Don'tBelieveEverything ...

Sent to the Wiscnsin State Journal

2012-02-16T23:19:00.000-08:00

"It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion!" You've heard that, right? Actually it's both.

The only constitutional reference to either is right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion (freedom from) nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof (freedom of). So simple. You can have yours and I can have mine. And neither of us can impose his on the other, nor can the government impose any on either of us.

Regarding contraception, then. If your religion teaches you that using artificial contraception is 'wrong,' you are free to not use it. But you are NOT free to insist that I don't. Nor may the government do so, at least, not on religious grounds. See the first amendment. (Freedom from.)

If the issue is funding then let's work that out. If contraception is to be part of comprehensive health care plans (yes please) and you're worried that some of your money is going toward funding it, through premiums or taxes, then do what the rest of us do when tax money gets used to fund something with which we disagree. Something, even, that we see as morally wrong, like 'preventive' war. Tell yourself that YOUR money isn't going toward that. YOUR money is going to fund things that you whole-heartedly support.

And smile. ; )

5,717

2012-02-13T22:47:00.001-08:00

Anybody want to guess what that number represents?

Giants Win!

2012-02-05T00:40:00.000-08:00

Expect to see this headline on Monday. At least in New York. In the Boston area it will likely be something like, Patriots Lose!

Of course, I could be wrong. ; )

Why Don't They Like Obama?

2012-01-29T22:19:00.000-08:00

Well it's been three years now and approximately half of all voters just can't stand Obama. Maybe that's a little high, I'm including lots of rational people who just don't like any Democrat or who have specific policy disagreements in mind. But there is still a huge number of people who 'hate' our 44th president. And for three years I've been trying to figure out why.

We saw (and still see) racist posters of Obama as a 'witch doctor' at 'Tea Party' rallies during the health care reform debate. But racism isn't really the issue, I don't believe. These same tea partiers went gaga over Herman Cain. There, I guess, we would be looking at Cain as 'the right kind' of black man (accepting of the status quo and pliable in the hands of 'big money') and Obama as the 'wrong kind' (uppity). So there is an element of racism but it isn't the primary driver of this backlash.

That's actually what it comes down to, I think: backlash. (With a touch of 'uppity.') Candidate Obama ran against the status quo, against the Republican ideology that Reagan first made popular; the idea that if we just take care of the rich , with special exceptions and favorable tax policy, they will take care of us. How dare he?! 'Hope' and 'Change' were his buzz words; 'Yes We Can' his rallying cry. I believe John Boehner put into words what many of them thought throughout the campaign and into the Obama presidency: "Hell no you can't!"

What the hell did he mean, change? Change what? Who the hell does he think he is? How the hell does he figure he has the right to change anything? (Forgetting, I guess, that he pulled more votes than any U.S. presidential candidate ever.) So they set out to oppose him at every turn. Obvious, common sense proposals were ridiculed and denounced, even proposals that had been initially floated by Republicans in the recent past. An ambitious economic stimulus program aimed at combating the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression was compromised, whittled away at and weakened to the point of near ineffectualness, not so much on ideological grounds but to make sure that it wouldn't work, lest Obama 'succeed.'

But the biggest thing that they 'hate' is that he inspired so many people. Young, old, and in between; first time voters and long time abstainers; people who had become quite cynical by our broken political system; all came alive and turned out for the guy who appealed to the 'better angels of our nature.' Let's work together, he said. Let's change the way Washington works, and the way elections are done (remember how much money he raised from small-time donors). Let's stop the 'selfishness is a virtue' dogma, right here and now and put America back on the path to realizing its full potential.

Why was all of this so bad? Because, I suggest, that all those 'haters' have lost faith in the American dream. They have become cynical as a result of thirty years of pursuing Republican policies and thirty years of right wing talk radio and TV, telling them that the reason they're hurting economically is all the free-riders in American society. Don't look at the correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and the suddenly ballooning federal deficit. Forget about how the Bush tax cuts took a balanced budget (the first one in decades) and again started running huge deficits. Don't even think about how a series of 'free trade agreements' and tax code changes caused a massive exodus of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries where the workers are literally paid pennies an hour. Blame the people at the bottom! Not the people at the top, the policy makers and tax-cutters. And, above all, think only of yourself! Make sure you 'get yours'! Social Security is a scam! It'll be gone by the time you want to retire! Unless you let us 'privatize' it! And whatever you do, DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT! Not even us! Government is the enemy!

So Obama's message of 'change,' of collective action to get America moving forward again, is the last thing they want to hear. They just can't believe that WE fell for it. So they call him all sorts of nasty names like 'socialist' and 'secret Muslim' and tell us he isn't even a legitimate president, born in Kenya or wherever. He sure isn't one of us! Anything to break the spell which he must have us under.

The really sad thing is if, somehow, Reagan could make one last speech, from beyond the grave, and tell us/them that what we need to do now is to come together and move America forward again they would cheer wildly. 40 million uninsured Americans is an atrocity, Reagan might say (with the benefit of his new viewpoint); we must use our collective power as a free and compassionate people to create a national policy that works for everyone! Government isn't your enemy, it is YOU, the collective will of the people brought to life. Let us come together and WIN THE FUTURE!

If only. ; )

One More Try

2012-01-22T01:43:00.000-08:00

I really can't decide but I'm going to force myself to predict the winners of the conference championship games. Here goes.

NFC. I want to take the Giants, I guess because if the Packers lose to the eventual Super Bowl champions it seems less lame. But I'm taking the 49ers based on their better balance, home field and the fact that they're probably better suited for rain. Still, if it turns out the Giants can run the ball and/or stop the Niners running game I think the Giants would win. Eli should give them the edge at QB. Both team's defenses look good right now. 49ers, 19-17.

AFC. The Ravens tend to be over-rated on Defense. They're certainly better than the Patriots D, but the Patriots Offense is approximately one light year ahead of the Ravens O. We'll see. I'll say Patriots, 27-16.

Playoffs?

2012-01-14T12:13:00.000-08:00

Well, it's January 14th and the NFL season is nearly over. What are there, seven games left? Time for me to make some picks.

Saints at 49ers.

I'm very impressed with the job Jim Harbaugh did with the 49ers, including getting some production out of Alex Smith. But I think they're over-matched today. If both teams play their games; the Saints moving the ball smartly down the field and scoring touchdowns, the 49ers holding the ball for a while and either punting it inside the twenty or kicking field goals; then the Saints win. IF the 49ers can force the Saints to punt many more times than they usually have to, or force several turnovers, they can win. But my pick is the Saints, something like 31 - 16.

Tonight we have the Broncos at the Patriots. Tebow vs. Brady. Need I say much more? The Broncos could win but they would have to play a nearly perfect game AND hope for some mistakes from the Patriots. Close for a while but the Patriots gradually pull away. Maybe a Tebow pick or two in the second half as he is compelled to throw more than once every 6 plays while playing from behind. Patriots win, 38 - 16.

Tomorrow I'm picking the Texans to upset the Ravens, partly because I've never liked the Ravens. But I also think the Texans are a better team than the Ravens. Baltimore has the home field and the experienced quarterback but I've never been impressed with Flacco, especially in January. If Yates comes through at all the Texans win. I'll say 20 - 16.

Then, finally, we have the Giants at the Packers. The Giants' pass rush scares me even more than their new-found running game. Plus the Packers offensive coordinator buried his 21 year old son on Friday and the Packers have had a distracted week. Still, sometimes teams rally around adversity. And Rodgers and Company are the real deal. If the defense steps up, like I think they will, the Packers should win. I'll say 34 - 27.

About Time

2012-01-12T14:38:00.000-08:00

I have to confess that I don't know all the nuances of 'Venture Capitalism' or whether or not 'Private Equity Companies' do more harm than good. But I will say that it appears we are beginning a national discussion which is long overdue, that being the value of selfishness to a free society. And that, I will say, IS good.

I realize that the line 'Greed Is Good' is from a movie but the question I ask is was that art imitating life or did life subsequently imitate art? Because that little speech by Gordon Gecko/Michael Douglas perfectly sums up 'free market capitalism.' Do what is in your own, selfish best interest and America will be better for it.

But really? The argument is that without the incentive of personal gain, nobody will give his best effort. But, here's the problem: nobody disputes that. The actual other side of the argument is that it is possible to harness the 'profit motive' for the overall good of society. Not, however, through unrestrained selfishness but with restrained selfishness. People should pursue their own self interest; they not only have that right but they need to. It's what keeps us alive. But if there is to be any benefit to society somebody has to look at the overall effect.

A government of the people, by the people, for the people seeks to govern in a manner that promotes the overall good. Self-interest is fine but we don't allow people to steal or kill to promote their own interests. We the people created a government to protect us from people's selfishness and greed. To establish justice. To promote the general welfare. Nobody disagrees with this, right? Yet when it comes to 'the economy' we believe that 'the government' should get out of the way and let people be as selfish as they desire?

The role of the government then, in the economic realm, is to incentivize profit-seeking behavior that benefits society and disincentivize profit-seeking behavior that debilitates. They do this through regulation and through tax policy (the two things that Republicans, and some Democrats, have demonized and chopped away at for thirty years now). Regulations that say, go ahead, pursue self-interest, within this framework. And a tax structure that says, go ahead, seek profit. Make profit. But expect to pay taxes on your income and above a certain point expect to pay more tax on your income. Or, maybe, defer some of that profit, don't take it as personal income; instead reinvest it in your business, share some with the work force (bonuses: not just for the Chief), avoid that highest tax rate.

If selfishness is really 'good,' then what's with all this allegiance to the flag pledging and national anthem singing? Shouldn't I pledge allegiance only to myself?

I pledge allegiance,
to myself,
to my own, selfish interest.

And to whatever it takes,
to advance my interests,
there is no 'nation,'
there is no 'God'
divided,
Liberty!
and justice, for ME!

My Year in Literature

2012-01-05T17:19:00.000-08:00

2011 Book List

War In A Time Of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals,
David Halberstam

1968 In America: Music, Politics, Chaos,

Counterculture, and the Shaping of a Generation,

Charles Kaiser

Pro Passer, Clyde Grosscup

Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism

Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs and Margaret C. Jacob

How To Win Friends and Influence People

Dale Carnegie

Throw the Bomb, Clyde Grosscup

Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era,
James M. McPherson

The Summer Game, Roger Angell

The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien

The Last Boy: Mickey Mantle and the End of America’s Childhood,

Jane Leavy

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America,

Rick Perlstein

Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus

Rick Perlstein

I recommend the Perlstein books, especially Nixonland, the Halberstam and the Tim O'Brien. And the Mickey Mantle bio.

Oh yeah, the Civil War book, McPherson, is superb.

Daily Daily

2011-12-23T23:53:00.001-08:00

Daily You Know What

2011-12-23T01:01:00.000-08:00

Afternoon Daily Sarge Spot

2011-12-22T14:20:00.000-08:00

Morning Daily Sarge Spot

2011-12-20T22:24:00.000-08:00

Daily Sarge Spot

2011-12-20T11:00:00.000-08:00

This Is It

2011-12-19T23:32:00.000-08:00

I'm sending this one in. It's still 731 words, but so was the one in today's paper (more or less).

Is there a 'social contract' in America?

We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.

As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life would be better with some rules. The rise of agriculture led to a need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop, then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a society.

Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. Protecting the food supply was a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.

Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).

For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates came down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. With lower tax rates on capital gains capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.

Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. Congress is in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.

Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!

The Latest

2011-12-19T23:12:00.000-08:00

Down to 734. Probably just read this one. ;

Is there a 'social contract' in America?

We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.

As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life would be better with some rules. The rise of agriculture led to a need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop, then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a society.

Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. Protecting the food supply was a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.

Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).

For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.

Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. Congress is in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.

Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!

Shorter Yet

2011-12-19T23:01:00.000-08:00

Don't feel compelled to read all of these. ; ) Down to 757.

Is there a 'social contract' in America?

We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.

As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life could be better if some rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.

Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.

Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons'; a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street; followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).

For decades America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by m smart investing. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because along with progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.

Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we have income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress in thrall to very well heeled special interests.
NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.

Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!

Editing

2011-12-19T22:46:00.000-08:00

I'm trying to get this down to 500 words. Harder than I thought. About 325 to go.

Is there a 'social contract' in America?

We live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world, size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes both die. Nature.

As Homo sapiens evolved, society emerged. Life could be better if some rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.

Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. Skip ahead to the 17th Century. People had been living in societies for centuries. Still, society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by the mighty, with a tripartite government legislating the will of the people into law and then enforcing the law. Enter the ‘social contract.’ We agree to give up any idea of absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.

Alexander Hamilton foresaw that America would eventually face an old European problem: not enough land to support an ever-growing agrarian society. The solution would be an industrial, capitalist society, which he believed would best serve the needs of a free people. Still with the foundation that all are created equal. So whether a man was a landowner or not he would be an equal partner in this experiment in democracy.

Yet 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons,' a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street, followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal once again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).

For nearly fifty years America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by making smart investments. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because in addition to progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we again began to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to erode. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing all around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.

Thirty years later, prosperity for everyone has not followed. Instead we see income inequality as high as ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress completely in thrall to very well heeled special interests. NO! we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all except hoard it. No! we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No! we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No! we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.

Is that really the way it’s going to be? Might makes right? No social contract? Why? Why do the wants of the few trump the needs of the many? It’s time for a new New Deal!

The Social Contract

2011-12-15T21:24:00.000-08:00

Is there a 'social contract' in America? If yes, could I see a copy?

In many ways we live in a world of competing interests. Always have, always will. It's the nature of the universe. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In the animal world size matters. And strength. And desire and craftiness and persistence. If two bears want the same spot they don't call for arbitration, they don't negotiate with each other (not verbally anyway) and they don't call the cops or their lawyers. They fight. One wins, one leaves. Sometimes maybe both die. Nature.

At some point, as homo sapiens evolved, something called society emerged. Life could be better, people realized, if certain rules were put into place. The rise of agriculture led to the need for property rights. Nobody wanted to plant, grow and harvest a crop and then watch helplessly as marauders stormed through and stole the produce of a season of labor and diligence. With rights came the need for laws, with laws the need for enforcement. All of this depended upon cooperation, a sense of society.

Early on 'might' still made 'right,' most of the time. The need to protect the food supply is a beginning but there is more to a social contract than that. So let's fast forward to the 17th Century. By this time people had been living in societies for centuries. But some people perceived that society could be improved upon. Why should a handful of people live in luxury while millions did all the work and barely survived? Locke and Rousseau exposited that all people were born free. In the newly emerging United States of America Jefferson and Madison ran with this idea and with many allies created a new Nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The new Constitution set up a government of, for and by the people, taking us further away from the idea that might makes right. America would be ruled by law, not by a Monarch, with a tripartite government charged with putting the will of the people into law and then enforcing those laws. This is where a social contract comes in. We all agree to give up any idea of having absolute liberty in order to create a workable society.

Alexander Hamilton foresaw that America would eventually come up against an old European problem: not enough land to support a simple, and growing, agrarian society. The solution would be an industrial, capitalist society, which he believed would best serve the needs of a free people. But we would still have as our foundation that all are created equal. So whether a man was a landowner or not he would be an equal partner in this experiment in democracy.

As time went by 'might makes right' continually had to be contended with. We saw an age of 'robber barons,' a 'roaring twenties' when might made right on Wall Street, followed by a Great Depression, in response to which a bold President led us into a new era, characterized by a New Deal between the people and their government. This New Deal once again asserted that it's actually right that makes might and right is defined by what is good for the most (not the fewest).

For nearly fifty years America prospered. The rich got richer, but only by being innovative or by making smart investments. Capital flowed to where it could best be utilized. Workers prospered because in addition to progressive taxation labor unions flourished, enabling workers to get a healthy share of the fruits of their labor. Beginning in 1981, however, and the Reagan Revolution, we began once again to see the 'rights' of the few being exalted at the expense of the common good. Tax rates began to come down, especially on high incomes, very especially if the income derived from investments rather than from work. The rights of labor began to be eroded. Wall Street regulations were relaxed. It's OK, we were told. This will benefit everyone. As 'impediments' on business were removed capital would be 'free.' As tax rates on capital gains came down capital would become more liquid, flowing all around the economy at such a high rate that prosperity for everyone would ensue.

It is now thirty years later. Prosperity for everyone has not followed. Rather we are looking at income inequality approaching the highest levels ever seen in a modern industrialized nation. More people now live in or near poverty than at any time in our history. Might makes right is back with a vengeance. We have a Congress completely in thrall to very well-heeled special interests. (And that 'special interest' is keeping the 80% of the wealth in the hands of the top ten per cent right where it is. And adding to it.) NO!, we can't raise taxes on the super rich. Not even the super duper rich. The ones with so much money they don't even know what to do with it all; all they can do is hoard it. No!, we can't revive unions and push membership back up to pre-Reagan levels. No!, we can't strengthen Medicare or Social Security, perhaps by removing the caps on the income that gets taxed to fund it. No!, we can't have single-payer health care, or even a 'public option.' No, no, NO! Might makes right, baby.

Well if that's really the way it's going to be, if we're really going back to the old way, where there is no agreement, there is no social contract, then shouldn't we go all the way? Is the One Per Cent really ready for that? Ninety-nine against one? They sure seem to be saying so.

The Unmaking of the American Consensus

2011-12-14T22:36:00.000-08:00

So, what does Perlstein mean by 'the American consensus.'

He never explicitly says but the sense that I get from the book, which also ties in with what I know about 20th century American history, was that after the Great Depression and with the coming of the New Deal there was a new agreement between the government and the people. The new part, of course, was that there would now be a social safety net, including, but not limited to, Social Security.

American electoral politics for about 30 years, then, featured the two parties jockeying over what should and what should not be included. It also featured near total dominance of national electoral politics by the Democrats. From 1932 to 1968 the Democrats won seven out of nine presidential elections (the only two losses being to the most middle of the road Republican in history) and dominated in both the House and the Senate, often with super-majorities.

During this time the Republican 'brain trust' strategized that the only way to win any offices was to offer 'tweaks' to Democratic policies. This was also the period during which the armed forces were desegregated by executive order, the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education and the Freedom Rides' and first sit-ins took place.

For reasons having to do with racism and possibly other resentments (but definitely racism) the old 'states rights' b.s. began to be heard again. Some movers and shakers (guys with money) began to sound each other out and plot a 'new course' for the Republican party. These were guys who were not 'professional' Republicans; rather they were businessmen who always voted Republican and wanted to take the party to the right. Little by little they discovered that they were not alone in feeling resentment toward the federal government and the New Deal.

Perlstein begins his book by putting us in the room with some of these early planners, e.g. Clarence Manion, who resented 'big labor' far more than anything else. To win more converts they realized that they needed to exploit white resentment of the (actually very slow) growth of the Civil Rights Movement.

As the story unfolds we see a rather disparate group of actors, each with an agenda that, while different from many of the other actors, coalesced around the idea of 'Conservatism.' Clearly, then as now, Conservatism meant different things to different people, but they all agreed that step one was running more conservative candidates for national office. They saw no value in running candidates who they viewed as Democrats by another name. Barry Goldwater was the man in whom most of these movers saw themselves reflected.

The story is fairly convoluted; Goldwater insisted for three years that he had no interest in running for President. Once he finally came aboard there was much competition as to who would run the campaign. Goldwater was often not consulted or listened to regarding his platform. Several times during the campaign he gave speeches which contradicted earlier pronouncements, especially regarding 'southern issues.'

In the end Goldwater was on the wrong end of one of the most lopsided Presidential elections in U.S. history. Through it all the campaign, and Goldwater, never took a backward, or even a sideways, step. A new ideology had entered American politics (or possibly reentered) and despite the predictions of the pundits of the time (the Republican party would take decades to recover) the way was opened for Nixon to win in '68 (southern strategy) and for the rise of Reagan in 1980. And for the end of the 'American Consensus.' Will we ever get it back?

Finished It!

2011-12-13T00:46:00.000-08:00

After The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus is in the outbox. I will write one more post about it. For tonight I will just say that they (the 'experts' of the time) sure were wrong about what the election meant for 'the cause.'

