the subjects I am trying to talk on only lends itself to this secret insecurity I rarely admit to myself. I also think that much of it is a desire to continue to be open to new ideas and be reflexive about the ones I have. But it is clear that, on topics I care about, I am willing to take a stand: What is cultural studies, for instance. At the past three conferences I've been to, the difference has been that I have not been able to produce a paper that clearly takes a stand. When I do, it inspires conversation. When I only produce analysis--convoluted and usually filled with jargon that I don't take enough time to unpack--like this weekend, it falls flat. I have had no comments except for pity comments from people vaguely interested in the topics that think they might glean some observation for their own work. I don't blame them for this. I just can't expect an audience to be so generous as to truly engage with ideas that aren't framed in a polemical argument or posed in terms of pop-culture references.
On the other hand, the greater problem I face, which the Institute has certainly helped me to see, is my level of abstraction. I am neither theoretical nor practical enough. The people in this group are obviosuly interested in immersing themselves in a variety of ideas and learning about them deeply. But they also are committed to Marxism in a way that is completely foreign to me. I think I have traveled a very long distance from my suburban Texas roots in my critical thinking about culture and society, but I have never imagined a day when I would identify myself as a Marxist. This is mostly because I wouldn't know what that meant at this point. I can confidently say that the Institute hasn't really cleared that up for me because it was used in a way I am always supicious of: "I think we, as Marxists should do/think..." Ever since I started to question christianity in th 7th grade, any doctrine and especially one that requires allegiance that seems unclear or instrumental, something inside me revolts. Of course I have the same reaction whether someone is asking me to give money to a charity or attend a meeting, so this could basically be rooted in some fundamentally selfish individualism which I don't believe in ever really renouncing. Then again, part of this is also rooted in a lack of confidence in my own interpretation. I simply lack the qualifications to be able to argue with someone experienced about what Marxism means. Therefore it is not something I can argue about or help to define or participate in considering in that way. It is something that I have been content to be inspired by at times and to consider things through, but I have never felt interested in having it define me or my existence.
There is no such lack of committment on the part of the folks at the MLG and, for the most part, there wasn't a lot of questioning of people's committment. There was an implicit solidarity to what was a vague notion of Marxism that was never defined upfront. The final panel, however, helped to solidify for me how different their notion of what this means is from my own. Labor organizers were there to speak on that subject and of the need for organizing.
pick this up later...
as Marxist criticism increasingly gained a foothold in the academy, the MLG lost some of its raison d'etre. These remarks should not be taken to imply that the MLG has gradually but irreversibly declined since the heydays of the early 70's but that, as I shall point out in relation to the summer Institute, its function has significantly changed in the recent past as it has come to address a new, more theoretically and politically aware, audience.
Having just come from the MLG, I can only say that I don't know if I can count myself as one of these theoretically and politically aware audience members and, therefore, I don't know what purpose the Institute played for me. I heard some smart papers and witnessed some unique interchanges between speakers and audiences. The confidence and consideration that the participants had for themselves and one another displays not only a deep self awareness but also a sense of community. In this way, I might describe my experience there as somewhat anomic.
as a side note I am becoming habituated to only speaking with people I know at conferences. I can't actually recall meeting anyone at a conference since my first at KSU when I was the only person from GMU who attended. This is a combination of a wierd egotism that inspires introversion. I say it is because I do not want to force my views on others, but deep down it is because I secretly don't beleive they could stand up to scrutiny. Learning more about the subjects I am trying to talk on only lends itself to this secret insecurity I rarely admit to myself. I also think that much of it is a desire to continue to be open to new ideas and be reflexive about the ones I have. But it is clear that, on topics I care about, I am willing to take a stand: What is cultural studies, for instance. At the past three conferences I've been to, the difference has been that I have not been able to produce a paper that clearly takes a stand. When I do, it inspires conversation. When I only produce analysis--convoluted and usually filled with jargon that I don't take enough time to unpack--like this weekend, it falls flat. I have had no comments except for pity comments from people vaguely interested in the topics that think they might glean some observation for their own work. I don't blame them for this. I just can't expect an audience to be so generous as to truly engage with ideas that aren't framed in a polemical argument or posed in terms of pop-culture references.