Also, I will examine what Perlstein meant by his subtitle. But right now I am going to bed. ; )

Goldwater!

2011-12-06T23:04:00.000-08:00

I'm still plugging away on the Goldwater book. I think, finally, I have 'turned the corner' and I can now 'see the light at the end of the tunnel.' (Vietnam is actually playing a very small role in the book.)

The biggest thing I'm noticing right now (I'm past the conventions and into the general election campaign) is how inept the Goldwater campaign was. Part of that we can credit to Goldwater who insisted that he would not compromise his principles to pander to a wider base. But we can also blame his staff for greatly overestimating the candidate's potential. They mistook rabid enthusiasm from the hard core base for wide-spread appeal. There was also a strong distrust of 'political insiders' so the campaign was run by novices.

Add to all of that Goldwater's apparent tone-deafness to his audiences and to the shifting perceptions of the various issues. He consistently displayed impeccably poor timing with his campaign speeches. For example railing against the Evil of the TVA and announcing his plan to 'privatize' it. In eastern Tennessee. Went over like a lead balloon. Which illustrates the inherent problem with 'conservative' politics: people love it in theory (some people) but when it comes down to it they want their Social Security, Medicare, etc.

I'll give a final report in about a week. I hope. I'm ready for something new. ; )

New Letter

2011-11-30T23:58:00.000-08:00

I sent another letter to the editor, just now. Jonah Goldberg's column got me started. I really only picked on his opening and I explain it in my letter so I'm not posting a link to Goldberg's piece. Here's my letter:

I agree with Jonah Goldberg (gasp!); a Master's Degree in puppetry is a hard thing to make a living from. This is part of his point that 'the left' doesn't 'get it.' I wish he had gone on to say what they should 'get.' That everything will be fine if everyone figures out his own solution? 25 million unemployed? That's 25 million individual problems with individual solutions.

How about a collective action approach instead? Where could we use more people? The legal system? Is there not a huge backlog of cases? How about social services? How about education? Do we really have enough teachers or are we just unwilling to pay more? How about police? Is there 'ever a cop around when you need one'? Do they even monitor traffic anymore?

But yes, everything I mention is a public sector job. And there's no money, right? We're broke! How did that happen, anyway? We weren't always 'broke.' Didn't that happen over the last thirty years while we've been stubbornly pursuing a policy of putting the self over the community? Which has led to us being 'broke,' collectively, while a handful of individuals and corporate 'people' have grown wealthy almost beyond measure.

Think about it.

I believe that's 204 words, which is 'pushing it,' so I don't get into how I would pay for all this public sector hiring. I expect I'll get called Socialist! by some online commenters (pretty much the worst insult they can think of, too, should I be insulted?). I think socialism might begin to gain traction in the U.S. before too much longer, too, but that's not the way I would go. Not first, anyway.

No, I think we could have a much healthier economy with a thriving middle class and a robust public sector just by readjusting the tax burden. Close some loopholes (if we could ever get our bought and paid for Congress to do it) and make the rate more progressive again. Once the middle class is thriving revenues go up from them; the rich always do well and have been skating without paying enough for too long. They'll fight any increase but let's fight them back and beat them! Do it I say!

Joe the Marine?

2011-11-19T19:09:00.000-08:00

Has anybody else seen this picture?

Can you read what he's holding up?

I am a former Marine.
I work two jobs.
I don’t have health insurance.
I worked 60-70 hours a week for 8 years to pay my way through college.
I haven’t had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years.
But I don’t blame Wall Street.
Suck it up you whiners.
I am the 53%.
God bless the USA!

Joe the Marine? Or more like Joe the Plumber?

Before The Storm

2011-11-13T20:57:00.000-08:00

I'm reading Rick Perlstein's Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, slowly. I'm just past half way. The JFK assassination is about the midpoint.

What strikes me so far is the way in which Perlstein uses Goldwater as a center piece of his narrative but doesn't focus on him. The action is driven by others. Clarence Manion is the first character to be introduced. Clif White is another major player. He introduces us to William F. Buckley, Jr., Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, the last two as 'antagonists.'

The thesis of the book is that a 'Conservative' movement grew out of various resentments toward the 'New Deal' and the 'rights of Labor' and began to coalesce around Barry Goldwater, partly for aesthetic reasons. Much as Ronald Reagan would later, Goldwater seemed to embody the thoughts and feelings of many thousands of Americans. Part of this was because many people projected their own feelings onto Goldwater, who did speak often of a new, Conservative approach to American government. (New in one sense, anyway.)

We'll see what happens next. There's talk of a run for President, in '64. ; )

Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-06T12:00:00.000-08:00

Steve Chapman writes for the Chicago Tribune. His column is syndicated and carried in many 'local' papers. The Wisconsin State Journal carries his column on Sundays. He tends toward the conservative point of view but he isn't bound by ideology and his pieces are always worthy of my time. ; )

This week, however, I felt the need to rebut. You can likely find his piece on the interwebs. Occupy Wall Street Has Got It Wrong is the title that I see. here's what I had to say:

I like reading Steve Chapman's column on Sundays and I hope the WSJ continues to carry it. He misses the mark a bit, though, this time around. It IS difficult to say exactly what the Occupy movement is all about; many different issues are mentioned via signs and interviews. But there IS a common thread, and he mentions it in his conclusion. "When the economy crashes, it's those with the least ... who suffer the most." What he ignores is that "the economy" didn't just mysteriously "crash." The reckless, greedy actions of a few, aided and abetted by a money-corrupted Congress, CAUSED it. And to date not only has no one been punished but the worst offenders have been rewarded with taxpayer-funded bailouts used primarily for "bonuses" and gobbling up smaller banks. The issue, then, is not that the rich have so much wealth but that they have excessive political influence. A government that represents the interests of the few at the expense of the many is NOT a democracy. THAT'S worth protesting and I'm glad somebody is.

They usually print my letters, now that I've ceased sending them almost daily. We'll see. Probably about Wednesday is my prediction.

From My "Junior" Year

2011-11-03T22:48:00.000-07:00

This was my contribution to a group 'sustainability project' in my Botany 100 class, Spring '10. We were trying to address the needs of feeding the population of the world, in the foreseeable future. Mine involves slowing population growth.

Can human population growth be checked? Sure. Several possibilities come to mind, but government mandated one-child policies wouldn’t be popular and genocide, wiping out a whole continent or a large part of one, … well, lets not go there.

Clearly we need to come up with a plan that involves voluntary compliance. Let’s look at the graph. Here we see world population trending ever upwards. Looking closer we see some of these lines flattening out and three trending up, especially these two. Really especially, this one. Africa.

“— At age 45, after giving birth to 13 children in her village of thatch roofs and bare feet, Beatrice Adongo made a discovery that startled her: birth control.
"I delivered all these children because I didn't know there was another way," said Adongo, who started on a free quarterly contraceptive injection last year. Surrounded by her weary-faced brood, her 21-month-old boy clutching at her faded blue dress, she added glumly: "I fear we are already too many in this family." (Ya think?)
“On a continent where fewer than one in five married women use modern contraception, an explosion of unplanned pregnancies is threatening to bury Adongo's family and a generation of Africans under a mountain of poverty.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/13/80331/bush-birth-control-policies-helped.html

We have to be careful, now, not to blame everything on Africa, but really, we can only do so much with our population. It’s actually trending the right way.

“"Fifty-one million unintended pregnancies in developing countries occur every year to women not using contraception," the World Bank said in a statement released on the eve of World Population Day.
Although birth rates have fallen in the past 30 years, in 35 countries -- 31 in sub-Saharan Africa and East Timor, Afghanistan, Djibouti, and Yemen -- birth rates are more than five children per mother.
A global approach, encompassing not only contraception but also better access to education, is needed to bring down the fertility rate in countries where it is still too high and puts the lives of women at risk, said Sadia Chowdhury, senior reproductive and child health specialist at the World Bank.
"Girls' and women's education is just as important in reducing birth rates as supplying contraception," said Chowdhury, who is also a pediatrician.
"Women's education provides life-saving knowledge, builds job skills that allow her to join the workforce and marry later in life, gives her the power to say how many children she wants and when.
"And these are enduring qualities she will hand down to her daughters as well," said Chowdhury, co-author of a World Bank report on contraception and unintended pregnancies in Africa, eastern Europe and central Asia.
Countries with a high birth rate also tend to have high maternal mortality, infant mortality and poverty, and poor education, health care, and nutrition, Chowdhury said.
"It all adds up. When you see one thing not happening, you see other development aspects not happening," she said.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hboHlfuYX7-7E5wPRixdHRut8YjA

So, policy-makers in developing countries can be appealed to on the grounds that family planning best serves their people. Not just that they are over-populating the world.

As a general rule, when women become literate and educational attainment rates rise, birth rates fall. That isn't just a vague policy statement that's hard to grasp. That's a real predictor of actual behavior – across the board. The higher an education a woman has, the fewer the children the woman will have. That's because typically a woman getting an education will put off getting married and having children until she's finished with her education. Educated women learn about contraception and family planning, so they have fewer unwanted pregnancies. Even further still, education broadens their perspectives about what the world has to offer them besides being a wife and mother.** Which is why there are a number of cultures around the world consciously preventing their daughters from being educated. It isn't because they believe girls are incapable of learning. It's the reverse: they fear what the girls could accomplish if they were educated.

They're losing out. Not only are they missing the contributions those women could have made, actually, educated women also learn about how to better care for the children they already have. They spend more time, not less, with their kids. They stimulate and engage the children in ways that would never even occur to those without an education. So … they're better moms.

http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/225.html

Promoting birth control in Africa faces a host of obstacles — patriarchal customs, religious taboos, ill-equipped public health systems — but experts also blame a powerful, more distant force: the U.S. government.
Under President George W. Bush, the United States withdrew from its decades-long role as a global leader in supporting family planning, driven by a conservative ideology that favored abstinence and shied away from providing contraceptive devices in developing countries, even to married women.
Bush's mammoth global anti-AIDS initiative, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, poured billions of dollars into Africa but prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.
The restrictions flew in the face of research by international aid agencies, the U.N. World Health Organization and the U.S. government's own experts, all of whom touted contraception as a crucial method of preventing births of babies being infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
The Bush program is widely hailed as a success, having supplied lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs to more than 2 million HIV patients worldwide.
However, researchers, Africa experts and veteran U.S. health officials now think that PEPFAR also contributed to Africa's epidemic population growth by undermining efforts to help women in some of the world's poorest countries exercise greater control over their fertility.
"It was a huge missed opportunity to integrate HIV/AIDS and reproductive health in ways that made sense," said Jotham Musinguzi, a Ugandan physician who heads the Africa office of Partners in Population and Development, an intergovernmental group that promotes sexual health in developing countries.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/13/80331/bush-birth-control-policies-helped.html

So, can you and I make a difference, on a global scale? Yes we can. We do it by holding our elected officials accountable for implementing sensible policies regarding aid to developing countries, including modern contraception as a means of effective family planning, as well as combating AIDS.

I Understand, Now

2011-10-30T19:50:00.000-07:00

I had a high school physics course; actually two semester-long ones. I didn't get much out of it/them. That was in the 1970s. In the 1990s I bought Stephen Hawkings' A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. I started it, couldn't finish. Only read about 15 pages. It was a combination of too 'dry' and a bit over my head. I hadn't been exposed to any of the concepts in any but the most superficial way and it was easy to just toss it aside.

Last night I picked it up again. (I found it on top of a stack in a box in my storage locker and brought it upstairs, earlier in the week.) I opened to the table of contents. Chapter 4: The Uncertainty Principle. I remembered we had talked about that in my Physics 107 class, Fall semester, 2008. And that I didn't really get it, then, or remember anything about it now, other than the name Heisenberg goes with it. (I guess you could say I was uncertain.)

So I flipped to page 53 and started reading. OMG! I understand it now! And I only read three pages! WTF? Not only that, it shed new light on something else that had mystified me when I heard it referred to, at least three times over the years, that being the idea that the observer has an effect on the observed.

Obviously that idea makes sense if we think about humans behaving in a certain way if they feel 'unobserved' and a different way if they know they ARE being observed. But sub-atomic particles? How could they know they were being observed? They can't possibly, right? So what gives?

I see the rest of the chapter includes the 'two-slit experiment.' I have never understood that, either, and I hear that it isn't actually explainable, yet. But I think I'll read Hawkings' explanation. Do you think, maybe ... ?

Occupado

2011-10-26T22:48:00.000-07:00

So, what about this "Occupy" movement? Good, bad, silly, crazy, harmless, criminal? Who are the occupiers? Who are their leaders?

Usually when I start out with questions I attempt to answer them in the rest of the post. Not today. Those are all "good" questions but as nearly as I can tell none of them has a definite answer. In any case, I have no definitive answers. Maybe you can tell me.

Which doesn't mean I have nothing to say. So, what follows is what I would do if I was pulling their strings, starting ... now.

First off, any and all violence is forbidden. Self-defense, OK, but self-defense is not violence. And, there will be no need to defend yourselves from the police because starting NOW, all laws will be obeyed. If your group is told that it's time to move along then MOVE ALONG. Pick anther spot, go on home for a couple days, whatever. But clear the area.

I saw a bit of an interview with a young woman tonight, from Oakland. The question I remember being asked of her was, "So, what should the cops have done?" Her answer: "I think using (tactics such as rubber bullets and tear gas, I forget the details) was hugely inappropriate."

Well thanks, honey, for nothing, though. The question WAS, what should the police have DONE? Not, please give us your opinion of the appropriateness of what they did. Bit of a difference, don't you know.

I understand that sometimes pushing the police to respond with, arguably, excessive force is a tactic. In MY opinion (as the new boss) it is a tactic that ill-suits our purpose. Hamas uses that tactic, to get Israel to respond with massive force. Are we Hamas? No! Are our objectives similar to those of Hamas? No! This is an assymetric warfare tactic and we are NOT AT WAR! We are angry but, as some of us are fond of saying, or attaching to our bumpers, War Is Not The Answer! Let's keep that in mind.

(When she was asked if what the police alleged was true, that they had thrown, I believe, rocks and bricks at the officers as they moved in she said yes, but since the police were wearing riot gear that wasn't so bad and the police response was out of proportion.)

So people, listen up! We are NOT going to be forcing confrontation. That is NOT what this is about. We aren't the Civil Rights Movement. We're pissed about the way big money interests have stolen our democracy from us and turned capitalism into corporatism, borderline fascism. And there is a way to redress that.

We needed to raise awareness. We have done so. Reliable polls show that America is aware of us and largely on our side. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE THAT! And the more we look like a lawless bunch of radicals the more we lose whatever hard-won respect we DO have. So ...

... we move on to the next phase. Coordinated political activity. It's the only way any progress has ever been achieved in America, and that's something to be proud of because America has achieved some great, progressive goals (yes, we're skipping the Civil War, here). The Democratic Party will hereby be put on notice. WE are your base. THIS is what we insist upon. ECONOMIC JUSTICE. We don't give a FUCK if Glenn Beck wants to call us Socialists, because who the fuck is GlennBeck, anyway? Ditto for Rush Limbaugh. Let him howl. It's what he does. Democratic Party, you WILL represent us or we WILL desert you. We can do it. We WILL do it. We will start a third party. We are strong. We will not win in 2012 but we WILL NOT GO AWAY. We will only grow STRONGER!

This is our message. Everyone go home, unless you have a permit for your occupation, as needed. We can mobilize again. But for now I call for POLITICAL action. It's the only way we can win. If we stick together we WILL WIN! WE ARE THE 99%!

Reload

2011-10-14T11:58:00.000-07:00

This may shock and amaze you but I'm pulling the plug on the Kennedy assassination book. 1,500 pages of excruciating detail just doesn't fit the schedule right now. I have another book from the library that I've already started (God: A Brief History) and Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, a precursor to Nixonland, came in today's mail.

But I can tell you this, just the same: Oswald did it! If you want further convincing, find the book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by Vincent Bugliosi, read the introduction, and see if you aren't satisfied. If not, keep reading.

Later.

JFK

2011-10-11T00:52:00.000-07:00

As I was nearing the finish of Nixonland I remembered that Vincent Bugliosi had written about the Kennedy assassination a couple years back. Not sure but maybe something in Nixonland triggered it; anyway I had always meant to read that one so I went and found it in one of the libraries on campus.

Reading the 36 page preface and the early part of the text I realized that in addition to examining the Kennedy assassination in excruciating detail and blowing up every conspiracy myth you've ever heard of, Bugliosi is writing on the same theme as Perlstein was: the polarization of America. Perlstein traced it to Nixon, Bugliosi goes back to that fateful day in 1963.

From the preface:

At approximately 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, while President John F. Kennedy, the most powerful man in the free world, rode in his presidential limousine slowly past the Texas School Book Depository Building and down Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, three shots rang out ... lay mortally wounded on his wife Jaqueline's lap. The assassin had succeeded in brutally cutting down, at the age of forty-six, the thirty-fifth president of these United States, a man whose wit, charm and intelligence had captivated a world audience. The assassin's bullets had also extinguished a flame of hope for millions of Americans who saw in the youthful president at least the promise of excellence in national life.

As the years have shown, Kennedy's assassination immediately transformed him into a mythical, larger-than-life figure whose hold on the nation's imagination resonates to this very day. "The image of Kennedy is not based on what he accomplished, but on his promise, the hope he held out," said historian Stephen Ambrose in 1993. Years earlier, New York Times columnist James Reston wrote similarly that "what was killed in Dallas was not only the President but the promise. The heart of the Kennedy legend is what might have been. All this is apparent in the faces of the people who come daily to his grave on the Arlington Hill." In 1993, Ambrose added, "There's a very strong sense that if he had not died, we would not have suffered the 30 years of nightmare that followed--the race riots, the white backlash, assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra." While this is, of course, speculative, what is not is JFK's legacy of rekindling the notion that public service is a noble calling. If it is any barometer of the sense of hope and promise that Kennedy inspired in the American people, the ever-decreasing trust by Americans in their government down through the years started with the Kennedy assassination and the subsequent erroneously perceived notion--fostered by conspiracy theorists--that the government concealed the full truth about the assassination from them. Trust in our leaders in Washington to do what is right for the people plummeted from 76 percent around the time of the assassination to a low of 19 percent three decades later. "There's such a gulf in history between the day before and the day after Kennedy's assassination," says historian Howard Jones of the University of Alabama. "It's as if we passed through a hundred years in a day."

The book is 1,500 pages long; I don't know if I'll read every word. So far I'm liking it.

More to come ...

Finished

2011-09-29T23:12:00.000-07:00

I finished Nixonland, a couple hours ago. Good read; I recommend it. The author, Rick Perlstein, set out to ascertain how we had come to be such a divided country, in which the two political sides not only disagreed with each other but saw each other as mortal enemies.

Earlier I posted the first paragraph of the book's preface. Here it is again:

In 1964, the Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon B. Johnson won practically the biggest landslide in American history, with 61.05 percent of the popular vote and 486 of 538 electoral college votes. In 1972, the Republican presidential candidate won a strikingly similar landslide--60.67 percent and 520 electoral college votes. In the eight years in between, the battle lines that define our culture and politics were forged in blood and fire. This is a book about how that happened, and why.

The "why" he traces to the period between that 1964 election and the subsequent one in 1968. Ronald Reagan is mentioned prominently, he won the Governor's race in California in 1966, but the book focuses on Richard Milhous Nixon (hence the title). Nixon's the one, Perlstein tells us, who identified the developing trend, rising out of the Civil Rights Movement and the ant-war protests, that middle America, whom Nixon would eventually refer to as The Silent Majority, did not like the direction in which the country was heading. There was a perception, Nixon felt, that the "liberals" and "elites" were leading in a direction that that Silent Majority weren't willing to follow. What they needed was someone to give voice to the resentments they were feeling.