On the other hand, the greater problem I face, which the Institute has certainly helped me to see, is my level of abstraction. I am neither theoretical nor practical enough. The people in this group are obviosuly interested in immersing themselves in a variety of ideas and learning about them deeply. But they also are committed to Marxism in a way that is completely foreign to me. I think I have traveled a very long distance from my suburban Texas roots in my critical thinking about culture and society, but I have never imagined a day when I would identify myself as a Marxist. This is mostly because I wouldn't know what that meant at this point. I can confidently say that the Institute hasn't really cleared that up for me because it was used in a way I am always supicious of: "I think we, as Marxists should do/think..." Ever since I started to question christianity in th 7th grade, any doctrine and especially one that requires allegiance that seems unclear or instrumental, something inside me revolts. Of course I have the same reaction whether someone is asking me to give money to a charity or attend a meeting, so this could basically be rooted in some fundamentally selfish individualism which I don't believe in ever really renouncing. Then again, part of this is also rooted in a lack of confidence in my own interpretation. I simply lack the qualifications to be able to argue with someone experienced about what Marxism means. Therefore it is not something I can argue about or help to define or participate in considering in that way. It is something that I have been content to be inspired by at times and to consider things through, but I have never felt interested in having it define me or my existence.
There is no such lack of committment on the part of the folks at the MLG and, for the most part, there wasn't a lot of questioning of people's committment. There was an implicit solidarity to what was a vague notion of Marxism that was never defined upfront. The final panel, however, helped to solidify for me how different their notion of what this means is from my own. Labor organizers were there to speak on that subject and of the need for organizing.
pick this up later...
Saturday, June 11, 2005
voice of america during the 1950s
I was surprised to come across this earlier today. There are a few other documents looking at the way that the Voice of America network was involved in the McCarthy hearings. Most of the story surrounds the use of a US novelist by the name of Howard Fast who worked for one or another arm of the government's propaganda services. Evidently, the VOA was using some of his writings in their broadcasts precisely because he was a "leftist." In another article a few days earlier, the idea was more fully elaborated in the context of a State Dept memo:
There are a couple of important aspects to this story for me. First, is the rather insane purgation that this was signalling at the time, such as the testimony of "W. Bradley Connors, identified as the top man in Voice of America operations policy, told the subcommittee today that he was acting immediately to sweep the organization's libraries clear of writings by leftists."
I knew that the anti-communist campaign was virulent, but I really thought that one had to actually be a member of the Communist Party of America to get blacklisted. But to simply say that anyone who was a "leftist" should be purged, that is really rather extreme.
Also, I am struck by the fact that this new call to make sure that there was a significant anti-communist messages were inserted into the programming in Latin America. This from the first article:
The accusation is that people were using something to soften up the hardline anti-communism of these earlier messages. Or, as McCarthy says in another article, "there are some people in the Voice of America who are doing a rather effective job of sabotaging Dulles and Eisenhower's foreign policy program." This is really relevant in the year or so before the VOA was used specifically as a disinformation and propaganda platform for the CIA assisted (if not sponsored and carried out) overthrow of the Arbenz government in guatemala. These articles appeared in the NYT in Feb 19, 20, and 14 respectively on pages 1, 9 and 1 also respectively.
I was surprised to come across this earlier today. There are a few other documents looking at the way that the Voice of America network was involved in the McCarthy hearings. Most of the story surrounds the use of a US novelist by the name of Howard Fast who worked for one or another arm of the government's propaganda services. Evidently, the VOA was using some of his writings in their broadcasts precisely because he was a "leftist." In another article a few days earlier, the idea was more fully elaborated in the context of a State Dept memo:
At issue today was a State Department memorandum that apparently had been accepted as instructions to Voice of America officials regarding material to be used in broadcasts. The part that caught the subcommittee attention said:
There are a couple of important aspects to this story for me. First, is the rather insane purgation that this was signalling at the time, such as the testimony of "W. Bradley Connors, identified as the top man in Voice of America operations policy, told the subcommittee today that he was acting immediately to sweep the organization's libraries clear of writings by leftists."