Nixon was himself full of resentments: at the snobs who kept him out of the Universities he wanted to attend, at the big shots who wouldn't hire him to one of the top-tier Wall Street law firms, at the Kennedys, at the media, at the fat cat political donors who made him abase himself on national TV (the famous Checkers Speech). So he would show them all!

The second half of the 1960s was an easy time to find divides in America; Nixon exploited them expertly. And people like Abby Hoffman and Huey Newton stepped willingly up to personify everything Nixon told America it had to be afraid of. Bobby Seale exhorted African-Americans to buy "a gun a week," Jerry Rubin offered that it was the duty of the young to kill their parents. Peaceful protests gave way to violent confrontations, the Democratic Party was almost torn asunder; all of it played right into Dick Nixon's hands.

Nixon won in '68 but had to work with a Democratic-controlled Congress. Consequently a lot of progressive legislation passed over Nixon's signature and it can be argued that our 37th President did more for the environment than any predecessor or successor. He also signed into law the 26th amendment, granting 18 year olds the right to vote (though he privately feared that they would use it to defeat him).

Vietnam bedeviled him as it had LBJ before him. Nixon had actually used Vietnam as a club against Johnson, promising that his new policies would bring peace. Upon election, however, his new policies were to double down on the bombing while scaling back on ground forces in an act of political legerdemain. Not everyone was fooled by Nixon's "Vietnamization" policy and the war protests reached new heights, culminating in the Kent State Massacre. Nixon had done his work well and he actually gained in popularity as a result of Kent State. America had become an Us vs. Them nation.

Nixon's obsessions eventually led to his demise. Perlstein takes us through the whole menu of dirty tricks and presidential politicking that led to Nixon's crushing victory over McGovern and subsequent resignation in disgrace as the whole sordid story gradually was revealed. We read of Nixon's inability to enjoy his victory in '72, even on election night as it became evident that he was winning a historic landslide. He lamented not winning that 50th state (Massachusetts). He was miserable over not "coattailing" Republicans into majorities in Congress (in fact they lost two Senate seats.) And as always he was certain that the media were out to get him. In a way he was right.

One Last

2011-09-28T12:33:00.001-07:00

I have to share this part, yet. It's related to last night's post. Quoting, again:

The actress's trip marked the emergence of a new narrative about Vietnam: that people like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon weren't responsible for the disaster, but people like Fonda, stabbing America's soldiers and South Vietnamese allies in the back, were. It was the most convenient possible development for Richard Nixon--who was, exactly then, planning to stab America's soldiers and South Vietnamese allies in the back.

The ostensible aim of the war was to preserve an anticommunist government in Saigon absent the United States propping it up. Nixon had privately been maintaining since 1966 that this was impossible, and that the only question was the garb in which America would eventually cloak its withdrawal. Sometimes he imagined a politically satisfactory denouement might come of a knockout blow--as in his scuttled plans for Operation Duck Hook in 1969, or Operation Linebacker that spring. Other times he counted on his "madman" theory, with its threat of nuclear annihilation. Either way the point was to scare the enemy to sufficient concessions at the bargaining table that it would look as if the enemy had capitulated. Secret and intentional bombing of North Vietnamese dams and earthworks, if it was happening--and the president's "madman" signal on July 27 that if he wanted to decimate North Vietnamese agriculture he could do it in a week--was consistent with this logic. Massive bombing, enough to keep the Communists from overrunning Saigon until after his reelection, was the only way to preserve what he had started calling, stealing a phrase from the Democratic platform of 1952, "peace with honor."

But what he was working on now was neither honorable nor peace. His main concern was political timing. As the president put it to Kissinger on August 3rd, as the battered and bruised McGovern cast about desperately for a new running mate, "I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway. I'm just being perfectly candid." The problem, he went on, was the presidential election: "It's terribly important this year."

Kissinger put two and two together. He and Nixon had been reading each other's mind for some time now. Kissinger noted, "If a year or two years from now North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam, we can have a viable foreign policy if it looks as if it's the result of South Vietnamese incompetence." They could come up with peace agreement language--could "sell it in such a way," some transcribed Kissinger's words; others rendered it, just as pregnantly, "sell out in such a way"--that convinced South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu that America would stick with him until the end and get it agreed to in time for November. After which they could regrettably let "South Vietnam" evaporate and move on to other foreign policy problems.

For now they had to keep up military pressure, mining harbors, intimating wholesale dike-bombing, whatever it took to hold back the deluge during what diplomatic historians would later call a "decent interval": to "find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which--after a year, Mr. President--Vietnam will be a backwater." Then they could announce peace with honor. Only they would know they'd just stabbed South Vietnam in the back. "If we settle it, say, this October, by January '74 no one will give a damn."

But they couldn't settle it before October. They needed the war to keep going through the election. That way they could blame the continuation of war on the Democrats: their line could be, Haldeman wrote in a memo, that the sustained fighting proved the Communists were "absolutely at the end of their rope," their only chance of victory "to stagger through to November hoping that President Nixon will lose and they can get a good deal from the next administration."

Back in February, Nixon had said antiwar Democrats "might give the enemy an incentive to prolong the war until after the election." Actually, that was what he was doing, just as he had in 1968. Twenty years later, a superannuated Richard Nixon met with a group of young reporters just before the 1992 New Hampshire primary and copped to it. He explained that the incumbent Republican president would have been able to guarantee his reelection, but that it was too late: he ended the Iraq war when he should have kept it going at least until the election. "We had a lot of success with that in 1972," he told the assembled scribes.

But it was George S. McGovern's campaign that was "Mafia-like." Time magazine had said so.

From Nixonland Tonight

2011-09-28T00:23:00.000-07:00

In 1972 Jane Fonda traveled to North Vietnam to see the POWs and to determine if the Air Force was in fact bombing dikes in an attempt to flood the rice crop and starve the population (Nixon's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding). Quoting now,

Fonda arrived in Hanoi alone, a woman armed with only cameras, hobbling on a fractured foot. The day before, Jean Thorval of Agence France-Presse had been standing on one of the earthen dikes when bombs struck another nearby. It seemed, he reported in Le Monde, "the attack was aimed at a whole system of dikes." Fonda gave a speech over Radio Hanoi, hoping it would reach the pilots, describing, in case they didn't know, how the antipersonnel bombs beneath their wings functioned:

"They cannot destroy bridges or factories. They cannot pierce steel or cement. Their only target is unprotected human flesh." They "now contain rough-edged plastic pellets, and your bosses, whose minds think in terms of statistics, not human lives, are proud of this new perfection. The plastic pellets don't show up on X-rays and cannot be removed. The hospitals here are filled with babies and women and old people who will live for the rest of their lives in agony with these pellets embedded in them. . . . Tonight, when you are alone, ask yourselves: what are you doing? Accept no ready answers fed to you by rote from basic training on up, but as men, as human beings. Can you justify what you are doing?"

This while Nixon claimed to be "winding down" the war.

More From Nixonland

2011-09-27T11:54:00.000-07:00

As Perlstein is describing the 1972 Democratic National Convention, in Miami:

The new politics reformers had fantasized a pure politics, a politics of unyielding principle--an antipolitics. But in the real world politics without equivocation or compromse is impossible. Thus an unintended consequence for the would-be antipolitician. Announcing one's inflexibility sabotages him in advance. Every time he makes a political decision, he looks like a sellout. The reformers fantasized an open politics, in which all points of view had time to be heard. That mean that the Tuesday session adjourned eleven hours after it began, at 6:15 a.m.--a fortunate thing, cool-headed democratic strategists decided, terrified over what this all looked like on TV.

Sound familiar?

Nixon's The One

2011-09-18T20:50:00.000-07:00

Well I'm not going to be finished by tomorrow (as per my prediction), I just finished page 538. 210 to go. In this concluding page to Book III Nixon has just seen the 1970 elections go against him.

He began seeing 1972 in apocalyptic terms: if he lost the presidency, America might end. Any imaginable Democratic nominee was "irresponsible domestically" and "extremely dangerous internationally." He had come to understand something profound in his two years as president, in all those lonely afternoons brooding alone in his hideaway office in the Executive office Building--the kind of profundity too deep to share with the mere public: "America has only two more years as the number one power." America had either to "make the best deals we can between now and 1975 or increase our conventional strength. No Democrat can sell this to the country."

So it was that the Old and New Nixon, serpent and sage, collided in a single astonishing insight: in order to responsibly steward the American people through the coming crisis, he first had to bluff America into believing in its own invincibility.

Indeed, to keep from losing another election, he was willing to consider just about anything. This time around he would leave nothing, nothing, nothing to chance.

I can't wait to find out what happens. ; )

Nixonland

2011-09-12T22:09:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Rick Perlstein's Nixonland. It's the front-runner for book-of-the-year on my book list. Here's the first paragraph of the preface:

You can expect an after-action report in about another week.

Ten Years After

2011-09-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

So what are the lessons to be learned from 9/11? And did we learn them? Did some of us? Did all of us learn some of them? Did different people take away different things? Certainly yes to that last one.

The first lesson I take away is, leadership makes a difference. What if we had had different leadership during that time? I really don't know enough about Al Gore to speculate on how his administration might have responded, so I will suggest JFK. Imagine how JFK would have handled it. The man who kept his head during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when everyone around him was urging him to escalate, at the very height of cold war tension.

JFK was the man who launched the Green Berets. I suggest a very measured response would have followed. I don't believe there would have been a war in Afghanistan, much less Iraq. I believe he would have accepted the offer of OBL to be handed over to a third party for an internationally observed trial. Show the world that America really does believe in law and order.

Instead, of course, we showed the world that we can be angry and vengeful. We're going to war! And you're either with us or you're against us! And you don't want to be against us! The sad part is virtually everybody was with us, and would have stayed with us if we would have been less bellicose.

Also, I think we did learn that not everybody views us as wonderful old America. Everybody's best friend. Envy of the world. I think that was news to way too many people. It can be very hard to view oneself from another perspective and I will grant you that the perspective of Al Qaeda is not one I would have thought of. But still, was/is some examination of our role in the world called for? Yes! We need to stop assuming that we know it all, already. Let's try to find out what the rest of the world thinks and actually consider that they might have a point. Again, not Al Qaeda. They have no validity. But let's ask ourselves why anybody would even listen to them. Why do they get any support at all? Sometimes if you want to win friends and influence people you have to work at it, and not just assume that everyone will love you because you love yourself so much.

Finally, I think the biggest lesson to learn, and we've been told before and we'll be told again, is that life goes on. The world didn't stop turning that day. Whatever happens we have to deal with it. And a big, fat temper tantrum is always a poor way of dealing with anything. Look what it got us.

Obama Speech

2011-09-08T21:54:00.000-07:00

OK, I watched the whole thing. Didn't know if I would or not. I liked what I heard. I certainly wasn't expecting much, I was actually expecting more caving toward the whole Republican agenda. Now this was the guy I voted for. What I need to see next is some fire. Insist on this! All of it! Daily! If they delay, protest and obfuscate and drag this out into the general election campaign, of course, you bludgeon their moron tea party candidate to death with that.

It's time to start being a partisan, Mr. President, on behalf of the American people. Make it so!

Packers Win!

2011-09-08T21:36:00.000-07:00

Well I hope they don't give up 34 points every game but Yeah Baby! I'll take it. Next!

Here's The Other One

2011-09-02T13:59:00.000-07:00

Confused by what I'm doing here? I told a facebook friend I would post these on my blog, so he could see them.

University of Wisconsin, Madison Autumn 2009

Bascom Hall, room 55 T/R 4-5.15 p.m.

Radical political theory.

Instructor: Jimmy Casas Klausen Consultation: T 1.45-3.45 p.m.

Office: North Hall 409 E-mail:

Political Science 513

Overview. There are many strands of radical political theory in the Euroatlantic West. This course engages only two of them—namely, Marxism and anarchism—and we will pay particular attention to the fraught relationship between the two at the levels of both political theory and political praxis. Specifically, we will explore Marxist and anarchist arguments about the status and centrality of the state, the relation between national and international struggle, the “nature” of the human, party organization and the role of vanguard parties, the techniques and pitfalls of centralizing or decentralizing power, and the character of revolution. We end the course by examining a handful of post-1968 thinkers who seem critically to synthesize (heavily reconstructed?) Marxian and anarchist perspectives.

Course format. The course will be conducted as a seminar. We will cover between one hundred twenty-five and one hundred fifty pages per week and puzzle over, interpret, and analyze the texts’ arguments and themes in the context of rigorous, critical discussion together. Please note that I will lecture only briefly and occasionally.

Requirements. All requirements, except for the assigned readings (our basic framework), are negotiable and to be determined collectively. This will constitute our attempt at autonomous, decentered self-governance. Freedom as a practice, however, is not reducible simply to “negative freedom,” that is, freedom from requirements or impediments. Rather, freedom is an active and open-ended process that necessitates limits, techniques of self-mastery, and reciprocal challenge (between self as subject and self as object, as well as intersubjectively among peers). Hence, as the facilitator of your instruction, I do want to suggest that we consider seriously the value of consistent attendance and participation for the ultimate quality of our discussions; I ask also that we entertain the important role writing can assume in the refinement of our understanding of difficult arguments and concepts.

Texts.

· Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521450164).

· Michael Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521369732).

· Robert C. Tucker, editor, Marx-Engels Reader, second ed. (Norton, ISBN 978-0393090406).

· Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (International Publishers, ISBN 071780397X).

· Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction (Vintage, ISBN 978-0679724698).

· Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle (Verso, ISBN 978-1859841693).

In addition to these texts, which are available for purchase at the Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative (426 W. Gilman), you will be asked to consult a handful of writings online. The URLs for online documents appear after the assignments.

Copies of these books are also available at College Library Reserves.

Reading schedule.

3 September 2009.

Introduction.

8 September 2009.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What Is Property?, Chapter III, §§1-2; Chapter V.

http://marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm

Marx-Engels Reader, 3-6, 9-11, 26-52.

10 September 2009.

Marx-Engels Reader, 53-109.

15 September 2009.

Max Stirner, The Ego & Its Own, 1-18, 137-98.

17 September 2009.

Stirner, Ego & Its Own, 198-254.

22 September 2009.

Stirner, Ego & Its Own, 254-324.

24 September 2009.

Marx-Engels Reader, 133-75.

29 September 2009.

Marx-Engels Reader, 176-200, 203-17, 469-500.

1 October 2009.

Marx-Engels Reader, 586-617, 653-64.

6 October 2009.

Marx-Engels Reader, 221-76, 291-93, 294-98, 302-12.

8 October 2009.

Marx-Engels Reader, 312-64.

13 October 2009.

Marx-Engels Reader, 373-88, 397-99, 417-38, 512-19, 522-41.

15 October 2009.

Michael Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, 1-51.

20 October 2009.

Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, 103-68.

22 October 2009.

Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, 168-97.

Marx-Engels Reader, 542-48.

V. I. Lenin, What Is to Be Done?, chapter III.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm

27 October 2009.

Rosa Luxemburg, Organizational Questions of Russian Social Democracy (also published as Leninism or Marxism?).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm

Luxemburg, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch01.htm

Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, chapters 1-4, 8, 10.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm

Lenin, State and Revolution, chapter 1.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

29 October 2009.

Lenin, State and Revolution, chapters, 2, 3, 5.

3 November 2009.

Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 5-23, 52-55, 125-75.

5 November 2009.

Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 175-205, 210-23, 228-38.

10 November 2009.

Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 238-43, 245-46, 257-70, 323-43, 347-61, 364-67, 375-77.

12 November 2009.

Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life, chapters 19-22.

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5

17 November 2009.

Vaneigem, Revolution of Everyday Life, chapters 23-25.

Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle, chapters 1-3.

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/4

19 November 2009.

Debord, Society of the Spectacle, chapters 4-5.

24 November 2009.

Debord, Society of the Spectacle, chapters 6-9.

Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, 1-27.

26 November 2009.

Class will not meet.

1 December 2009.

Debord, Comments on the Society of the Specatcle, 27-89.

3 December 2009.

Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, 3-50.

8 December 2009.

Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, 51-114.

10 December 2009.

Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, 114-159.

Foucault, “Truth and Power,” in Power/Knowledge, ed. Colin Gordon, 109-34. [To be distributed.]

15 December 2009.

Hakim Bey, “Black Crown & Black Rose: Anarcho-Monarchism & Anarcho-Mysticism,” “Nietzsche & the Dervishes,” “Resolution for the 1990’s: Boycott Cop Culture,” The Temporary Autonomous Zone (entire).

http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz_cont.html

Bey, “Permanent Autonomous Zone,” “The NoGoZone,” “The Periodic Autonomous Zone,” “Primitives and Extropians.”

http://www.hermetic.com/bey/index.html

For the Record

2011-09-02T13:49:00.000-07:00

I actually had this course in the fall of 2007. Seems like the same shit, though. ; ) Sharpless is a character.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Department of History
Fall, 2004
HISTORY 101
The History of the United States, 1620-1865

Professor John Sharpless 4110 Mosse Humanities Building

COURSE CONTENTS:
The intent of History 101 is to provide an overview of economic, political and social trends from early European discovery and settlement (1620) to the American Civil War (1865). Naturally, the course will draw heavily on other social science disciplines (economics, political science and sociology) for much of its material. However, we will attempt to chart ecological, cultural and artistic trends as well.

BASIC REQUIREMENTS:
Attendance at both lectures and discussion section is required. To “test” for attendance at lectures, there will be occasional surprise quizzes. Although the points allotted to the lecture quizzes are few, they could make the difference at the end of the course. Discussion points will be awarded to students who attend discussion sections regularly. There will also be occasional short assignments to encourage reading and discussion on a weekly basis.

There will be an “in class” mid-term examination and a “take-home” essay examination, in addition to the final examination. The contribution of each component of the course will be weighted roughly by the following percentages:
Discussion Section Points 23%
Lecture Quizzes 2%
Mid-term Exam (in class) 25%
Take-Home Essay Problem 25%
Final Examination 25%

REQUIRED READING:
Students are warned that the reading requirements for the course are considerable.
In addition to the books on order at the bookstores, there will be photocopied materials
and/or some reserve readings (some of these reading may be “down-loaded” from the library server).
The books listed below may be purchased at the University Bookstore, the Underground Textbook Exchange or “on line” at various web vendors. They are also on reserve at H.C. White Reserve Room.
Required Reading:

David E. Shi, George B. Tindall, America: A Narrative History (Vol. 1) W.W. Norton & Company; 5th edition (January, 1999) ISBN: 0393973492 Paperback

Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (Dover Thrift Edition) Dover Pubns; (July 1996) ISBN: 0486290735 Paperback

Joseph Martin (Thomas Fleming, ed.), A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier: Some of the Adventures, Dangers, and Sufferings of Joseph Plumb Martin Signet Classic ( 2001) ISBN: 0451528115 Paperback
2

Gunthur Barth (ed.), The Lewis and Clark Expedition: Selections from the Journals, Arranged by Topic Bedford/St. Martin's; (June, 1998) ISBN: 0312111185 Paperback

Alexis De Tocqueville, (Richard D. Heffner, ed) Democracy in America (September 2001) Signet Classic; (September, 2001) ISBN: 0451528123 Paperback

Roger F. Nichols, Black Hawk and the Warrior's Path Harlan Davidson, American Biographical History Series (December 1992) ISBN: 0882958844 Paperback

Frederick Douglass (David Blight, ed.), Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass an American Slave Bedford/St. Martin's; 2nd edition (December 2002) ISBN: 0312257376 Paperback

Recommended Readings:
[It is unnecessary to buy these books unless you are particularly interested in a special topic or period of history. With the exception of the “constitution book,” I have not asked the book stores to order these books. They are on reserve at H. C. White Library.]

Ray Raphael, A People's History of the American Revolution: How Common People Shaped the Fight for Independence New Press; (April 2001) ISBN: 1565846532 Paperback

Robert F. Tedeschi, Jr, The U.S. Constitution & Fascinating Facts About It Oak Hill Pub (1996) ISBN: 188147321X Paperback

Harry Watson, Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America Noonday Press; (February 1990) ISBN: 0374521964 Paperback

David Potter, Impending Crisis Perennial Press; (April 1977) ISBN: 0061319295 Paperback

PLAGIARISM:
Unfortunately, it appears necessary to comment on plagiarism and cheating. Obviously, it is expected that examinations and assignments will reflect your own original efforts. We do not discourage studying together; however, in the final analysis your essays, assignments and answers to the questions on the examinations must represent your ideas and be written in your own words.

If it is shown that your work in the course does not represent your own efforts, the consequences can be serious. Cheating could cost you your college career or, at the very least, it could mean an “F” in this course. But equally important, even if you are not caught, cheating is a sign of a serious lack of respect for the people teaching the class, your fellow students and yourself.
Enough said. If you make a sincere effort to meet the demands of the course, we will make a sincere effort to help you pass the course. Cheating is quite unnecessary.

Democracy!

2011-08-18T21:12:00.000-07:00

It strikes me that we (America) are getting farther from our founding principles all the time. The first sentence of The Declaration of Independence mentions "one people" assuming "the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ... "

The first line of The Constitution talks about "We the People" establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare, doing these things for ourselves. Coming together (forming a more perfect union) and doing these things for ourselves. Government of the people, BY the people. And, maybe most importantly, FOR the people. We do these things for our own, common good.

Does anybody see much of that anymore? I suggest that we see government of the state, by the people who get elected in elections which are entirely too corrupted by money, for the people who put up almost all of that money.

In the Federalist number ten (I believe), Madison worried about interest groups, and what might happen if our government should come to be controlled by them. He semi-dismissed the issue, apparently believing that no group could ever take enough power to "assume control." He felt that no single issue could ever unite a large enough group and that multiple issue coalitions would never be able to cohere for long. I believe he missed one.

Wealth. Wealth does two things that change the equation. First, it multiplies the size of the group, especially now that money has been ruled to be constitutionally protected "speech." So a small "interest group" becomes large. Second, it binds better than other commonalities. Its interests never vary; like a predator seeking prey, always on target. Wealth's interest is, essentially, multiplying. Like a living organism, it seeks to survive and pass on.

I suggest that our government has become an instrument of the wealthy. Every government policy is crafted with vested interests in mind, every government action is directed toward some private end. And we allow it.

Why? Two reasons. A lot of people aren't paying attention (democracy requires participation, to work) and many of the participators believe that the best way to advance the common good is to let wealth seek to multiply. I can understand this philosophy, but I do not share it. Its appeal is that efficiencies are created when rational people seek economic solutions to problems. Seeking the highest payout is a very rational approach. Its flaw is that it scores the wrong outcome.

And this is what I meant, above, that we are getting farther from our founding principles. We need to start looking, again, at the middle and not one of the poles. If we want to assess how a particular set of economic polices are working over 10 years or 30 years, or even two years, we should look at the median American family and not the (Sam) Waltons. We can still have wealth-seeking, we'll still have rational people seeking economic solutions to problems, they'll just be

OK, I going to come back to this, it's starting to drift and I'm suddenly tired. ; )

Ron

2011-08-14T19:15:00.000-07:00

We buried my friend Ron today. Well, actually he was cremated earlier in the week and we had a service for him today.

We found out in April, I guess, that he had cancer. It started in his lungs and by the time he was diagnosed it had spread to his bones, lymph nodes and brain. They were using the term "stage four" which didn't sound promising for a recovery and I guess his surviving only about 15 weeks from then isn't too surprising, despite a round of radiation and chemo.

Ron would have been 49 this September 2nd and while 49 is much too young to be done he did live a very full life; one of those guys who really does, I'm sorry, did, squeeze every last drop out of every day. If he had a chance to do anything over he may have decided that not smoking would be a good idea, but I wouldn't bet on it. I think he realized that he had contributed to his cancer and accepted it as "part of the deal." He seemed to be very much at peace when I talked to him last.

I'm going to miss him.

Finished!

2011-08-07T20:18:00.000-07:00

I'm sending this in, directly. Posting it here first. ; )

Remember American Exceptionalism? What happened? America was going to be different, right? Exceptional. The first to try a radical experiment in self-government. Who better to govern a people than the people themselves?

The old way was the few rule and the many serve. The few owned the land, the many worked it. The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved. The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury. The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Enlightenment thought said that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness. Conservative reaction was to protect the old ways. But ideas don’t die easily and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson articulated these in the new world and said, let’s do this! And a new nation was born, “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

The Preamble claims that we form our government to “establish Justice … (and to) promote the general Welfare.” The idea that people could ever be motivated solely by interest in the common good is beyond naïve. But equally far-fetched is the notion that we can have a true society by pursuing narrow self-interest.

Consider tax policy. It’s in everyone’s individual interest to pay as little as possible. But the over-all good suffers. As taxes on upper incomes drop, disparity rises. Is this “good” for the community? How? As more wealth has accrued to the few the “misery index” has risen. As the middle class has shrunk the prison population has more than doubled. Coincidence?

We need the wealth of the nation to be equitably distributed. Not that anybody should be “given” anything but rather, let us recognize that wealth isn’t solely a product of entrepreneurship or “ownership.” Many factors contribute including labor and materials. Perhaps Earth’s resources can be most efficiently brought to market by the private sector but it does not follow that all wealth thereby created must go to the few. The “owners” of production deciding who gets how much is not so much “fair” as it is leverage. In Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus argues that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Socrates points out that the many are stronger than the few, so the many can leverage the few in the common interest. In a democracy the good of the many is about as close as we can likely ever come to advancing the common good. We don’t want wage mandates so the only lever we have is tax policy. We should return to the higher marginal rates of the ‘50s and ‘60s. Higher marginal rates accomplish two good things: more revenue (balance those budgets), and more reinvestment in the American economy as the wealthy avoid taxes by deferring income.

I don’t expect multi-national corporations to respond to an appeal to patriotism and “do what’s right for America.” But can’t we expect our policy makers to respond to such an appeal? Or is patriotism only something the have-nots are supposed to show during wartime?

Do we want to be exceptional or don’t we?

Almost Finished

2011-08-07T11:10:00.000-07:00

All right, 730 words must be condensed to500 and I'm there.

What ever happened to American Exceptionalism? Remember that? America was going to be different, exceptional. The first to try a radical experiment in self-government. Who, the question was, is better fit to govern a people than those people themselves? No one! Government of the people, by the people, for the people!

The old way of government, before the rise of Liberalism and the “rights of man,” was for the few to rule and the many to serve. The few owned all the land, the many worked it. The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved. The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury. The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Then came The Enlightenment and the idea that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness. And a conservative reaction to try to protect the old ways.

But ideas don’t die easily and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson articulated these ideas in the new world and said, we can do this! And a new nation was born, “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Now we are engaged in a great debate, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. At issue is whether we can survive as an exceptional nation, a nation with equality as an ideal. The Preamble to the Constitution states that we form this government to “establish Justice … (and to) promote the general Welfare.” Worthy, noble goals. How best to achieve them? By insisting that government get out of the way of profit-seekers?

No one doubts that humans are motivated by self-interest. The idea that people could ever be motivated solely by an interest in the common good is beyond naïve. But just as far-fetched is the notion that we can achieve the society that we desire by everyone always pursuing his own, narrow self-interest.

Consider tax policy. For thirty years we’ve tried to tax-cut our way to prosperity. Has it worked? I guess it depends on how we measure. Do we look at the richest one per cent and see how they’re doing? Or do we look at the median America household and see where it stands?

As taxes on upper income levels have dropped, income disparity has risen. Is this “good” for the community? How? As more and more wealth has accrued to the few the “misery index” has risen. As the middle class has shrunk the prison population has more than doubled. Coincidence?

We need the wealth of the nation to be more equitably distributed. This does not mean that anybody should be “given” anything but rather that there needs to be recognition that wealth isn’t solely a product of entrepreneurship or of “ownership.” Many factors contribute to the creation of wealth, including labor and raw materials. “America” decided long ago that the earth’s resources could most efficiently be brought to market by the private sector but it most certainly does not follow that all the wealth that is thereby created must go to the few. The “owners” of production deciding who gets how much of the profit is not so much “fair” as it is an example of leverage. Plato’s Thrasymachus argues, in The Republic, that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. In refutation, Socrates points out that by that definition the many are always stronger than the few. So the many can leverage the few in the interest of the many. In a democracy the good of the many is about as close as we can likely ever come to the advance of the common good. If we don’t want to mandate wages (we don’t) the only lever we have is tax policy. Which is why we should return to the higher marginal tax rates of the ‘50s and ‘60s. Higher marginal tax rates accomplish two good things: more revenue, which will go a long way toward balancing budgets, and more reinvestment in the American economy as the wealthy attempt to avoid some of the taxes by deferring some income.

I don’t expect multi-national corporations to respond to an appeal to patriotism and “do what’s right for America.” But can’t I expect our policy makers to respond to such an appeal? Or is patriotism only something the have-nots are supposed to show during times of war? Are we going to be exceptional or aren't we?

It's Starting to Jumble

2011-08-06T12:54:00.000-07:00

I'm going to have to pull this together into one coherent thread, somehow. In no more than 500 words. It stands right now at 486. Wish me luck. ; )

What happened? Is it possible that the right turn we took thirty years ago was really a wrong turn? That despite the lies of the Vietnam War and the deceptions of Watergate, the way to Exceptionalism isn’t to kill government but to reform it?

The old way of government, before the rise of Liberalism and the rights of man, was for the few to rule and the many to serve. The few owned all the land, the many worked it. The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved. The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury. The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Then came The Enlightenment and the idea that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness. And a conservative movement to try to protect the old ways.

For thirty years our economy has been boom and bust with dot com bubbles, Savings and Loan scandals and bank bailouts.

Unblocking

2011-08-05T12:19:00.000-07:00

I've had some sort of writers' block ever since school ended. Suddenly I can't write without a deadline? Fuck! Anyway, I've been talking up a guest column for the State Journal that I'm fixin' to write, to self-impose a deadline, I guess. I have it about half way there, length-wise, plus I will be revising it before submission, no doubt. Here's what I have so far (the second paragraph is probably coming out):

The old way of government, before the rise of Liberalism (the real kind, not the Rush Limbaugh kind), was for the few to rule and the many to serve. The few owned all the land, the many worked it. The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved. The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury. The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Then came The Enlightenment and the idea that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness. And a conservative movement to try to protect the old ways.

Staying Cool

2011-07-22T14:05:00.000-07:00

Here's to doing whatever it takes to stay cool:

Don't Mess With Texas!

2011-07-07T23:10:00.000-07:00

Texas is an interesting state. Today they executed a death sentence on a Mexican citizen, in spite of the fact, as it turns out, that he was denied one (at least) of his rights under the U.S. Constitution, which states that " ... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The right which this Mexican citizen was denied concerns a foreign treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, for what that's worth, and states that all foreign nationals have the right to "counsel with their consul." ; )

Texas, Governor Rick Perry in particular, feels that in Texas they do whatever they want; the federal government can't dictate to them, foreign governments sure as hell can't. Perry, at times, when his poll numbers are dropping I suppose, will trot out the old secession talk. So I started thinking about that.

Suppose we said, you want out? OK, you're out. Texas, you are now a foreign country, to us. And keep your damn "citizens" out of our country! Then we build a wall. A nice high one. And we put some signs up, No Texans Allowed! We require any Texan that wishes to travel in the U.S. to get a passport. If any Texan wishes to move to the U.S. he must go through a lengthy and somewhat arbitrary approval process. If any Texan is found in the U.S. and cannot produce the necessary passport or proof of citizenship, or some sort of "work permit" he is to be immediately tossed into a jail, which will be run by a warden who hates Texans. He'll get to appear before a judge and explain himself. Eventually.

Think that's what he has in mind?

Some More William James

2011-06-27T20:56:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the History of American Thought, and William James's contribution to it, I suggest that the idea that we may very well exist in a "God"-less universe leads to two philosophical questions, both of which were formerly answered by the existence of God.

The first asks what is the source of morality, or maybe, what is the ultimate moral authority? We covered that a little in the previous post regarding James's The Will To Believe.

The second question, with which we will now begin to deal, is, what is the source of ultimate Truth? Is there even one? Another way to look at this question, a beginning point anyway, is, what do we mean when we say we "know" something? Is there a difference in belief and knowledge? If we claim to know something that turns out to be false, is it fair to say that we did not actually "know" it, we only thought we did? And if we believe something is true, what is the point of claiming knowledge of this truth if we recognize that at some future time we may discover that we are wrong. Is there such a thing as knowledge or is it all just belief?

Whew! Why did I think this would be easy? Anyway, knowledge claims are based on various foundations. Aristotle believed that reason led to knowledge. The empiricists believed that examination of "the facts" would lead to knowledge of truth. Generations of thinkers relied on the authority of Aristotle. Others insisted that "holy scripture," "The Bible," were the only true authority, that God was the one sure source of knowledge, the determinant of Truth.

In What Pragmatism Means, James argues that truth is what "works." If we have a question and a possible answer, we "test" the answer, see if it "holds up." Against what do we test it though? Something in the writings of Aristotle? Look in the Bible? James says that the pragmatist doesn't rule this appeal to authority out, it can be used as a starting point, at least, but he doesn't accept "authority." He treats it more like informed opinion. What we also do, he says, is try it in the real world. Think about Aristotle and his idea that a bigger stone would fall at a greater velocity than a smaller stone. The pragmatist, indeed even the empiricist, says, "let's see." And if we determine that the stones fall at the same rate then we consider what we have (Aristotle says this, we just saw that) and we decide. The pragmatist sees no reason to distrust his own eyes simply for the sake of being faithful to the statement of a man who lived 2,000 years ago and can no longer be questioned, so he decides that, at least for now, the truth appears to be (is?) that two different sized stones fall at the same rate.

But the question remains, what IS the Truth? Have we found it? How can we know? The urge to check our findings is strong. But how? We would like to consult some ultimate authority, someone who "knows." That was always "God." God would know. If only we could ask Him. Which led many to the Bible. The Bible is God's word, God wouldn't lie to us (would He?); try to find the answer in there. Of course the Bible is finite and the number of possible questions is infinite so we can see that the Bible cannot answer all questions. Right? And anyway, the thinking is, what is the source of Truth if there IS no "God"?

James, as far as I can tell, says that there is no such source, there is only what works. We hold these truths, then, until new information comes to light and then we incorporate the new information into our new Truth. Obviously, then, we cannot afford to get to married to any particular truth, since new information may show us to be at least slightky in error.

So, do we ever really "know" anything or don't we? What do you think? (There is more in this vein coming, it's kind of a major philosophical question. ; ) )

Here's What I Wrote For My Class

2011-06-23T21:58:00.000-07:00

The class is Comm. Arts 368: Theory and Practice of Persuasion. I thought it might be a lot more about politics; so far it's been a lot about advertising. Today we did see some political stuff and last night's reading used Abraham Lincoln and Rush Limbaugh to make a point about "factoids."

Anyway, the assignment was to write a two page critcal analysis of some print ad or TV commercial. I used this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YOeCd03_tA

Here's what I wrote:

Visa: It’s everywhere you want to be. Who has not heard that slogan? It has been ubiquitous for more than twenty years. It works because it is true (Visa is accepted just about everywhere) and it describes something we want (a card that works like gold). Take it wherever you go and you don’t need money. This TV commercial adds another element:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YOeCd03_tA

This paper will analyze this commercial, beginning with the concepts upon which its appeal is based (there are two), evaluating the effectiveness and suggesting ways in which the appeal could be increased.

The commercial begins with action footage of NBA stars and a voiceover, “They’ve been called the greatest team in Olympic history … “ This is an appeal based upon the “Social identity-promotion” model. This model plays on people’s desire to feel a part of the “in” crowd. Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan; these three and the others are ideals of athletic excellence. If we can have ourselves identified with these “heroes” we will happily do so. Plus, it is also the Olympics. They only happen once every four years. Players on the Olympic team are perceived as the “best of the best.” The Olympics also play on national pride and feelings of patriotism. So we see widely admired superstar basketball players traveling across the ocean to demonstrate their excellence in a quadrennial event while wearing the red, white and blue, with a high likelihood that they will “bring the gold” back to America (they’ve been called the greatest team in Olympic history). I want to be a part!

So how can I share in this moment of glory and national pride? Obviously I can’t be on the team. But I can go as a spectator. That sounds exciting. But, I have a problem. I am not an experienced world traveler. How much money will I need? Will I have to convert my dollars to something else? What? Can I trust the “money changers”? What to do?

Enter appeal number two, based on the “ego defensive” model. This commercial plays on the promotion angle and the prevention. If I take the Visa card my problems are solved. It spends like cash. I am also warned that American Express will not cut it, “because once again the Olympics don’t take American Express. Visa: It’s everywhere you want to be.” I cannot go wrong with Visa, can I? Count me in!

Still, the commercial does leave room for improvement. If they really want to allay all of my fears, telling me that Visa is good “at the ticket window” does not go very far. What about food? What about the hotels? Is Visa really everywhere I want (and need) to be? Or is that just a slogan? I need to know this. Also, at the end, when they show the card, it’s blue. I would make it gold. The whole premise of the commercial, the part based on the ego defensive appeal anyway, is that my Visa card is as good as gold. It spends everywhere! Just like gold. The card should be gold. Why pass up this obvious and easy symbolism? It is true that the term “gold card” has a specific meaning to a credit card company but why would they assume that I am not a gold card candidate? Or even already a gold cardholder? And they could color the card gold regardless of whether or not is an actual gold card. AND, even if they would rather not do that, the one in the commercial can certainly be gold.

This commercial plays on the viewer’s desire to be part of the “in crowd” and invokes feelings of national pride. It makes the viewer want to somehow be a part of an exciting event, the Olympics. It then plays on the viewer’s fear of being “caught short.” It does this cleverly, however, not giving him time to begin to counter-argue and talk himself out of going, by offering the solution to the problem at the beginning of the presentation of the problem. “But if you think they’re tough, wait’ll you see the guys at the ticket window if you don’t have your Visa card.” As they show the card being slid across. Problem introduced and solved in the same sentence. Very effective commercial.

What Else?

2011-06-22T21:19:00.000-07:00

OK, I just wrote a paper for my summer class and unlike all those damn history papers I spent the last four years writing, this one took just under two hours. And that included watching a TV commercial on youtube about 14 times (I was critiquing it). So, I've got my writing brain revved up and extra time.

My favorite class of all of them (there are 2 or 3 other contenders but this one is it) was History 302: History of American Thought, 1859 to the present. As you might guess from the title this class dealt with American philosophy.

So what is American philosophy? Lots of things, no doubt. This course begins with 1859, not 1620 or 1776, or 1789. Why 1859? John Brown? The looming Civil War? Nope. Charles Darwin. A Brit? Yup. Why? Well, a lot of our ideas and ideal came from England, right? Still, that's not really the point. We started with Darwin (1859 was the publication date of his On the Origin of Species) because, basically, Darwin changed everything. Origin of Species affected a lot more than just how we looked at evolutionary biology. Darwinism implied that there was no real need for a "God" explanation of the Universe (something that had been evolving for a while, as Geologists and Paleontologists had already thrown serious doubt into the Biblical time line).

If God didn't create us, if there was in fact no "Creation" at all, just long, slow evolution, then how do we know that there even IS a God? We don't, right? That was always the basis for the belief; how ELSE could we have gotten here? Bit by bit, over the years, science had answered many of the questions that had once been considered unanswerable, except by "God did it." Certainly people could still argue that God created the universe and the earth, and life on earth, just as lower forms, knowing all along that eventually the human race would result. Kind of chips away at the Bible as absolutely true, though, as Genesis pretty specifically refers to God making Adam as a fully realized human being.

Anyway, the point of the class, then, was how did this new idea, or set of ideas, influence American philosophy. Basically, if there is no God (still an "if") from where do morals or ethics derive? People had been taught for ages that we shouldn't kill, or steal, because God has handed down laws forbidding it, and God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, etc. If there is no God, then ... ?