I knew that the anti-communist campaign was virulent, but I really thought that one had to actually be a member of the Communist Party of America to get blacklisted. But to simply say that anyone who was a "leftist" should be purged, that is really rather extreme.
Also, I am struck by the fact that this new call to make sure that there was a significant anti-communist messages were inserted into the programming in Latin America. This from the first article:
Earlier the subcommittee went into Voice of America broadcasts in Latin America. Stuart Ayers, acting chief of that division, testified that he "suspected but could not prove" that certain key men in the program had "deliberately" attempted to lessen the effect of anti-Communist propaganda in the programs broadcast there. He previously had named the suspects to the subcommittee, but the names were kept secret.
The accusation is that people were using something to soften up the hardline anti-communism of these earlier messages. Or, as McCarthy says in another article, "there are some people in the Voice of America who are doing a rather effective job of sabotaging Dulles and Eisenhower's foreign policy program." This is really relevant in the year or so before the VOA was used specifically as a disinformation and propaganda platform for the CIA assisted (if not sponsored and carried out) overthrow of the Arbenz government in guatemala. These articles appeared in the NYT in Feb 19, 20, and 14 respectively on pages 1, 9 and 1 also respectively.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
americans no longer standing tallest (if they ever were)
interesting post on the relationship of hieght to general health and well being. In short, Canadians are getting taller than USians.
interesting post on the relationship of hieght to general health and well being. In short, Canadians are getting taller than USians.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Mom,
I am just glad we can talk to you about these things and I hope that we are all able to become more knowledgeable on the many subjects we have to in order to be informed citizens. Just so you know, as an additional Mother's Day gift, Jill and I made a contribution to the investigative fund of a good alternative publication that looks into a variety of progressive causes. They definitely have an agenda, but their investigative reporting is top notch. You will soon be receiving bi-monthly issues of their magazine, Mother Jones. If you are interested in checking out one of their recent stories, you can look at the recent set of cover stories on the way that Exxon-Mobil and other oil companies have helped to fund a large contingent of think tanks, public policy groups, PR people and even faux media outlets in an attempt to counter any and all claims that global warming exists.
Here is the full spread, with 4 or 5 stories
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html
and here is the main story
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
It is a lot to absorb and should still be read critically, but the linkages they uncover--and blatent statements by these groups that they intend to spread falsehood in order to meet their public relations goals--make for a sick picture of corporate greed at its worst. Virtually every other country in the world--and all the other industrialized "civilized" nations (now even the Russians!) have seen that this is an important issue for the future of the planet. The US claims that changing anything will be bad for business.
But if our government had made this a priority ten years ago, like the Japanese, then we wouldn't be begging the Japanese to make more Hybrid cars this year and Ford and GM wouldn't have their stocks rated as "Junk bonds." The fact of the matter is that, by trying to distort the science in their favor, Exxon-Mobil have actually hurt the long term viability of US industry by trying to keep things as they are. While the president talks about the need to fund clean coal and we worry about how to protect the new oil pipeline flowing out of the Caspian, Japan has sponsored initiatives that have inspired Kyocera to make shingles out of solar panels so that it becomes possible to run much of a house's energy off of solar power. The Japanese government predicts that by 2030, they will be able to get 50%(!!!) of their country's power needs from solar energy.
As you know from walking in the Texas sun, you live in one of the biggest solar markets in the world (where you get direct sunlight almost year round.) But because of powerful interests in our country, there have been no initiatives to spur this kind of innovation. In five or ten years when the American people decide it is worth doing, it is Japanese corporations--and a few California firms--that will reap the rewards. But even this won't happen until we get the energy corporations that have benefited from deregulation over the past decade to loosen their grip on the mind of the government--and of consumers who think the only way they can power their homes is by buying energy from corporations like Enron.