We read three pieces by William James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James, including (we'll get to the others, too) The Will to Believe (1897). In this piece James argues that whether or not there is a God, which might well be unanswerable, it is beneficial to behave in such a way as to win the approval of an ultimate judge. This goes well beyond Pascal's Wager, which he dismisses early in the piece as being "worse than silly, vile." James's point isn't just that we need to guard against future punishment by a supreme being but that living as if one's life matters, as if being "good" has value, leads to positive outcomes in this world. He will have more friends, he will be considered trustworthy, people will treat him with respect.

He also makes the strongest case I have ever heard or read for "believing" in spite of a shortage of hard evidence. Frequently in life, he writes, we must decide between two options when we would really like more information. So we decide; we do the best we can with what we have. Why should the matter of belief in "God" be different. It is no different, he says. Even the agnostic makes a decision. One either believes or one does not, there is no third option. If one does not believe, he has decided, based upon this same shortage of evidence he points to when confronting the believer. The argument that the agnostic is awaiting further information is a specious one, he says. No more information is likely to come. Meanwhile, the agnostic is still living his life based on his non-belief, as the believer is living his, based on his belief. There is no call for the agnostic to feel superior, he has done the exact same thing as the believer by choosing option B.

Read it for yourself, if you like: http://educ.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

In this piece James touches on the idea od universal truth, an idea which he develops further in our next piece.

Well ...

2011-06-14T20:35:00.000-07:00

... I'm back. 1,100 miles driven, one 50 question test taken (I killed it), some Jeopardy playing and an interview. I think I'm in. Won't know until I find out. ; )

Here I Go!

2011-06-13T09:04:00.000-07:00

I'm off to Kansas City to try out for Jeopardy! (well, after my first summer class, which starts in two hours). I'll let you know how it comes out.

The Conservative Paul Revere

2011-06-07T21:16:00.000-07:00

Since Friday Wikipedia has gotten heavy traffic on its Paul Revere page, including (reportedly) people going in and changing the entry to match what Sarah Palin said about him. I read what was on there just now, seems pretty straightforward. Nothing about "warning the British."

I thought I'd then have a look at Conservapedia, the web-site set up to be the counter balance to what somebody decided was the liberal bias of Wikipedia. Maybe they'd come up with something "creative" to back up Sister Sarah. When I looked I had to laugh. I guess that site doesn't want to be taken seriously.

Here is the entire entry:

Paul Revere (1734-1818) was a silversmith in colonial America who was very active in Boston-area revolutionary groups such as the Sons of Liberty. He is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, Massachusetts with William Dawes on the night of April 18, 1775 to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were coming to arrest them. Revere was captured before he could reach Concord, but managed to escape.^[1]^[2] His midnight ride was immortalized by a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.^[3]^[4]

^{Wikipedia has seven full pages. I will say this for the Conservapedia entry: I don't see any bias. So what was their point?}

OK, Back to School

2011-06-02T22:31:00.000-07:00

So what else did I learn during those four long years, spending all that money? Well, let's see ...

I had Professor Jeremi Suri for two history classes, back-to-back semesters. History 102: The U.S. from the Civil War to the present; and 434: History of American Foreign Relations, 1898 to the present. Guess what subject kept coming up?

Yes, it was war. We do, as a nation, have something of a history of deciding what we want and then taking it. Not always and not necessarily without some justification. But think about it. A war to tell England that we weren't part of them anymore. Another because they apparently weren't convinced that it really was over. A Civil War to reconcile an irreconcilable difference. Indian "wars" to take all the land, from coast to coast. A war with Mexico to take what is now New Mexico, Arizona, California, bits of Utah and Nevada. We helped Texas fight free of Mexico and admitted them as a state.

Some of this is actually quite defendable. The founders did try to reason with King George. The South was not only unwilling to give up slavery but were trying actively to spread it into the unsettled West in the last decade before the Civil War. I'm surprised that war didn't happen sooner. The "Indian Wars" are rather harder to defend but also seemed to have an inevitability that I can't see around. The Mexican War got us much territory that was only nominally Mexico, really. Many Californians wanted to join the U.S. The Spanish-American War at least started as an anti-colonial, Cuban independence move.

It was at that point that the 434 class started, actually. An unexpected benefit of the Spanish war was the acquisition of the Philippines. There were discussions regarding what to do. Do we want overseas possessions? Why? Aren't we anti-colonial? Senator Albert Beveridge, however, as well as others, insisted that this was obviously part of our "manifest destiny." Obviously God had decided that it was time (the frontier had just been declared "closed,"after all) for America to expand overseas. Asian markets, Asian raw materials, an American Empire!

Of course we went ahead. The Philippines were subdued (turned out that they didn't like colonialism either), T.R. sent the Great White Fleet around the world, the Open Door Policy was declared. Comes next: a couple World Wars.

Stay tuned!

Memorial Day

2011-06-01T19:47:00.000-07:00

Apparently the local PBS station ran The American Experience: My Lai this past Monday night. A Wisconsin State Journal reader has taken exception. His letter to the editor is here:

On Memorial Day, Wisconsin Public Television choose to show "American Experience: My Lai," a programming choice that was insulting to the men and women of America who have served and died for freedom around the world.

Using such a notorious incident as symbolic of all military service is deliberately provocative. No one would argue that America's actions throughout the years have been blame free. However, the highlighting of My Lai on the day we choose to honor our fallen is beyond bad taste. It is the deliberate pursuit of an agenda that is contemptuous of the beliefs, values and traditions of our country and the millions of soldier who have faithfully served it.

My father, father-in-law, brother, other relatives and friends did not ask to be placed in harm's way. They served where they were ordered. They did their duty and served their country from Okinawa to Berlin with honor, dignity and humility. They were and are truly citizen soldiers. They do not deserve the slap in the face that public television gave them.

It is especially repugnant to realize that my tax dollars were used to insult the people I honor and respect. More significantly, it must be infuriating to them to realize that their tax dollars were used to gratuitously denigrate their selfless service.

I decided that I didn't agree with him and sent in the following letter, hoping to possibly give him a different way to look at this "outrage."

A Wednesday letter writer claims that the showing of American Experience: My Lai, by Wisconsin Public Television on Memorial Day was "insulting to the men and women of America who have served and died for freedom around the world." He claims also that WPT was using My Lai as "symbolic of all military service"and that it was "deliberately provocative." And, oh yes, tax dollars were used to do so.

Perhaps. Or maybe nobody else assumes this intent. Maybe others realize that March 16, 1968 was not a typical day for the U.S Army. Maybe it IS important that we remember the bad things about war, too. It's not all about heroes and valor and glory. Sometimes it's about horror and slaughter and "payback." And yes, My Lai was your tax dollars at work, too.

Maybe one of the reasons we would like to forget My Lai is because we never really dealt with it. Blame the lowest ranking officer involved, commute his sentence, try to forget the whole thing. Because really, who was to blame? How far from "official policy" were the events of that day? My Lai was a "free fire zone." In Vietnam, everyone not wearing our uniform was at least suspect, if not presumed enemy. This was hardly the only village that was burned to the ground, certainly not the only instance in which civilians were killed. Who was to blame if not the war policy itself. And who is responsible for the war policy? Better to just forget, right?

Is Memorial Day about collective memory or selective memory? Maybe taking a minute, or ninety, to remember the other side of the coin is not such a bad idea.

So, is Memorial Day supposed to be only for "good" memories?

Mickey Mantle

2011-05-24T13:24:00.000-07:00

Yes there's more of what I learned, coming. But I just finished a biography of Mickey Mantle and want to comment on it.

The book is titled, The Last Boy: Mickey Mantle and the End of America's Childhood.

As the title implies, the author, Jane Leavy, explores the themes of youth and innocence, as well as immaturity and denial. Mickey, according to Leavy, never grew up, partly because he wasn't allowed to by "America." Another biography of Mantle was titled A Hero All His Life. Mickey was trapped in a role of someone else's choosing.

Leavy chose not to follow the classic form of most biographies, concentrating instead on specific moments in his life and weaving a narrative around them. Some of the moments highlight the legend, the "tape measure" home run in Washington, the ball he hit in Yankee Stadium that would have gone into low earth orbit had it not smacked into the upper facade on its way out. Other moments highlight the darker side of "The Mick," the public drunkenness, the marital infidelity, the erratic behavior.

Always there is a somewhat bizarre relationship with his fans. He would be very accommodating at times and very rude at others. The fans perhaps drove this dynamic, booing him lustily early in his career when he'd strike out; cheering wildly when he'd hit one of his bombs. A nineteen year old from Commerce, OK thrown onto the biggest baseball stage in the world naturally had some adjustment issues.

Mantle was the ideal teammate, truly "at home" only in the locker room. Nobody was more revered by his own teammates than Mantle. Nobody picked up more checks. Nobody treated rookies better. Nobody did more to make sure his teammates got opportunities that could easily have been just for Mantle. Also, Mantle left many hundred dollar tips for five dollar breakfast checks, even, sometimes, for a cup of coffee.

The last third of the book deals with his post-baseball-career life. Mantle literally did not know what to do with himself. He retired after the 1968 season, long before the multi-million dollar contract came to pro sports. So he had to earn money, still. He became, essentially, a professional schmoozer. He played golf, he shook hands, he signed autographs (the memorabilia boom only came toward the end of his life), he "made the rounds." Of course, all of this involved drinking. Lots of drinking. Totally out of control drinking. He drank for most of every day for 25 years. His self-confessed greatest regret was turning his four sons into drinking buddies. All four wound up in rehab and a couple with major health issues.

Mantle himself crashed and burned in 1994. Checked himself into the Betty Ford Center, got sober. Unfortunately the damage was already done and he died less than a year after gaining his sobriety.

Despite some annoying factual errors and sometimes murky sentences I rate this book highly and recommend it.

History 101

2011-05-19T23:09:00.000-07:00

Fall of 2007 I started as a full-time, degree seeking student. I knew I wanted to take a lot of History classes; 101: American History, 1492 - the Civil War seemed like a logical starting point. What did I learn?

I learned (already knew some of this) what a bastard Columbus was. I learned that the first African slaves came to America in 1609, eleven years before the Pilgrims. I learned about the economics of colonialism and how the American Revolution can be only be truly understood by at least factoring in economic issues. I also learned that the slavery issue had an economic component well beyond what I had been considering.

But the biggest thing I learned was that there is a very specific format that one must follow when writing history papers. And that this even includes essay questions on exams. I got a BC in this class, the only grade below B on my transcript. But I learned.

Continued

2011-05-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

Spring semester 2007. Still part time, one class. History of Science 201. I wanted either Spanish or an interesting History class or another Political Science but as a "visiting student" I had to wait until all degree program students had registered and choose from what was left.

My Aikido Sensei, Math Major, UW Class of '72, had spoken of his History of Science class, way back then. He still remembered everything. Seemed like it anyway. He made it sound quite interesting. So I found an opening in and jumped in.

201 covered from the earliest recorded history up until Newton. I missed the whole second week of lectures and suffered for it, a little. When I came back we were up to the Greeks. Ptolemy's astronomy. Lasted for centuries. The "problem of change." In a science class? Well, History of Science. I began to realize that science and philosophy were much more intimately related than I had presumed. Science, I guess, is our means of determining what is. And philosophy our way of deciding what it means.

This was the class where I began to ponder the nature of knowledge. What does it mean when we say we "know" something? How do we obtain knowledge?

This question followed me through the rest of my classes. I still don't "know" the answer. But at least I now know enough to ask the question.

What Else Did I Learn?

2011-05-17T14:37:00.000-07:00

I was going to go class by class here and I may get back to that. Tomorrow. Today, though, I'm going to talk about why, as is pointed out on The Yellow Fringe today, http://yellowfringe.blogspot.com/2011/05/poor-bangladesh-astonishing-number-of.html America is lagging behind China and Denmark and even, apparently, Bangladesh at moving to "green" energy.

In Politeia (we read all or part in three different classes), poorly translated as The Republic, Plato tries to describe the "perfect city" and how it would be governed. He uses the character Socrates, his then deceased teacher, to critique Athenian democracy and to muse about some other possibilities.

Democracy, according to Plato/Socrates, is hampered by one fatal flaw: the People are not fit rulers. They are, by and large, not that smart. They are easily led astray. They can be pandered to. They think only of their own, narrow interests, individually, or they become factions and vote based again on self-interest. Never do they think about the greater good.

Fast forward to America, today. Why can't we switch to a green energy platform? See above. We are, somewhat, at least, a nation of not very well-educated, selfish morons, easily led astray by pandering politicians. We believe what we want to believe, someone's always there to tell us we're "right."

"Don't listen to those lefty liberal commie tree-huggers promoted by the lamestream media. Do whatever you want! Consume! Pollute! Live for today!"

Because really, why should I sacrifice one iota for the next generation? What have they ever done for me?

Democracy: can't live with it, can't live without it.

What Did I Learn?

2011-05-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

I "graduated" yesterday, with a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Wisconsin. I say "graduated" because I actually still have to take (and pass) a summer class. But that won't be a problem.

So, the question is, what did I learn?

Well, lots of things. So I'm going to take a little time and go into some detail. Literally class by class, over the next couple weeks.

To start, we go back to the fall semester of 2006. My friend JD, works on campus, had put the idea in my head of taking a class or two for something to do. I was always looking for new, interesting "diversions" so I thought, why not?

I went in, found the right person to talk to and got admitted as a "visiting student." One class, take my pick. I was a full time bartender then and Mr. C., a high school math teacher and frequent visitor suggested political science was my logical starting point. So I looked there first and found ...

Political Science 104: Introduction to American Government and Politics. Perfect! So, what did I learn from that class?

First and foremost I learned that I liked being back in school, more than I ever had when I was younger. Second, I learned that I could handle college level course work, but that it would require my best effort.

From the class itself I learned how our government works, in theory anyway. We spent the first three weeks on the Constitution, including reading the whole thing, start to finish (a first for me). Then we moved on to the different branches of government, how they work, where their powers overlap and where they serve as checks on each other. Then elections. Then parties. Finally, the role of the press.

But the biggest thing I learned, long overdue, was (starting the process, anyway) how to read critically. Who wrote the piece? What is his bias? What does somebody else say? Which one do I believe? And why? Because he fed my bias or because he was more "credible," somehow? Or did he just present his case better, and what are the implications of that? Is there any "truth" or does it just come down to who is more persuasive?

More to come.

Thought I'd Share This

2011-05-14T22:12:00.000-07:00

Bill Hicks and the Place of Corporate Comedy

By Anonymous

Created 05/13/2011 - 08:37

by:

Charles M. Young

I have three comedians on my iPod: Richard Pryor, George Carlin and Bill Hicks. All of them evolved as much into prophets as comedians, and all of them died younger than they should have from maladies that probably had something to do with the stress of being a live performer on the road in corporate America.
Hicks died the youngest, of pancreatic cancer at the age of 32 in 1994. Perhaps his pancreas had had enough of his drinking, which started later than usual at the age of 21 but got excessive quickly. Or maybe it was road food from all that driving to comedy clubs around the country. He looked puffy by his mid-20s. If Hicks came back from the dead, he could do a good routine about government agents slipping some carcinogen (white sugar?) into his food because his routines had come too close to the truth.
That was one of his best joke constructions, taking some dark conspiracy theory lurking in the collective unconscious and validating not so much the theory as the paranoia that got the imagination fired up in the first place. In a routine called “The Elite” on his album Rant in E-Minor, Hicks speculates on what happens to a new president. “When you win, you go in this smokey room with the 12 industrialist/capitalist scumfucks who got you [elected]...And this screen comes down—whrrrrrrr—and this big guy says, ‘Roll the film.’ It’s a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you’ve never seen before. [Big laugh.] And it looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. And the screen comes up and they go to the new president and say, ‘Any questions?’”
Hicks did believe the Warren Commission was a lie, but you can have any theory you want about the Kennedy assassination and get the joke there. He’s describing a fictional situation, and in literal reality, it doesn’t happen like that. Long before anyone is elected president, they are vetted for obedience. Nobody has to tell politicians to obey, or what the consequences of disobeying would be. New presidents want to obey, and that’s why they got the nomination. What Hicks is getting at is not so much conspiracy but the deeper truth that inspires so many grassroots conspiracy theories. It really is a tiny number of industrialist/capitalist scumfucks who control everything. They will tell any lie and commit any crime to keep their power. Hicks not only understood that, he could make phenomenal jokes about it.
I saw the recent documentary about Hicks, American: The Bill Hicks Story. As a coming of age story about a teenager who figures out that he’s funny, becomes fascinated by the mechanics of humor, and is performing in nightclubs before he can drive, it’s compelling and even triumphant. Growing up talented in the Deep South always has its element of heroism. The story is not so much about finding himself, which he did by his late teens, but finding a place to display what he found of himself. That was a struggle until the end.
Bill Hicks
The documentary half-clarifies the infamous incident where David Letterman censored Hicks’ routine in a 1993 appearance, just removed the whole bit from his show, which demoralized Hicks toward the end of his life. In 2009, Letterman decided to clean up his karma, inviting Hicks’ mother on the show and apologizing for his poor judgment as an editor. The documentary shows the apology, which was gracious, but leaves out the actual routine, which Letterman did run in its entirety for the first time on the show.
Thanks to the wonders of Youtube, it is possible to see the segment (Hicks’ mom and the routine), which is revelatory. I have four albums and two documentaries on Hicks, and the censored Letterman bit is one of his least funny. The guy is flailing, trying to maintain his shock value while staying inside the line of corporate television, which means he goes after lame targets like Billy Ray Cyrus. The joke that purportedly got him censored was a suggestion that the right-to-life movement blockade cemeteries instead of abortion clinics. Hicks picked a worthy target but missed it with a weak joke. Letterman was apparently afraid of offending a large group that gets offended easily, but the real problem with the routine was that Hicks’ heart wasn’t in it. His humor depended on crossing the line—not the line of good taste, which is easy, but the line of taboo truths—while Letterman has always stayed safely and lucratively within the line.
It has been said that Hicks’ influence lives on in the comedy of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. Not really. Stewart and Maher are both, at heart, GWOT Democrats. They have grown steadily more unfunny as Obama has steadily revealed himself as a tool of the usual industrialist/capitalist scumfucks. Even during the Bush administration, both Maher and Stewart were careful not to insult the military, which is way past the taboo line anywhere on corporate television.
On Rant in E-Minor, Hicks had this to say in a routine about integrating gays in the military: “Anyone DUMB ENOUGH to want to be in the military should be allowed in. End of story. That should be the only requirement. I don’t care how many pushups you can do. Put on a helmet. Go wait in that foxhole and we’ll tell you when we want you to go kill somebody. You know what I mean? I get so sick. I’ve watched these fuckin’ Congressional hearings, and all these military guys, and all these pundits saying, ‘Ohhhh, the espirit de corps will be affected and we are so moral...’ Excuse me! Aren’t you all fuckin’ hired killers? Shut up! You are thugs! When we need you to blow the fuck out of a a nation of little brown people, we’ll let you know. Until then...‘We are the military. Is that a village of children and kids? Where’s the napalm? Boooooom! I don’t want any gay people hanging around me while I’m killing kids.’”
Compare that with Maher’s orgasmic cheerleading for assassination on the most recent Politically Incorrect: “Barak Obama is one efficient, steely nerved, black Ninja, gangsta president.” He went on to congratulate Obama for out-Republicaning the Republicans.
There’s a modern prophet for you, like it takes nerves of steel to have hired killers shoot an unarmed man in the face on the other side of the world. Somehow I think that if Bill Hicks were alive, he’d be pointing that out. And he’d be pointing it out in little nightclubs (or in the UK, where he had more freedom to talk about America), not on Politically Incorrect.
As for Stewart, he jumped the shark on Obama’s inauguration day, and he got eaten by the shark with his “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.” It should have been called “Mass Self-Deprecation as a Show of Deference to the Industrialist/Capitalist Scumfucks.” His guest list is tamer than PBS News Hour, and the endless routines about cable news inanity and Tea Party anti-logic have become a biteless snore.
Here’s what Hicks had to say about the new Democrat who took office a year before Hicks died: “‘Ohhhh, that Clinton. Don’t you have hope for Bill Clinton?’ There no fuckin’ hope in that guy. They’re all the same. I’ll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here: ‘I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.’ ‘I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.’ ‘Hey wait a minute, there’s one guy holding up both puppets!’ ‘Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here’s Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fuckin’ morons.’”
Hicks had no mercy on his fellow comedians, especially a simpering demagogue like Jay Leno: “It all started when he did the Doritos commercial. Here’s the deal, folks. You do a commercial, you’re off the artistic roll call forever. End of story. Okay? You’re another corporate fuckin’ shill. You’re another whore at the capitalist gangbang...If you do a commercial, there’s a price on your head. Everything you say is suspect. Every word that comes out of your mouth is like a turd falling into my drink.”
Has that little piece of humorous commentary aged one minute since 1993? Everyone else is just following Leno to the bank. They don’t even think about it anymore. I mean, who cares if Leno “betrayed” Conan O’Brien when Leno came back to the Tonight Show? They both betrayed themselves first. What O’Brien stands for is Bud Light, iPhone, American Express and whatever else he’s endorsed. What’s to betray? O’Brien even tried to make fun of himself for taking the money in his Bud commercial, as if Ivy League snark immunizes you from being thrown off the artistic roll call forever. Nope. It’s just another turd in Bill Hicks’ drink, and that’s where the industrialist/capitalist scumfucks want their corporate comedy.