A movement has been brewing for more than a decade to make it more reasonable for US homeowners and businesses to build energy supply like wind, biomass or solar into their structures. It is meant to overcome one of the persistent problems with these forms of renewable energy: they aren't always consistently available and when they are, sometimes they generate much more energy than you can possibly use. So, in addition to certain tax breaks for, say, powering your home with solar panels, many states are now requiring energy companies to offer you "net metering" or "net billing."
Basically, it works like this. When you have your own power source hooked up to your house and you are hooked up to the power grid, if you produce more power than you need, you are actually putting energy back onto the grid for other people to use: in these cases, your electricity meter actually turns backwards. A net metering agreement with your energy company, depending on how it is set up, would allow consumers to only pay for the energy they pull off of the grid and to get credit for the energy they put back onto it. About 30 states have agreements that make this possible (as I understand it), but energy companies often fight it tooth and nail in state legislatures (whose representatives they often make donations) and courts when consumers and businesses try to do it--and very few people know about it at all.
When people think about solar power they ask where we could possibly put all the panels we'd need to supply energy for entire cities. They imagine that we would need enormous solar farms like they have in Germany. But this is because they--and our political leaders--imagine that the only way to make energy is to have it supplied by a large corporation or centralized facility. But if you imagine instead of a centralized energy field, solar panels on every roof in Texas, it becomes a little easier to imagine how it might happen. This is just the kind of issues that, if the president had any political will to actually work on solving the energy problem, if it was something that companies with a stake in the status quo didn't try to dominate, then we would be able to use all of our creative resources and just might figure out a way to have energy without relying on centralized plants--whether public or private--running on fossil fuels or nuclear power except in extreme circumstances. Of course I could be loony or clueless, but it is something that just might work. I would have to defer to the scientists and engineers in the family who have far more knowledge on such matters.
anyway, off to bed. I was supposed to be grading student speeches. I guess that will have to wait.
I love you and hope that you're all doing well.
best,
-s
Thursday, May 26, 2005
On intellegent design and the scientific field
Article in the New Yorker addresses something that the scientific community cannot: the scientific claims of intelligent design. In a quote that could have been lifted out of Bourdieu's essay on the scientific field, H. ALLEN ORR notes that addressing the claims of ID are actually an act of consecration that most [actual] scientists would rather not perform.
The article looks at two of the main theorists who have challenged the theory of evolution and it seems that the main challenge is that it seems implausible on some level that these things have evolved in the way that they have in some "natural" manner. The main focus is on the questions of cellular structures which are so complex that it doesn't seem possible that they evolved. It is quite a leap in logic to say that because something seems implausible the only possible explanation is that they were created by an intelligent individual. On some level, the problem from my perspective is that there is a belief in God being some uber-human sitting on a cloud somewhere, thinking things up and coordinating the movements of 6 billion humans and trillions and trillions of other life forms. A more dispersed notion of god--as an energy that flows through the universe that we channel in some way--as touchy feely and utterly unacceptable to a judeo-christian tradition of monotheism would be much more able to explain the intricacies of development and the possibility of there being some sort of intention or goal in the design of organisms. This is an idea which I never feel comfortable considering and realize the ways that it is very likely a partial result of the intellectual current I am swimming in and, possibly, the result of the current state of capitalist social relations, a point recently made by Zizek
But I also have seen some of these ideas reference to Feurerbach's Essence of Christianity. The latter, according to Robert Tucker was a key influence for Marx in that he helped to make Hegel's philosophy of history viable again. Here I will quote at length from Tucker's description of F's innovation:
This idea of god being something that works through people or through nature is a longstanding pagan belief, but it is also pivotal to what I understand to be the fundamental of Gnostic Christianity. The ideas of that tradition, which are, arguably, coeval with the dominant Christian traditions today and possibly even connected to buddhism and what we now call hinduism, are very much about overcoming this self-alienation and preventing this division, projection and idealization of god by seeking knowledge of the self and the world; as Pagels summarizes, "According to the gnostic teacher Theodotus, writing in Asia Minor (c. 140-160), the gnostic is one has come to understand who we were, and what we have become; where we were... whither we are hastening; from what we are being released; what birth is, and what is rebirth. Yet to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God; this is the secret of gnosis."
Though maybe I am weaving too many disparate threads here together, it seems that there is a way that this connects with a tradition of study and theory of the way that spiritual forces are distributed throughout "creation." This understanding of god is, again according to Tucker, central to Marx's theory of civil society as being the source of the production of value. [ Rosenberg says this creation is contingent on the development of a separate political realm of the sovereign state, i.e they are mutually constitutive rather than cause and effect and by separating civil society from the possible realm of politics (even, as Polanyi points out, if the constitution of that divide was also, in part, a political act enacted by people who believed in the existence of the divide)]. Tucker says that Marx "inverted the Hegelian proposition on the relation between the state and "civil society" (bürgerliche Gesellschaft, by which Hegel meant the realm of private economic endeavor). Civil society was not an outgrowth of the state, as in Hegel's view; rather, the state was an outgrowth of civil society. The primary sphere of man's being was not his life as a citizen of the state but rather his economic life in civil society." (Ibid, xxiv)
There is a lot to unpack here--and I am certain contradictions abound above, but all of this is to say that it doesn't make much philosophical sense to join a libertarian philosophy of human relations with fundamentalist Christianity. In some ways, I am a bit shocked that adherents of free market capitalism can adhere to these notions of God as they do. The author of this article on ID often makes analogies to other forms of human social formation and techological creation and one such discussion seems ripe for comparison to both Hayek and Marx:
[would be interesting to consider the problem of use-value production in both cases and the emergence of vapid strip malls in place of a vibrant urban setting with something more than commerce in mind.]
Either way, it is entirely contradictory to claim that human society, with it's complex rules, mores, inventions, practices, etc. is possibly the outcome of a simple interplay of natural motivations which balance each other out and lead to the "survival of the fittest" while simultaneously claiming that in nature this idea seems so unplausible that it can only be explained by introducing a single intelligent planner.
If I do get a chance to elaborate on this, I would point out the way that Darwinism, according to Hielbroner, as an idea, both fed into and on the economic philosophies of the nineteenth century, leading eventually to the social darwinism that helped to justify all sorts of economic and political injustice and, in many ways, still informs the mainstream belief in the fundamental character of the market--what's best and most worthy, rises to the top. Yet the people who advocate most strongly for the market as a mechanism in this country are also those who seem most adamently opposed to the idea of Darwinism in explaining natural development. The opposite, or vice versa, of course, is true of some unreflexive leftists. But all of this is to be saved for another time. I have class to teach tomorrow.
Article in the New Yorker addresses something that the scientific community cannot: the scientific claims of intelligent design. In a quote that could have been lifted out of Bourdieu's essay on the scientific field, H. ALLEN ORR notes that addressing the claims of ID are actually an act of consecration that most [actual] scientists would rather not perform.
If a scientific claim can be loosely defined as one that scientists take seriously enough to debate, then engaging the intelligent-design movement on scientific grounds, they worry, cedes what it most desires: recognition that its claims are legitimate scientific ones.