Source URL: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/610

Last One!

2011-05-13T12:37:00.000-07:00

For my History of Science class:

Pure Science and Applied Science: A Symbiotic Relationship

At least since Francis Bacon, claims have been made about the practical benefits to humankind that scientific research can produce. At times, though, applications have preceded explanations, challenging how much “pure” science is needed. The value of “applied” science is easily understood. The steam engine, the electric light, the telegraph, all have benefits for humankind. But while these are examples of applied science they could not have happened without foundation in pure science. Are pure and applied science even separate things, or are they more like two sides of a coin? This paper will argue that rather than thinking of “pure” and “applied” science as separate entities a more accurate distinction is that there are two kinds of scientists: those interested in knowledge for its own sake, and those who seek to apply knowledge to solve problems, and that like a coin, each side depends on the other for its full value.

Francis Bacon’s New Organon (1620) is subtitled, Or True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature. In it he addresses the divide between the two ways of pursuing science. “Let there be … two streams and two dispensations of knowledge … two tribes or kindreds of students in philosophy—tribes not hostile or alien to each other, but bound together by mutual services; let there in short be one method for the cultivation and another for the invention, of knowledge.”[1] (Emphasis added.) Some people, Bacon says, will be constrained from “inventing” knowledge, “either from hurry or from considerations of business”; they will be the ones who apply the knowledge “invented” by the other group, the ones whom he invites to join him in penetrating further, “to overcome, not an adversary in argument but nature in action.” Bacon sees himself as a “pure” scientist, a seeker of “certain and demonstrable knowledge.”[2] But, he points out, there is also value to the other group, with whom his group is “bound together by mutual services.” (Emphasis added.) It is clear why he sees the other group as needing his group. This paper addresses why his group needs the other.

Scientists, as humans, must eat and have shelter. They need clothes to wear, shoes, furniture, all the things that other men require. Some men are “well-born” and need never concern themselves with these requirements. Most men, however, must earn life’s necessities. This creates a dilemma for the “pure” scientist. Scientific research and experimentation have value to society but not always obviously or immediately. Yet the scientist must eat every day. Somehow he must have his needs fulfilled while he pursues his work. At one time the Roman Catholic Church was a patron of science, providing the scientist with his basic needs so that he could go about his work. The Church expected scientists to be content with “handmaiden” status; their discoveries were to be presented as revelation of God’s perfection. However new discoveries became harder to reconcile with “scripture.” Scientists wanted to pursue their science wherever it took them and not be enjoined from publishing their work. The Church had no interest in supporting scientists who were not serving its purposes.[3] Pure science suffered for want of application.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century Thos. Savery claimed that he had devised a machine that would solve an old problem; water flooding underground mines. Savery never produced a practical model, however his attempts shed light on the relationship between pure and applied science. This attempt serves as a focal point for the joining of Bacon’s “two streams.” Savery demonstrated a working model of his “Miner’s Friend” in 1702 but still needed to make it work deep underground. Savery had patented his pump and applied for an extension, which was granted. Patents were crucial to allowing pure science to proceed. With a patent Savery could attract investors who would have a reasonable expectation of seeing a return on their investment due to having exclusive rights to the machine’s application. Investors allowed Savery to continue his work without having to produce immediate results.[4]

Perhaps more illustrative of the symbiosis of applied to pure science is James Watt’s improvements to the Newcomen (steam) engine. Watt was a successful instrument maker but set that aside and set about to improve the engine’s efficiency. This became a long process, made possible because several investors were willing to support him. One in particular, Matthew Boulton, waited out an early patron who went bankrupt, allowing Boulton to pick up two-thirds interest in Watt’s enterprise. Boulton’s deeper pockets in turn allowed Watt to scrap the light, flimsy model he had been constructing and begin again with a sturdier design. The pairing worked very well for both parties: Watt devised a steam engine that proved so popular there were almost five hundred in use by the expiration of the patent, in 1800; Boulton created an innovative business model, including a “build to order” feature, and both men increased their wealth.[5] Perhaps Watt’s science wasn’t completely “pure” as it was applicable to an engineering problem. Certainly Watt built on earlier work by Boyle and Hooke but his work was original, too. Watt was on both sides of the coin.

Less than one hundred years later, in his Plea For Pure Science, H.A. Rowland made the case for keeping pure science apart from the applications to which it might be put. He saw the need for science to be free to race ahead, letting the applied side come along at its own speed. If work could only proceed at a pace fixed by applicability America could become like the Chinese, “a people … who have made no progress for generations, because they have been satisfied with the applications of science, and have never sought for reasons for what they have done.”[6] Rowland also expressed concern that as most people could only appreciate the practical side of science, the pure scientist would perceive “that his higher ideas are too high to be appreciated by the world” and he will be dragged down to the level of the masses.[7] If we do not disconnect the pure from the practical, he claims, the pure will die.

So the question of how the pure scientist will survive came up again. “The scientist and the mathematician … must earn their living by other pursuits, usually teaching, and only devote their surplus time to the true pursuit of their science.”[8] But even these men, because of small salaries and the atmosphere in which they exist, turn too often to commercial pursuits, to applied science. Rowland calls upon these pure scientists, university professors especially, to pursue pure science with vigor, to forsake the pursuit of wealth. He calls upon the universities to support these professors with ample salaries and the necessary space and equipment. And he calls upon the wealthy families of the nation to concentrate their endowments, creating a few true universities.

Rowland’s plea is idealistic and impractical. Pure science and applied science are intimately related. Men will always seek uses for knowledge and return on investment. Applied science needs pure science for foundation. Pure science needs applied science lest it vanish from disinterest. The coin cannot be split down the middle.

[1] Francis Bacon, The New Organon and Related Writings, edited, with an introduction, by Fulton H. Anderson, The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1960, page 36.

[2] Ibid.

[3] David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992, pages 223-233, and Paolo Rossi, The Birth of Modern Science, First English translation by Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 2001, pages 73-98.

[4] Robert Friedel, A Culture of Improvement, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007, copyright Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007, pages 191-194.

[5] Ibid, pages 201-207.

[6] H.A. Rowland, A Plea For Pure Science, Science, Volume 2, Issue 29 (August 24, 1883), page 242.

[7] Ibid, page 243.

[8] Ibid, page 244.

Word Count: 1200

Good Ol BlogSpot

2011-05-13T10:03:00.000-07:00

Apparently Blogger "ate" a whole days worth of posts (at least).

One More

2011-05-11T19:21:00.000-07:00

Here's the last assignment for my Islamic History class. It was good but I'm glad it's over. ; )

How The Middle East Became Islamic

This paper will answer the question, how did the Middle East become Islamic? It will argue that “becoming Islamic” was about more than adopting a set of religious beliefs. “Islamic culture” was also part of the Islamization process. This paper will further argue that part of the process included Muslims, the people spreading Islam, absorbing the culture of the regions into which they expanded. Finally, this paper will argue that the religion itself incorporated ideas that were extant in the Arab Middle East during Muhammad’s life, facilitating its eventual spread.

Muhammad began speaking to his fellow Meccans about the “one true God” between 610 and 620 C.E. Monotheism was not familiar to most Arabs of Muhammad’s time; it certainly was not commonly practiced, thought there were both Jews and Christians on the peninsula. Otherwise, Arabia was polytheistic. The pattern of Arabian religion was simple. There were no temples on the order of the societies of the Fertile Crescent and little or no mythology was produced. Still, in the century or two preceding the birth of Muhammad monotheism was taking root in the settled societies bordering “Arabia.” Mecca being on the trade route between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, Christians and Jews passed through with some regularity. It is likely, though ultimately unknowable, that Muhammad, himself a merchant, came into contact with Jews and Christians during the course of conducting business and listened to their ideas regarding the creation of the world and the nature of the one true God responsible for its creation. We do know that there were Jews in Medina when Muhammad arrived there from Mecca, where his message was not being warmly received, and that Muhammad initially tried to incorporate them into the Umma (Islamic community). In any case, Muhammad, whether divinely inspired or not, created a religion that drew a line from God, through Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, through himself and into the creation of the Qur’an, which he presented as revelation from the one God.

After Muhammad’s death, in 632, his followers began to spread his message. Initially they were simply securing the borders, converting or conquering the nomadic tribes on the frontier. Part of Muhammad’s message, though, had been to unite the Arabs in one polity, the Umma. This produced tangible benefits for the members of the Umma, as spoils were collected from the newly conquered territories and distributed among the community, creating a political elite. The newly conquered/converted regions saw benefits too, as commerce thrived under a central authority, along with a justice system to replace the tribal feuding that had previously existed. As the Umma expanded toward Empire, people accepted Muslim rule largely because they were not expected to abandon their own religious beliefs. They were asked only to accept the Qur’an’s societal rules and not to offend Muslim sensibilities by practicing their own religions ostentatiously. The Muslim political community is what spread initially; people eventually converted to the religion, or not, as they saw fit.

The spread of Islamic culture has a different dynamic. First, culture is more than just one thing, including literature, poetry, music, visual art, architecture and, perhaps most importantly, social norms. Pre-Islamic Arabian society left almost no evidence of any developed arts, other than some poetry. So any Islamic art culture evolved as Islam spread throughout the region. It evolved by combining elements of the various societies that were absorbed into the Islamic state. When the Abbasids moved the capital from Damascus to Baghdad eastern influences (Persian, Chinese, Indian) began to dominate the previous Byzantine and Greco-Roman influence. Persian influence is especially seen in paintings and rug weaving. Also, the most famous work of Islamic literature is the Persian Book of One Thousand and One Nights (usually called The Arabian Nights, in the West). Chinese influence is seen mainly in pottery and textiles; Indian mainly in architecture (which also had great Persian influence.) These different influences all merged in Baghdad and later, when the capital moved there, Samara.

Islamic social norms first arise from the Qur’an and the Sunnah (example of the Prophet). The role of men and of women is spelled out in the Qur’an. Muhammad had several wives so polygamy was permitted so long as a man could support them. Over time, as Roy Mottahedeh points out, a social structure emerged based on bonds of loyalty. Some of these bonds were based on oaths involving responsibilities and benefits for both parties. Others were based on commonalities such as occupation. First though, Mottahedeh points out, there was a consensus that one man should lead the whole Muslim community. When the Caliphate was no longer an effective political office, Kings were “hired” from outside the community. Only an outsider could rule in the best interest of the whole group, it was felt, since someone from within the group would tend to favor his “faction.”

As to how the King and his court should behave, Nizamu’l-Mulk shows how customs of various other realms were incorporated into Islamic regal culture. “Every courtier should have a rank and position allotted to him. Some should be permitted to be seated while others should be required to remain standing, as has been the custom from ancient times in the presence of kings and caliphs; the caliph always having as his courtiers the men who served his father. The Sultan of Ghazna always had twenty courtiers, of whom ten might be seated while the other ten stood. They derived this custom and practice from the Sámánid dynasty.”

Everything that can be called Islamic evolved as Islam spread through the Middle East or, as the actual religion, arose out of the context within which Muhammad lived. Muhammad’s religious ideas can be traced to Judaism and Christianity (monotheism, salvation in the next life), with the specific “facts on the ground” (first accepting Medinan Jews, then not, in the name of political expedience) as he attempted to win converts playing a role, too. The various arts were absorbed from the other cultures of the Middle East and rebranded (those that survived) as Islamic.

Finals!

2011-05-10T22:29:00.000-07:00

I really hated writing that long paper (mostly). This next one is much more my speed. I have to write two three pagers, choice of three questions, to finish up with my History of Islam class (which turned out to be way more interesting than I ever would have thought).

Here's the first one:

This paper is a comparison of the Arab and the Saljuq conquests. For this paper the term “Arab conquest” covers the period from Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. until approximately 750 C.E.

The death of Muhammad was, in Lapidus’ words, unexpected. Muhammad had recited the contents of the Qur’an to his followers over the course of more than a decade, including a great deal regarding how society should proceed, the roles of men and women, the penalties to be imposed for various transgressions, but nothing whatsoever regarding who should lead the community once he was no longer available. Perhaps he felt that they should solve that problem for themselves. In any case, his death created the possibility of dissolution of the community. The Khazraj, a leading Medinan clan before Muhammad’s arrival, elected their own new chief. Some of the Bedouin tribes, which Muhammad had brought into the community through a combination of force and persuasion, also began to reconsider their allegiance. Leaders within the community conceived the idea of a succession and elected Abu Bakr, a close companion of Muhammad to be the first Caliph (successor).

Abu Bakr’s first task was to reestablish the unity of the Umma (community of Muslims). The Khazraj bought into the succession; the tribes that did not were re-conquered. This re-conquest put eastward and southerly pressure on non-aligned Arab tribes resulting in an expansion of the territory under Muslim control. Abu Bakr also sent forces north to secure and extend the frontier, leading to the absorption of Syria into the Muslim orbit.

As the territory controlled by the Caliphate spread they began to mobilize the conquered pastoral tribes to expand the area of dominance. They did this by sharing the spoils with them. Their successes brought them into conflict with the Byzantine and Sasanian empires, which led eventually to the destruction of the Sasanian Empire and the taking of the territory south and east of the Mediterranean Sea, though the Byzantine Empire was not actually defeated and remained a threat on the frontier. Lapidus attributes the military success of the Caliphate largely to the fact that both established empires were weakened (and perhaps overextended) by decades of war. The people of the newly conquered territory accepted the commercial benefits created by the new arrangement and embraced Islam.

Administration of the new empire rested on two principles: keeping the Bedouins from pillaging farmland and working with the elites of the newly conquered societies. The Caliphate established Amsar, military garrisons, at strategic locations to keep the Bedouins under control and to keep the soldiers out of the cities, where they might create civic disorder. Islam was a unifying factor in keeping the populations under control, especially since no one was forced to convert. Instead, local customs were allowed to continue, just as local leaders were permitted to retain leadership positions. In this way the Caliphate could turn its attention to administration and expansion rather than putting down rebellions.

Tax collecting went on as always, with the system already in place being adopted by the Caliphate. In Iran, for example, this meant the Sasanian combination of both land and poll taxes. The general rule was the conquered people, especially peasants, workers and merchants paid taxes to the conquering soldiers, and the landowners and administrators. Always the Caliphate was the supreme taxing authority, allowing the regional governors and soldiers a “cut.”

The Saljuq conquerors came onto the scene in the mid eleventh century. By this time the unity of the first hundred years after Muhammad’s death was only a memory. The Caliphate still existed but the line of succession was no longer clear. Ali, the fourth Caliph, had “lost” the Caliphate before his death leading to the Umayyad dynasty. The Umayyads were eventually replaced by the Abbasids, a line tracing back to an uncle of Muhammad and seen by Muslims as more legitimate than the Umayyads, who had become nothing more than a military dictatorship (or at the very least were perceived as such by Muslims). The Saljuq were actually a family of Oghuz Turks, led by brothers Tughril and Chagri Beg. They came out of the central Asian steppe, crossing the Oxus River in 1025 and moving west. In 1040 they defeated the Ghaznavids and ruled Khurasan. Continuing west they moved into Iran, defeated the Buwayhids, continued into Baghdad and took control of the Caliphate. By 1071 they had reunited the Muslim empire from Khurasan to the Mediterranean, even defeating the Byzantine army, capturing the Emperor and opening Anatolia to Turkish invasion. The Saljuqs sought to rebuild the bureaucracy and sponsor Muslim religious activity as a means of acquiring legitimacy. They were ill equipped to rule as bureaucrats, however, and when the brothers died, successors split the newly reunited empire into smaller territories. Like the Arab Caliphs before them, the Saljuqs tried to adopt the governing institutions of their predecessors, most notably the raising of slave armies whose loyalties were bought with land grants. Problems of succession, however, led to the breakdown of centralized power and left the various smaller regimes too weak to effectively defend their borders and hold territory. By the middle of the eleventh century they began to succumb to Mongol invasions.

The similarities between the Arab and the Saljuq conquests, then, are military superiority, payment of their armies through taxation of the conquered people and the eventual loss of control due to problems with the succession. The differences are the use of Islam as a unifying force by the Arabs and only a mostly unsuccessful attempt to do so by the Saljuqs and the defeat of the Byzantines and the taking of Anatolia by the Saljuqs, something the Arab Caliphate had repeatedly failed to accomplish.

Finished Product (Though I still have time for fixes)

2011-05-05T23:13:00.000-07:00

Thesis

In the seventh century of the Common Era (C.E.) the Prophet Muhammad began to spread the idea of monotheism through the Arabian Peninsula. He did this with a claim that the one true God had spoken to him, in Arabic, through the angel Gabriel. Muhammad was initially met with skepticism and hostility, but by the time of his death his message had begun to take hold such that the religion of Islam was beginning to flourish and within 100 years of his death was the dominant religion of the Middle East. This paper will examine the manner in which Muhammad his message and built a society based on the ideals of universal justice as articulated in the Qur’an, and compare his methods with the spread of Christianity in the first century C.E. by the Apostle Paul.

Since we cannot actually know whether or not “God” spoke to Muhammad, or if Paul experienced a supernatural vision leading to his conversion in the early first century, this paper will take a neutral view of these “events” and treat both the Prophet Muhammad and Paul the Apostle as if they were simply “men with a plan.” Each had an idea, divinely inspired or not, as to how his society could become more highly functional.

Who Was Muhammad?

If Muhammad was not inspired by “God” and acted on his own then it becomes important to learn about the man himself in order to understand his actions. Muhammad was born in or around the year 570 C.E. in the city of Mecca, on the Western edge of the Arabian Peninsula, an area known as the Hijaz. Arabia in the Sixth Century was sparsely populated, being mostly desert, and was inhabited largely by nomadic tribes whose only connection to other tribes was competition for the best grazing land. Calling Mecca a city is even a bit of a stretch but it was a settled area inhabited by more than one tribe. While Mecca had some role in trade with the Yemen to the south and Syria to the north (the fertile regions of the peninsula) it was primarily noteworthy as the site of the Ka’ba, a shrine venerated by the various polytheistic religions of the region. As such Mecca was a rare place of “civilization” in a land where justice was that which one tribe could ensure for itself among other competing tribes. At the Ka’ba feuds and other disputes had to be set aside so that all could perform such religious rituals as they had come to do.

Muhammad was born into a not especially influential family (the Banu Hashim) of the Quraysh tribe, who were powerful enough to be the guarantors of order in Mecca. He was orphaned at an early age, lost his grandfather, whose house he had moved to, shortly thereafter and was adopted by an uncle. Growing up in Mecca Muhammad saw inequality all around. Within Mecca were wealth and power disparities; out past the frontier were nomads living a Spartan lifestyle. Also there were inequities in what can be called their system of justice. Then as always there were disputes between individuals and between tribes. Justice depended upon one’s power, especially the power of the tribe to which one belonged. Yet in Mecca, around the Ka’ba, people accepted that there was a standard of behavior that must be adhered to.