The article looks at two of the main theorists who have challenged the theory of evolution and it seems that the main challenge is that it seems implausible on some level that these things have evolved in the way that they have in some "natural" manner. The main focus is on the questions of cellular structures which are so complex that it doesn't seem possible that they evolved. It is quite a leap in logic to say that because something seems implausible the only possible explanation is that they were created by an intelligent individual. On some level, the problem from my perspective is that there is a belief in God being some uber-human sitting on a cloud somewhere, thinking things up and coordinating the movements of 6 billion humans and trillions and trillions of other life forms. A more dispersed notion of god--as an energy that flows through the universe that we channel in some way--as touchy feely and utterly unacceptable to a judeo-christian tradition of monotheism would be much more able to explain the intricacies of development and the possibility of there being some sort of intention or goal in the design of organisms. This is an idea which I never feel comfortable considering and realize the ways that it is very likely a partial result of the intellectual current I am swimming in and, possibly, the result of the current state of capitalist social relations, a point recently made by Zizek
But I also have seen some of these ideas reference to Feurerbach's Essence of Christianity. The latter, according to Robert Tucker was a key influence for Marx in that he helped to make Hegel's philosophy of history viable again. Here I will quote at length from Tucker's description of F's innovation:
Briefly, Marx created his theory of history as a conscious act of translation of Hegel's theory into what he, Marx, took to be its valid or scientific form. In this he followed the procedure of the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, author of The Essence of Christianity (1841), who had argued that Hegel's philosophy could reveal scienticif truth if subjected to "transformational criticism." This consisted in the inverting of its principle presuppositions, meaning that one transposed subject and predicate in them. For Hegel man is spirit (or God) in the process of self-alienation and self-realization, i.e. man presents himself in history as self alienated God. The truth, says Feuerbach, is just the reverse. Instead of seing man as self-alienating God, we must see God as self alienated man. That is [and here's the key section that I find stimulating] when man, the human species, projects an idealized image of itself into heaven as "God" and worships this imaginary heavenly being, it becomes estranged from itself; its own ungodly earthly reality becomes alien and hateful. To overcome this alienation man must repossess his alienated being, take "God" back into himself, recognize in man--and specifically in other human individuals--the proper object of care, love and worship.--Marx Engels Reader, 2nd ed., Norton, xxii-xxiii.
This idea of god being something that works through people or through nature is a longstanding pagan belief, but it is also pivotal to what I understand to be the fundamental of Gnostic Christianity. The ideas of that tradition, which are, arguably, coeval with the dominant Christian traditions today and possibly even connected to buddhism and what we now call hinduism, are very much about overcoming this self-alienation and preventing this division, projection and idealization of god by seeking knowledge of the self and the world; as Pagels summarizes, "According to the gnostic teacher Theodotus, writing in Asia Minor (c. 140-160), the gnostic is one has come to understand who we were, and what we have become; where we were... whither we are hastening; from what we are being released; what birth is, and what is rebirth. Yet to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God; this is the secret of gnosis."
Though maybe I am weaving too many disparate threads here together, it seems that there is a way that this connects with a tradition of study and theory of the way that spiritual forces are distributed throughout "creation." This understanding of god is, again according to Tucker, central to Marx's theory of civil society as being the source of the production of value. [ Rosenberg says this creation is contingent on the development of a separate political realm of the sovereign state, i.e they are mutually constitutive rather than cause and effect and by separating civil society from the possible realm of politics (even, as Polanyi points out, if the constitution of that divide was also, in part, a political act enacted by people who believed in the existence of the divide)]. Tucker says that Marx "inverted the Hegelian proposition on the relation between the state and "civil society" (bürgerliche Gesellschaft, by which Hegel meant the realm of private economic endeavor). Civil society was not an outgrowth of the state, as in Hegel's view; rather, the state was an outgrowth of civil society. The primary sphere of man's being was not his life as a citizen of the state but rather his economic life in civil society." (Ibid, xxiv)
There is a lot to unpack here--and I am certain contradictions abound above, but all of this is to say that it doesn't make much philosophical sense to join a libertarian philosophy of human relations with fundamentalist Christianity. In some ways, I am a bit shocked that adherents of free market capitalism can adhere to these notions of God as they do. The author of this article on ID often makes analogies to other forms of human social formation and techological creation and one such discussion seems ripe for comparison to both Hayek and Marx:
It’s true that when you confront biologists with a particular complex structure like the flagellum they sometimes have a hard time saying which part appeared before which other parts. But then it can be hard, with any complex historical process, to reconstruct the exact order in which events occurred, especially when, as in evolution, the addition of new parts encourages the modification of old ones. When you’re looking at a bustling urban street, for example, you probably can’t tell which shop went into business first. This is partly because many businesses now depend on each other and partly because new shops trigger changes in old ones (the new sushi place draws twenty-somethings who demand wireless Internet at the café next door). But it would be a little rash to conclude that all the shops must have begun business on the same day or that some Unseen Urban Planner had carefully determined just which business went where.What I find interesting is that both Hayek and Marx would probably agree with the historical narrative of how this city developed and the only difference would be that Hayek would say that there was no need for a state at all and the city would develop on its own without any intervention and based solely on the mechanism of the market, Marx, in my crude understanding of both, would probably agree if only one could dispense with political power in general and the presence of classes who would insist on the alienation of some others.
[would be interesting to consider the problem of use-value production in both cases and the emergence of vapid strip malls in place of a vibrant urban setting with something more than commerce in mind.]
Either way, it is entirely contradictory to claim that human society, with it's complex rules, mores, inventions, practices, etc. is possibly the outcome of a simple interplay of natural motivations which balance each other out and lead to the "survival of the fittest" while simultaneously claiming that in nature this idea seems so unplausible that it can only be explained by introducing a single intelligent planner.
If I do get a chance to elaborate on this, I would point out the way that Darwinism, according to Hielbroner, as an idea, both fed into and on the economic philosophies of the nineteenth century, leading eventually to the social darwinism that helped to justify all sorts of economic and political injustice and, in many ways, still informs the mainstream belief in the fundamental character of the market--what's best and most worthy, rises to the top. Yet the people who advocate most strongly for the market as a mechanism in this country are also those who seem most adamently opposed to the idea of Darwinism in explaining natural development. The opposite, or vice versa, of course, is true of some unreflexive leftists. But all of this is to be saved for another time. I have class to teach tomorrow.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Danny Glover pulls out of Haiti visit citing concerns over legitimacy of currently installed government as well as human rights concerns. I was really surprised to hear him speak passionately about the trip he was making and the work he was doing to make this cruise happen when I heard him on the local NPR station last mont. But I am equally, if not more impressed to see him take such a principled stance. When I heard he was pulling out I thought it would be for some bullshit celebrity reason. But this is pretty reasonable and must have been a big deal for him and his group to make this decision. On the other hand, it was the right thing to do and really adds to their cause even more than actually carrying through with the cruise. He manages to give a short history of the Haitian revolution and makes an interesting correlation that can't be completely without merit--it even sounds completely reasonable, even if it is not something that the US would ever accept as history proper:
The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte's army, and the French failure to regain control over San Domingue, as Haiti was then known, contributed to the end of French colonial ambitions in the western hemisphere. In 1803 France sold its North American province of Louisiana , a region of more than 800,000 square miles west of the Mississippi River, to the United States .
The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte's army, and the French failure to regain control over San Domingue, as Haiti was then known, contributed to the end of French colonial ambitions in the western hemisphere. In 1803 France sold its North American province of Louisiana , a region of more than 800,000 square miles west of the Mississippi River, to the United States .
ShopNetDaily.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!: "God has brought hundreds of people back from the dead, mostly in the last 15 years. These are not near-death experiences, but real resurrections of actual corpses. "
eeek. WTF. This has to be some wierd "Virgen de Guadelupe" kind of thinking. ANd this guy is celebrating it as a positive development! I hope there is intelligent life on other planets because someone will need to piece together the history of our decimation at the hands of fundamentalists of all kinds.
eeek. WTF. This has to be some wierd "Virgen de Guadelupe" kind of thinking. ANd this guy is celebrating it as a positive development! I hope there is intelligent life on other planets because someone will need to piece together the history of our decimation at the hands of fundamentalists of all kinds.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Other articles...
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp?p=1
Environmental Heresies
By Stewart Brand
May 2005
Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbanization, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power.
...
This one quite disturbing. Perhaps the best reason to stay away from Diamonds yet. would be great to start a campaign about the effect they have on these women. They may last forever, but they certainly aren't a girl's best friend.