The Qur’an

In 610 C.E., according to Muslim tradition, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and began to reveal to him the words of the one true God. Qur’an means literally “he recited” (among other possible translations). Several chapters, or suras begin with the command “recite,” for example, sura 112:

Recite: He is God,

The One and Only,

God, the Eternal, Absolute;

He begetteth not, nor is he begotten,

And there is none like unto him.[1]

Tradition has it, then, that God intended for Muhammad to share this revelation with the Arab people.

It is also possible, however, to consider the Qur’an as Muhammad’s own thoughts and that when he began to share them with his people he was merely relying on his own sense of what society needed and would accept. Robert Wright suggests that to properly understand the Qur’an one must first “put it in order.” Not the order which it assumed about twenty years after his death, when it was first assembled as a finished text, but the order in which the suras were first shared by Muhammad. This ordering, Wright asserts, accounts for the variance in tone, “from tolerance and forbearance to intolerance and belligerence and back.” To read the suras this way “is to watch Muhammad’s career, and Islam’s birth, unfold.”[2]

Muhammad’s Career, A Preface

Looking back we can see that Muhammad set about to remake Arabian society in two ways which were codependent upon each other. First he would promote monotheism; there is one God and He is master of all creation. Second, there is one set of rules, one standard of justice, applied to all equally. The idea of one omnipotent God, who would stand as ultimate judge on one’s day of reckoning, served to reinforce the value of one standard of justice. The idea of equality elaborated in the second part appealed to the less powerful in society who would then embrace the idea of one God, as justice was something lacking in their lives.

The Apostle Paul

Six hundred years before Muhammad began his mission, another man set out to remake his society. Saul of Tarsus, as Paul was originally known, was a “Hebrew” born in a University town in Asia Minor, “Greek in atmosphere though under Roman occupation,” in or about the fifth year of the Common Era.[3] Though confirmed details of his life are few, he was evidently educated at the University in Tarsus and went to the renowned University in Jerusalem and studied under Gamaliel, the most revered Hebrew teacher of his time. Paul came out of Jerusalem not just a Pharisee, a Jewish “puritan,” but a strict one at that, having been taught that the Pentateuch, Jewish scripture, was the literal word of God, sent to “His people” through the prophet Moses. The Book of Acts, part of the New Testament of the Christian Bible, speaks of Paul’s persecution of Christians (for not being strict Jews) prior to his conversion (to belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Anointed One, or “Christ”) on the road to Damascus. Various interpretations exist as to what caused this conversion including the appearance to Paul of Jesus in a vision. William Van Buskirk attributes it, at least in part, to Paul’s hearing the words of St. Stephen (and then being put in charge of his execution) and having a change of heart.

Something in the manner of Stephen, perhaps his exaltation and certainty of faith, touched a deep chord in Saul’s nature and disturbed him profoundly. And although he secured letters and hurried off to Damascus to apprehend other Christians, his mind grew more and more troubled. Stephen had let fall a great revolutionary idea in the address he had made before the Sanhedrin, and in spite of every effort to do so Saul could not put it out of his mind. On the way this idea continued to clarify itself until suddenly it burst forth in all its majesty, in a light above the brightness of the sun, in a voice that sent him bound by the Spirit to save the Gentile world.[4]

Essentially, Stephen’s message was that the Children of Israel had failed in their spirituality, observing the letter of Jewish law, but not receiving the Spirit. Stephen’s message, then, was that Jesus had come to set the people of God onto the right path. Perhaps this meshed with Paul’s earlier classical education, which would have exposed him to Plato’s Socrates and the idea of a pure soul and knowledge through reason, as opposed to revelation. In any event, Paul ceased persecuting Christians, became one himself and began to try to lead them.

The Christian Church

Unlike Muhammad Paul had no need to start his own religion. He saw Christianity as being the vehicle for his ambition, an ambition at least similar to Muhammad’s: to unite the people in the society in which he lived under one set of rules, and to ensure justice. In Paul’s case there was already a central government in place, that being the Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire did have a justice system and a set of laws, Paul, like Muhammad in Arabia, 600 years later, saw injustice and inequality all around him. As would be the case in Muhammad’s Arabia, justice depended upon one’s access to power, and most people had little of that. Paul, already a monotheist, changed from the Jewish idea of following the (Jewish) Law to accepting all men as equals and believing in Jesus as Messiah. Justice would be better served if all men were equal. If all men are equals they should treat each other as equals. Out of this Paul developed the idea that all men could be “brothers,” in this case, brothers in “Christ.” There are conflicting theories as to how much of Paul’s philosophy traces to Jesus and how much of what Jesus says in the Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, is actually Paul’s influence put into Jesus’ mouth by the authors of those Gospels. Nevertheless we do have Paul’s own words in his Letters to several Christian congregations, and we can try to interpret them in the context of his mission.

Paul’s Mission

Robert Wright suggests that one way to look at Paul and his mission is to think of Paul as CEO of a corporation, with a desire to expand. To reach his goal Paul needed to convince people (his customers) that they needed what he was “selling,” and he needed to enlist some other people to set up “franchises.” He was selling a particular brand of Christianity, one of many at the time. Paul’s brand was based on the idea that Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity, held up as an exemplar and a prophet, wanted all men to live together in brotherhood. As Wright and other New Testament scholars point out there is scant evidence that the historical Jesus said anything about brotherhood; the historical Jesus was more likely an apocalyptic Jewish prophet with no interest in converting Gentiles to Judaism or “saving” them. But few people knew this. Christian cults had begun appearing soon after Jesus’ death and Paul tapped into the enthusiasm generated by this new religion.

Paul’s Method

First, Paul sought to sell people on the basic idea that Jesus was a worthy focus of their worship. The basic message of Christianity, at the time,

can be broken into four parts: Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah, the Christ; the Messiah died as a kind of payment for the sins of humanity; humans who believed this—who acknowledged the redemption that Christ had realized on their behalf—could have eternal life; but they’d better evince this faith quickly, for Judgment Day was coming.[5]

To this Paul added “brotherly love.” Perhaps because he believed that “God” wanted that. But maybe there was a more pragmatic reason. Wright, again:

The doctrine emerges from the interplay between Paul’s driving ambitions and his social environment.

In the Roman Empire, the century after the Crucifixion was a time of dislocation. People streamed into cities from farms and small towns, encountered alien cultures and peoples, and often faced this flux without the support of kin. The situation was somewhat like that at the turn of the 20th century in the United States, when industrialization drew Americans into turbulent cities, away from their extended families. Back then, as the social scientist Robert Putnam has observed, rootless urbanites found grounding in up-and-coming social organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus and the Rotary Club. You might expect comparable conditions in the early Roman Empire to spawn comparable organizations. Indeed, Roman cities saw a growth in voluntary associations. Some were vocational guilds, some more like clubs, and some were religious cults (cults in the ancient sense of “groups devoted to the worship of one or more gods,” not in the modern sense of “wacky fringe groups”). But whatever their form, they often amounted to what one scholar has called “fictive families” for people whose real families were off in some distant village or town.

The familial services offered by these groups ranged from the material, like burying the dead, to the psychological, like giving people a sense that other people cared about them. On both counts, early Christian churches met the needs of the day.

To some extent, then, what Paul called “brotherly love” was just a product of his times. The Christian church was offering the spirit of kinship that people needed, the spirit of kinship that other organizations offered. A term commonly applied to such an organization was thiasos, or “confraternity”; the language of brotherhood wasn’t, by itself, an innovation.[6]

So Paul set out to spread his brand, “converting” existing churches when he could, starting new ones when he had to. The way he did this was to work with people in motion. First century Europe had no internet, no e-mail, not even “snail mail.” If Paul wanted to use networking to spread his message he would first have to establish the network. He did this by traveling himself and preaching his message, converting and establishing a network of churches. But once he moved on he was unable to guide his people or even to know what was happening to them. So he wrote letters and sent them with the “business travelers” of the day. Several of these are collected in the New Testament, known as the Epistles of Paul. “These letters aren’t just inspiring spiritual reflections, but tools for solving administrative problems.”[7]

“Consider the famous ode to love in 1 Corinthians.”[8] (“Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful…”)[9]

Paul wrote this letter in response to a crisis. Since his departure from Corinth, the church had been split by factionalism, and he faced rivals for authority. Early in the letter, he laments the fact that some congregants say “I belong to Paul,” whereas others say “I belong to Cephas.” (Cephas is another name for Peter.)

There was another obstacle. Many in the church—“enthusiasts,” some scholars call them—believed themselves to have direct access to divine knowledge and to be near spiritual perfection. Some thought they needn’t accept the church’s guidance in moral matters. Some showed off their spiritual gifts by spontaneously speaking in tongues during worship services—something that might annoy the humbler worshippers and that, in large enough doses, could derail a service.

In other words: they lacked brotherly love. Hence Paul’s harping on that theme in 1 Corinthians, and especially in chapter 13. It is in reference to members’ disrupting worship by speaking in tongues that Paul writes, “If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” And when he says, “Love is not envious or boastful or arrogant,” he is chastising Corinthians who deploy their spiritual gifts—whether speaking in tongues, or prophesying, or even being generous—in a competitive, showy way.

The beauty of “brotherly love” wasn’t just that it produced cohesion in Christian congregations. Invoking familial feelings also allowed Paul to assert his authority at the expense of rivals. After all, wasn’t it he, not they, who had founded the family of Corinthian Christians? He tells the Corinthians that he is writing “to admonish you as my beloved children… Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me.”

Had Paul stayed among the Corinthians, he might have kept the congregation united by the mere force of his presence, with less preaching about the need for unity—the need for all brothers to be one in “the body of Christ.” But because he felt compelled to move on, and to cultivate churches across the empire, he had to implant brotherly love as a governing value and nurture it assiduously. In the case of 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, the result was some of Western civilization’s most beautiful literature—if, perhaps, more beautiful out of context than in.

Thus, for the ambitious preacher of early Christianity, the doctrine of brotherly love had at least two virtues. First, fraternal bonding made churches attractive places to be, providing a familial warmth that was otherwise lacking, for many people, in a time of urbanization and flux. Second, the doctrine of brotherly love became a form of remote control, a tool Paul could use at a distance to induce congregational cohesion.

By itself, this emphasis on brotherhood might not have called for doctrinal innovation. Long before Paul’s time, the Hebrew Bible had told people, “Love your neighbor as yourself”—an injunction, scholars now agree, meaning that you should love fellow Israelites (and an injunction Jesus quotes in the book of Mark). And for all we know, some of Paul’s congregations weren’t ethnically diverse—in which case cohesion within them called for nothing more than this sort of intra-ethnic bonding. So what exactly in Paul’s experience fostered the distinctive connotation of Christian brotherly love—the “universal” part, the part that crosses ethnic and national boundaries?

Part of the answer is that transcending ethnicity was built into Paul’s conception of his divinely imparted mission. He was to be the apostle to the Gentiles; as a Jew, he was to carry the saving grace of the Jewish Messiah—Jesus Christ—beyond the Jewish world, to many nations. (And he probably didn’t get this idea from Jesus, whose encouragement of international proselytizing at the very end of Mark seems to have been added to the book well after its creation.) Here, at the origin of his aspirations, Paul is crossing the bridge he famously crossed in saying there is no longer “Jew or Greek,” for all are now eligible for God’s salvation.

In putting Jew and Greek on an equal basis, Paul was, in a sense, giving pragmatism priority over scriptural principle. By Paul’s own account, the scriptural basis for his mission to the Gentiles lay in prophetic texts—notably, apocalyptic writings in the book of Isaiah, which half a millennium earlier had envisioned a coming Messiah and a long-overdue burst of worldwide reverence for Yahweh. And this part of Isaiah isn’t exactly an ode to ethnic egalitarianism. The basic idea is that Gentile nations will abjectly submit to the rule of Israel’s God and hence to Israel. God promises the Israelites that after salvation arrives, Egyptians and Ethiopians alike “shall come over to you and be yours, they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you.” Indeed, “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” Thus, “in the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall triumph and glory.”

So Paul’s basic message was that all men are brothers and should treat each other well, but to truly be accepted into the brotherhood one must accept the message that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and Jesus also wanted men to behave with love toward one another.

Muhammad

Muhammad faced the same situation as Paul, with variations. He saw injustice and inequality all around and he wanted to change that. He was close enough to Jewish and Christian settlements that he was almost certainly aware of their presence and how their societies operated. He could have attempted to convert his people to Christianity. Instead he created his own version, borrowing from these earlier faiths. Having to start somewhere he went first to his wife and, according to Muslim tradition, told her of a disturbing recent experience, which she helped him to recognize as divine revelation. Or, alternately, he went to his wife with an idea regarding how he could improve local society and she encouraged him. Either way, she went along, quite possibly believing that at the very least monotheism deserved her attention. Muhammad set about sharing his message with other family members, immediate and extended, convincing some that he was a new prophet, failing to convince others.

Using the Qur’an

Muhammad had a tool available to him that Paul did not, that being a still developing message from “God.” Whether Muhammad actually was receiving revelations or he was creating them, the fact that they were emerging in “real time” meant that Muhammad could react to circumstances as they unfolded.

Initially, of course, he sought to influence the city in which he lived, Mecca. The idea of a higher justice came largely from Jewish and Christian monotheism, it appears, but also from the Ka’ba, the shrine in Mecca, where people set aside their differences and suspended their blood feuds. Muhammad likely believed he could just expand the idea of the Ka’ba to all of Mecca. If to all of Mecca, to all Arabia. If to all Arabia … well, first Mecca. Unsurprisingly and unfortunately Muhammad’s message was welcomed by his people in inverse proportion to their status in society. Unfortunate as the people he most needed to influence were the ones least receptive to it. Unsurprising because, well, why would the people at the top of society, the ones whose needs were being met, wish to accept a radically different social order? The early suras, taken chronologically, reflect Muhammad’s attempt to reorder his society. They sound, in fact, remarkably like the Jesus of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, preaching meekness and humility, and the idea that positions would be reversed in the afterlife. Sura 42, verse 20,

To any that desires,

The tilth of the Hereafter

We give increase

In his tilth; and to any

That desires the tilth

Of this world, We grant

Somewhat thereof, but he

Has no share or lot

In the hereafter

While Muhammad built a following of the weak and dispossessed, much as Jesus had, the political elites of Mecca were not amused and when his uncle Abu Talib, who had been able to protect him through his influence as a member of the Quraysh, died, Muhammad fled to Medina.

Muhammad In Medina

In Medina Muhammad was welcomed as a Hakim, a mediator, and gained respect through his sage rulings. When he began to preach his religious message, then, it was received much more enthusiastically than it had been in Mecca. Medina became the first real home of the Umma, the Muslim community. This is where Muhammad’s political ideas began to take shape. The Umma would be a community of brotherhood. All who accepted Muhammad’s message of the one true God who would sit in final judgment of all men at the end of days, the basic idea of all the extant salvation religions, would be welcomed as family.

Medina, at the time, contained a Jewish population that had been accepted simply as people with their own brand of religion. This was a source of potential conflict as part of Muhammad’s rules for the Umma was that members accept that there “is no god but God,” easy enough for Jews who already believed that, “and Muhammad is his prophet.”[10] The second part proved problematic and after trying to convert the Jews in Medina Muhammad, who by this time had attained a great deal of authority and political power through his people skills, had two of the three clans exiled and the third slaughtered.[11]

Fortunately and somewhat presciently Muhammad had claimed from the start that the God speaking to him, Allah in Arabic, was the same God who had spoken to Abraham and Moses, the same God worshiped by both Jews and Christians (something which the Jews and Christians didn’t necessarily agree on); he was merely the most recent prophet. So as he set about spreading his religion and expanding the community of believers Christians and Jews, as well as polytheists, were welcome to join, needing only to profess their faith in the basic tenet: there is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet.

After consolidating his power in Medina and creating the first state-like political entity in Arabia Muhammad sought to bring his hometown, Mecca, into the fold. This required military victory, which he achieved after some early defeats. Once victorious, Muhammad again demonstrated his political acumen by bringing members of the Quraysh in as partners. He then brought the nomadic tribes of the region into the community, having established good relations with them prior to his military campaign against Mecca (indeed they had been allies and crucial to his victory).

Islam eventually spread throughout the Middle East, but it did so after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., just ten years after the flight to Medina.

Similarities (and One Difference) Between the Prophet Muhammad and the Apostle Paul/ Conclusion

Both Muhammad and Paul altered the societies into which they were born, forever. Prior to Muhammad there was no Arab state, just numerous small tribes competing for resources and imposing justice by extracting revenge from the offending tribe. Prior to Paul there were dozens of tiny Christian churches practicing various forms of worship of a figure about which they knew little. There was a state-type government, indeed an Empire, but justice was something only the powerful could expect. Both societies essentially were ruled by force; justice was what the strong imposed and the weak accepted, however unwillingly. Muhammad and Paul both presented the idea of a community of equals who would treat each other with love and respect, who would band together to see that even the weakest members had access to justice. Muhammad used military means to overcome his principal resistance; Paul never could have raised an Army to fight the Roman Empire and operated within it. Both won many converts in their lifetimes but are remembered more for what they started, communities that lived on long after each died, still alive today, the Catholic Church and Islam.

[1] Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., Elmhurst, New York, page 1806.

[2] Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2009, pages 330, 331.

[3] Lyman Abbott, Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York, page 19.

[4] William R. Van Buskirk, The Saviors of Mankind, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1929, page 410.

[5] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/one-world-under-god/7335/2/

[6] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/one-world-under-god/7335/2/

[7] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/one-world-under-god/7335/2/

[8] Ibid

[9] The New Testament, 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13

[10] The Shahada, or, Profession of Faith, Professor John Bragg, lecture, 4 February, 2011.

[11] Fred McGraw Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, page 62.

Here's Some More

2011-05-04T21:46:00.000-07:00

Who Was Muhammad?

If Muhammad was not inspired by “God” and acted on his own then it becomes important to learn about the man himself in order to understand his actions. Muhammad was born in or around the year 570 C.E. in the city of Mecca, on the Western edge of the Arabian Peninsula, an area known as the Hijaz. Arabia in the Sixth Century was sparsely populated, being mostly desert, and was inhabited largely by nomadic tribes whose only connection to other tribes was competition for the best grazing land. Calling Mecca a city is even a bit of a stretch but it was a settled area inhabited by more than one tribe. While Mecca had some role in trade with the Yemen to the south and Syria to the north (the fertile regions of the peninsula) it was primarily noteworthy as the site of the Ka’ba, a shrine venerated by the various polytheistic religions of the region. As such Mecca was a rare place of “civilization” in a land where justice was that which one tribe could ensure for itself among other competing tribes. In Mecca feuds and other disputes had to be set aside so that all could perform such religious rituals as they had come to do.

The Qur’an

While polytheistic “paganism” was prevalent among Arab nomadic tribes and most of the settled people of the peninsula, salvation religions were popular in the areas surrounding Arabia. Jews and Christians were to the west and north with Manichaeism, Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism being practiced to the east. Followers of these religions believed that there would be an end of time and a judgment day, ideas that led to monotheism. Muhammad was aware of these other religions and was exposed to their doctrines and their belief in an ultimate judge. In 610 C.E., according to Muslim tradition, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and began to reveal to him the words of the one true God. Qur’an means literally “he recited” (among other possible translations). Several chapters, or suras begin with the command “recite,” for example, sura 112:

Recite: he is God, One,

God, the Everlasting Refuge,

Who has not begotten, and has not been begotten,

And equal to him is not anyone.

Tradition has it, then, that God intended for Muhammad to share this revelation with the Arab people.

Sorry about the weird formatting. Blame it on blogger. (Or me.)