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/congo.asp
“Not Women Anymore…”
The Congo’s rape survivors face pain, shame and AIDS
Ms. Magazine
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp?p=1
Environmental Heresies
By Stewart Brand
May 2005
Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbanization, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power.
...
This one quite disturbing. Perhaps the best reason to stay away from Diamonds yet. would be great to start a campaign about the effect they have on these women. They may last forever, but they certainly aren't a girl's best friend.
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/congo.asp
“Not Women Anymore…”
The Congo’s rape survivors face pain, shame and AIDS
Ms. Magazine
British Intelligence Warned Blair of War: "British Intelligence Warned Blair of War
Prime Minister Was Told of White House's Resolve to Use Military Against Hussein
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18
Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was 'being fixed around the policy,' according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street."
Prime Minister Was Told of White House's Resolve to Use Military Against Hussein
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18
Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was 'being fixed around the policy,' according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street."
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The Onion | What Do You Think?: "'If we outlawed everything some people find offensive, there wouldn't even be a Texas in the first place.'"
It seems that Texas is trying very hard to look like some sort of fundamentalist paradise. If things don't change, it certainly won't be worth going back to.
It seems that Texas is trying very hard to look like some sort of fundamentalist paradise. If things don't change, it certainly won't be worth going back to.
Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of �mistaken identity� - Sunday Times - Times Online: "THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as �a critical victory in the war on terror�. According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists� third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as �among the flotsam and jetsam� of the organisation. "
oops. I'm sure the major networks will print a retraction soon.
oops. I'm sure the major networks will print a retraction soon.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
GMU Salary Information
I can't imagine how long this took to compile, but it is a fairly interesting database. I am most upset by the fact that Vernon Smith gets paid more than the provost and John O'Conner gets paid more than Dean Muir--the first more than the second.
I can't imagine how long this took to compile, but it is a fairly interesting database. I am most upset by the fact that Vernon Smith gets paid more than the provost and John O'Conner gets paid more than Dean Muir--the first more than the second.
Monday, April 18, 2005
F�rum Social Mundial: "This is, in our view, a potentially disastrous development. One of the great beauties of our movement - and of the forums that have emerged from and helped to sustain it - is the way in which people from all sorts of backgrounds and with the most diverse preoccupations come and mix together, participating in a process of mutual contamination in which we learn and gain confidence from one another. This dynamic was greatly weakened by the thematic fragmentation and vast size of the WSF site in Porto Alegre this year "
Callinicos has a good point--one that seems to follow all sorts of academic and intellectual trends: as a subject area grows, it fragments into little ghettos of interest so that people can focus on their pet persepectives.
Callinicos has a good point--one that seems to follow all sorts of academic and intellectual trends: as a subject area grows, it fragments into little ghettos of interest so that people can focus on their pet persepectives.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Unitarian Jihad Name Generator
brilliant--I love people who have extra time on their hands
http://www.uuism.net/uuwiki/index.php/Unitarian_Jihad
it's refreshing when an ideology catches on that isn't out to make people hate each other.
for further reading later on...
http://www.uuff.org/fs_servetus.shtml
http://www.uuff.org/fs_castellio.shtml
http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html
Nice statement on the War on Drugs:
http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html
Most of this from the meta filter thread on the subject. I remember making fun of Joel's religion growing up. He was a good sport. So much of what I mocked before now seems so reasonable. Makes me know that someday I will think the me I am now was such a dope. Silly me-now.
brilliant--I love people who have extra time on their hands
http://www.uuism.net/uuwiki/index.php/Unitarian_Jihad
it's refreshing when an ideology catches on that isn't out to make people hate each other.
for further reading later on...
http://www.uuff.org/fs_servetus.shtml
http://www.uuff.org/fs_castellio.shtml
http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html
Nice statement on the War on Drugs:
http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html
Most of this from the meta filter thread on the subject. I remember making fun of Joel's religion growing up. He was a good sport. So much of what I mocked before now seems so reasonable. Makes me know that someday I will think the me I am now was such a dope. Silly me-now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)