Muhammad’s Career

The Apostle Paul

Six hundred years before Muhammad began his mission, another man set out to remake his society. Saul of Tarsus, as Paul was originally known, was a “Hebrew” born in a University town in Asia Minor, “Greek in atmosphere though under Roman occupation,” in or about the fifth year of the Common Era.[2] Though confirmed details are few, he was likely educated at the University in Tarsus and went to the renowned University in Jerusalem and studied under Gamaliel, the most revered Hebrew teacher of his time. Paul came out of Jerusalem not just a Pharisee, a Jewish “puritan,” but a strict one at that, having been taught that the Pentateuch, Jewish scripture, was the literal word of God, sent to “His people” through the prophet Moses. The Book of Acts, part of the New Testament of the Christian Bible, speaks of Paul’s persecution of Christians (for not being strict Jews) prior to his conversion (to belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Anointed One, or “Christ”) on the road to Damascus. Various interpretations exist as to what caused this conversion including the appearance to Paul of Jesus in a vision. William Van Buskirk attributes it, at least in part, to Paul’s hearing the words of St. Stephen (and then being put in charge of his execution) and having a change of heart.

The Christian Church

Unlike Muhammad Paul had no need to start his own religion. He saw Christianity as being the vehicle for his ambition, an ambition at least similar to Muhammad’s: to unite the people in the society in which he lived under one set of rules. In Paul’s case there was already a central government in place, that being the Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire did have a justice system and a set of laws, Paul, like Muhammad in Arabia, 600 years later, saw injustice and inequality all around him. As would be the case in Muhammad’s Arabia, justice depended upon one’s access to power, and most people had little of that. Paul, already a monotheist, changed from the Jewish idea of following the (Jewish) Law to accepting all men as equals. Justice would be better served if all men were equal. If all men are equals they should treat each other as equals. Out of this Paul developed the idea that all men could be “brothers,” in this case, brothers in “Christ.” There are conflicting theories as to how much of Paul’s philosophy traces to Jesus and how much of what Jesus says in the Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, is actually Paul’s influence put into Jesus’ mouth by the authors of those Gospels. Nevertheless we do have Paul’s own words in his Letters to several Christian congregations.

[1] Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2009, pages 330, 331.

[2] Lyman Abbott, Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York, page 19.

[3] William R. Van Buskirk, The Saviors of Mankind, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1929, page 410.

My Current Project

2011-05-03T22:25:00.000-07:00

I have been assigned a twenty page paper for the bulk of my grade in my History of Islam to the Ottoman Empire class. Here is my hesis statement:

In the seventh century of the Common Era (C.E.) the Prophet Muhammad began to spread the idea of monotheism through the Arabian Peninsula. He did this with a claim that the one true God had spoken to him, in Arabic, through the angel Gabriel. Muhammad was initially met with skepticism and hostility, but by the time of his death his message had begun to take hold such that the religion of Islam was beginning to flourish and within 100 years of his death was the dominant religion of the Middle East. This paper will examine the manner in which Muhammad and his immediate followers spread Islam and built a society based on the ideals of universal justice as articulated in the Qur’an, and compare their methods with the spread of Christianity in the first century C.E. by the Apostle Paul.

The position taken by this paper is that there is no way to know if any god or God spoke to Muhammad or to the Apostle Paul or if Jesus of Nazareth, aka Jesus Christ, is/was God or the Son of God or was a prophet of God, or if there even is a “God.” Therefore this paper will approach the actions taken by the Prophet Muhammad and the Apostle Paul, as well as any and all other individuals, as actions taken by human beings exercising their own free wills.

Last Night

2011-04-26T18:20:00.000-07:00

Atheists, Humanists, & Agnostics

to bcc: me

Hi atheists, whats happening?

Meeting #21: Arguing Religion!

Given that this will be our last meeting of the year, we figured it's about time to disprove god.

Thus, we'll be talking about the best tactics/arguments against the existence of god.

Same old time: Monday, April 25th at 7pm

Same old room: 375 Van Hise Hall.

Also, after the meeting, come join us for some beverages at The Rathskeller!

I decided to attend this "last meeting of the year" because I hadn't attended any yet and I had meant to at least check them out. I wound up doing most of the talking. They are all younger than me and I would say "in a place" where I no longer reside. Kind of argumentative, like the whole purpose of "discussion" would be to defeat the "other side's" arguments and, as is referred to above, "disprove" God.

I don't think they quite knew how to take me. One of them (there were about 15 others) would throw out an idea, what if I say this? That'll settle things, right? So I'd jump in with, well, I would say, if I was on their side, such and such. And he'd be stymied, like, oh, I hadn't thought of that. So I'd say, well then, you would probably say ... and then he'll say and then you'll say and in about two more moves you'll have reached the point where you both realize that he can't "prove" that there is a God and you can't prove there isn't, that he's willing to take it on faith and you are not and you're finished.

There was one guy who had some interesting and at least semi-original questions (that would supposedly stump a monotheist) but they were more philosophical "what ifs" than arguments in support of his position.

And, there was one especially young guy, probably a freshman or something, who seemed a bit upset by some of my assumptions about the validity of the synoptic gospels as a reliable "source." He thought I was just making it up as I went, I think, when I started talking about Mark being written first and then Matthew and Luke using some of Mark's sources, or even Mark himself, plus having their own sources, at least one in common with each other and why did only Matthew tell us about the slaughter of the innocents and why Bethlehem in the first place and yada yada yada. I'm not sure why he was there, tagging along with a friend, or what. Or maybe he's trying to hear the other side of things.

Anyway, I'm not sure if they'll want me back. ; )

Sizing a video

2011-04-26T00:10:00.000-07:00

Here's my friend Steve Schad.

Trying Something

2011-04-25T19:11:00.000-07:00

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Trying Again

2011-04-22T23:02:00.000-07:00

Good Friday Music Post

2011-04-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

Stealing Skinny's idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVr2uks0C8

Sorry I can't get it to embed.

In Lieu of an Actual Post ...

2011-04-21T20:58:00.000-07:00

Nikki Schieler

Darwin

2011-04-10T22:46:00.000-07:00

This is due on the morrow:

Thesis Statement

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is foundational to modern biology and pervasive in our society. Still, it is only natural that some misconceptions have evolved. One of these is that Darwin’s theory “vanquished” religion. This is not something Darwin himself ever claimed. This paper will explore the ideas surrounding that misconception and demonstrate that for all the effect that Darwin’s theory did have on religious thought and beliefs, it did not “vanquish religion,” nor did Darwin make any such claim.

Definition of “Religion.”

First, “religion” is a very broad term encompassing a very wide set of beliefs. For this paper “religion” will mean the mainstream religion(s) practiced in Europe in the 18^th and 19^th centuries: Judaism and Christianity. It is possible, though not helpful for this paper, to further break down each religion. Instead I will use their commonalities as a starting point.

The Argument From Religion

Each religion taught that there was/is a creator God who is omniscient and omnipotent. This God created the universe and mankind for a reason and that the course of events ever since is in fulfillment of God’s master plan. The position of religious authorities was that scientific study of the universe was for the purpose of better understanding God’s creation.[1] Rene Descartes, in his Discourse on Method, in 1637, a work dedicated to praising the scientific method and the beauty of mathematics, asserted the existence of God. According to Descartes there is perfection in the universe; he had observed it. Perfection must have a source and that source can only be God.[2]

Conflict Between Science and Religion

Not all science dovetailed with religion. Galileo’s examination of the night sky through a telescope and his reporting of what he saw brought him into direct conflict with Church doctrine of the 17^th century.[3] Still, the Bible didn’t explicitly say much about cosmology; one could believe Galileo and still believe in the Creation. The age of the Earth was another matter. Archbishop James Ussher, in the mid-17^th century, published his calculation that, according to the Bible, the Earth was only about 5,650 years old.[4] Not only was Ussher’s figure commonly accepted, geologists began their work with that figure in mind. Eventually, however, Charles Lyell, among others, reasoned that the Earth had to be much older than several thousand years; more like one hundred million years, according to Lyell.[5]

Darwin

Part of Lyell’s argument was that the geological changes evidenced in fossilization and stratification were explained more easily when one accepted a longer time frame. Other geologists had theorized that geologic change resulted from sudden, catastrophic events. Lyell suggested that slow, gradual change was better supported by evidence, that “Catastrophism” was only a means of trying to adhere to a much too short time frame. Darwin, then, began his work in an environment which allowed him to consider a long timeline. Darwin had studied medicine first, then began training for the ministry. It was while a student that he first became interested in natural history. A mentor of his recommended him as a fit companion for the Captain of H.M.S. Beagle, to serve as the ship’s naturalist and to provide the Captain with intellectual stimulation and conversation on the Beagle’s around the world voyage, from 1831 to 1836. It was during this voyage that Darwin embraced “the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s manner of treating geology.”[6] It was also during this voyage that Darwin began to consider the “species question.” Why, for instance, were the finches of one island so different from the finches of a neighboring island? Darwin pondered this question for more than twenty years, before publishing On the Origin of Species, in 1859.

On the Origin of Species, and its reception.

Origin pulled together contemporary thought in a range of sciences. It theorized that species did not exist as they were, just as God made them, but rather that all life descended from a common ancestor and gradually diverged as it adapted to particular environments. The theory not only did not rely on a divine explanation, it seemed to preclude one. If one accepted Darwinian evolution through adaptation, must one reject the idea of a God? At the very least evolution seemed to disprove the belief that God created all living things. Or even that he had created a world “perfect” for life. And if there was no God and no “God’s plan,” what did that mean for society? Had Darwin indeed vanquished religion?

Darwin on Darwinism

In Origin, Darwin lays out a coldly rational case for speciation through adaptation. At no point does he invoke a miracle to explain something. He just lays out his evidence as he sees it. Neither, however, does he insist that there can be no divine agency. A reader could certainly draw the conclusion that there is no need, or even room, for divine agency in the origin of species. But Darwin makes no claim. He was actually a bit conflicted. “I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws,” Darwin wrote in a letter to Asa Gray, “with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.”[7] Also, “ … I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force.”[8]

Gray suggests to Darwin “We feel safe … in our profound conviction that there is order in the universe. That order presupposes mind. Design, will. And mind or will, personality.”[9] From Darwin, “The more I think, the more bewildered I become.”[10] Also, from Gray, “If you import atheism into your conception of variation and natural selection, you can readily exhibit it in the result … “[11] From Darwin, “I had no intention to write atheistically.”[12]

Finally, from Darwin,

With respect to design, I feel more inclined to show a white flag than to fire my usual long-range shot. I am in thick mud. The orthodox would say in fetid abominable mud. I believe I am in much the same frame of mind as an old gorilla would be in if set to learn the first book of Euclid. The old gorilla would say it was of no manner of use … Yet I cannot keep out of the question. As I say, I flounder hopelessly in the mud.[13]

Darwin did not believe he had proved the non-existence of a creator. He had demonstrated a more elegant theory of how species came to be; nothing more, nothing less.

Conclusion

Anyone reading Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species may feel that Darwin had showed how there was no need of a creator God explanation of how species had developed in different regions of the world. Darwin himself believed that speciation had evolved through natural means, organisms adapting to their environments, with those that adapted best surviving and those that did not adapt well failing to survive. This did not mean that religion had been “vanquished.” Darwin still made room for the possibility of a divine force and others, Asa Gray in particular, accepted the “truth” of Darwinian evolution as merely the proximate cause of speciation, with “God” being the primary cause. Religion, after all, is very adaptable.

[1] Peter J. Bowler and Iwan Rhys Morus, Making Modern Science, A Historical Survey, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 2005, pages 341-343.

[2] Rene Descartes, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking For Truth in the Sciences, edited by Ralph M. Eaton, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927, pages 34-36.

[3] Bowler and Morus, pages 344-346.

[4] Ibid, pages 347, 348.

[5] Ibid, page 124.

[6] David Young, The Discovery of Evolution, second edition, Cambridge, 2007, Cambridge University Press, page 108.

[7] Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, 22 May 1960.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Asa Gray, review of Origin,

[10] Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, 22 May 1860.

[11] Asa Gray, Atlantic Monthly for July, August and October 1860.

[12] Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, 22 May 1860.

[13] Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, 11 December 1861.

Erin Andrews

2011-04-08T16:01:00.000-07:00

Erin is a big favorite on the UW campus. This is at the Kohl Center (basketball game).

My Five Favorite Movie Characters

2011-04-07T23:24:00.000-07:00

This list will be of my five favorite characters, based in large part on the performance of the actor playing the character.

Number 5: Col. Nathan R. Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men). This is not the lead role in the movie, he's only on screen for like twenty minutes. But it's Nicholson at his best. He just exudes contempt for Lt. Kaffee (Tom Cruise). Nicholson does anger better than anyone. He creates an interesting character here, too, in his short time on screen. Watching him testify we can understand why he has reached the position that he has. While I find some elements of Col. Jessep's personality distasteful I would like to see more of him. On screen.

Number 4: Alex DeLarge, played by Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange). This character is a real piece of work and McDowell nails him (I liked the book too). Alex is young, smart, bored and he likes the old ultra-violence. He is completely heartless, coldly cunning and absolutely self-absorbed. When he is finally caught at the scene (Murder/Rape) and brought to justice he is filled with sorrow. For himself. (And I said he was heartless. Shame on me.) Alex's character changes completely halfway through the movie and McDowell doesn't miss a beat. I would like to see more of his stuff.

Number 3: Don Vito Corleone, played by Marlon Brando (The Godfather). If ever a role and an actor were perfectly matched it is these two. Can you even imagine someone else in this role? Somehow he conveys all the gravity of the character (again, I read the book, too, several times) without appearing to do anything. He never so much as raises his voice. Well, maybe once. "YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!" (To Johnny Fontane, his Godson.) The only reason I don't put him at number one, I think, is he made it look too damn easy.

Number 2: Norman Thayer, played by Henry Fonda (On Golden Pond). I'm a big Fonda fan anyway; this was the role/performance that won him his only best actor Oscar, and deservedly so. He plays such a great old man. Crabby, forgetful, noble, fierce, scared. He is his wife's "Knight in shining armor." The scenes with him and Chelsea, played, of course, by his actual daughter Jane, are almost too personal to put on the screen. Jane has said something to that effect herself. For some reason this is one of my favorite movies.

Number 1: Michael Corleone, played by Al Pacino (The Godfather). What can I say. This might be the best movie ever. Plus, I have to say the Godfather II is absolutely the best movie sequel ever. I'm not going to tell you that Pacino does a better job than Brando, he was nominated for best actor for the second one but did not win. Not that that necessarily matters. But my two favorite scenes are Michael. One when he "comes of age." The other when he makes his power play in Las Vegas. He delivers his lines so perfectly I could watch just those two scenes every day.

Sonny: Alright, we wait.
Michael: You can't wait.
Sonny: What?
Michael: You can't wait. I don't care what Sollozzo says about a deal he's gonna kill Pop. He has to. It's a key for him. You gotta get Sollozzo.
Clemenza: Mikey's right.
Sonny: Alright, Professor, what about McClusky. What do we do with this cop here?
Michael: They want to have a meeting with me, right? It will be me, McClusky and Sollozzo. Let's set the meeting. We get our informants to find out where it's going to be held. Now we insist that it be held in a public place, a bar or a restaurant where there'll be other people there so I'll feel safe. They're going to search me when I first meet them, right? So I can't have a weapon on me. But if Clemenza can figure a way to have a weapon planted for me, then I'll kill them both.
Sonny: [laughing] What are you gonna do? Nice college boy, didn't want to get mixed up in the family business. Now you want to gun down a police captain. Why? Because he slapped you in the face a little? What do you think this like the Army where you can shoot 'em from a mile away? No you gotta get up like this and, badda-bing, you blow their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit. C'mere.
[Kisses Michael on the head]
Sonny: You're taking this very personal. Tom, this is business and this man is taking it very, very personal.
Michael Corleone: Where does it say that you can't kill a cop?
Tom Hagen: Come on, Mikey...
Michael Corleone: Tom, wait a minute. I'm talking about a cop that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about a - a - a dishonest cop - a crooked cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him. That's a terrific story. And we have newspaper people on the payroll, don't we, Tom?
[Tom nods]
Michael Corleone: And they might like a story like that.
Tom Hagen: They might, they just might.
Michael Corleone: [to Sonny] It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.

The other one:

Michael: My credit good enough to buy you out?
Moe Greene: Buy me out?
[Fredo laughs nervously]
Michael: The hotel, the casino. The Corleone Family wants to buy you out.
Moe Greene: The Corleone Family wants to buy me out? No, I buy you out, you don't buy me out.
Michael: Your casino loses money, maybe we can do better.
Moe Greene: You think I'm skimmin off the top, Mike?
Michael: [Michael shakes his head] You're unlucky.
Moe Greene: You goddamn guineas you really make me laugh. I do you a favor and take Freddie in when you're having a bad time, and now you're gonna try and push me out!
Michael: You took Freddie in because the Corleone Family bankrolled your casino, and the Molinari Family on the Coast guaranteed his safety. Now we're talking business, let's talk business.
Moe Greene: Yeah, let's talk business, Mike. First of all, you're all done. The Corleone Family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore. The Godfather's sick, right? You're getting chased out of New York by Barzini and the other Families. What do you think is going on here? You think you can come to my hotel and take over? I talked to Barzini - I can make a deal with him, and still keep my hotel!
Michael: Is that why you slapped my brother around in public?
Fredo: Aw, now that, that was nothin', Mike. Moe didn't mean nothin' by that. Yeah, sure he flies off the handle every once in a while, but me and him, we're good friends, right Moe?
Moe Greene: I got a business to run. I gotta kick asses sometimes to make it run right. We had a little argument, Freddy and me, so I had to straighten him out.
Michael: You straightened my brother out?
Moe Greene: He was banging cocktail waitresses two at a time! Players couldn't get a drink at the table! What's the matter with you?
Michael: I leave for New York tomorrow, think about a price.
Moe Greene: Sonofabitch! Do you know who I am? I'm Moe Greene! I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders!
Fredo: Wait a minute, Moe, Moe, I got an idea. Tom, you're the Consiglieri and you can talk to the Don, you can explain...
Tom Hagen: Now hold it right there. The Don is semi-retired and Mike is in charge of the Family business now. If you have anything to say, say it to Michael.
Fredo: [Moe Greene leaves] Mike! You do not come to Las Vegas and talk to a man like Moe Greene like that!
Michael: Fredo, you're my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.

Headin' off to watch it again. ; )

Anna K.

2011-04-07T15:12:00.000-07:00

She never won a tennis tournament, but ...

Who Knows?

2011-03-31T20:18:00.000-07:00

Does anybody know of a way to transfer the contents of our blogstream blogs to somewhere that isn't disappearing?

Good Show

2011-03-27T21:48:00.000-07:00

Went and saw Henry Rollins tonight doing his "spoken word show."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rollins

It's a different kind of show. He walks up on stage, black short sleeve shirt, black pants, black comfortable shoes and a microphone. Not even a water bottle. Just starts talking, semi-stream of consciousness and doesn't stop until he's finished, two and a half hours later, pausing only to inhale.

It's hard to describe his "shtick," hence the term "spoken word show." What the hell to call it? It's one part rant, one part travelogue, one part stand-up; mostly just like a conversation with him doing all the talking.

Tonight he talked about his days as front man for Black Flag, living in L.A., going to Costco, needing attention, traveling in Asia (Beijing, Pyongyang, Tibet, and Hanoi, this time) and being raised by inattentive parents. He recommends going to Egypt, if possible. The pyramids are bigger than you think, the Sphinx smaller.

Go see him if you get a chance!

Last One

2011-03-20T01:40:00.000-07:00

Back to you, Sarge.

Sarge, Come Back!

2011-03-19T00:27:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to keep doing this but here's one for Saturday.

Daily Eye Candy:

Until Sarge Takes Ovr Again

2011-03-18T10:43:00.000-07:00

Ah, summer ...

2011-03-17T18:59:00.000-07:00

Nothin' to it, now. Click on "Choose Files" This is Alison and Kirsten, my brothers two daughters, about 15 years ago. (Damn, that long?)

Tryin' Again

2011-03-17T18:56:00.000-07:00

Here's one for Sarge: