Obituary Mambo (WF Buckley, Jr., dead)

Buckley, as eloquent an Ivy League rat as America ever produced, passed away a few minutes ago. Buckley once called the Beatles "so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic." True, mostly, that: nonetheless moptops and their fans never signed off on the Nixon-Kissinger politics via napalm (as did WFB, and his occasional guest and friend Robert Heinlein). Buena suerte.

The alcoholic, psychotic Commander-in-chief offered his deeep thoughts on WFB's death. Dubya claims Buckley "...influenced a lot of people, including me. He captured the imagination of a lot of people." Alas, Buckley's rahh-thur baroque prose (villains often are wits--e.g. Iago) obviously had little effect on Presidente GWB, whose speech resembles that of, say, a Dallas RV-salesman.

That said, much of the Buckley-bashing on the usual leftist-bitch sites seems a bit unwarranted, and sort of begs the question (as usual) of the existence of objective Justice with a capital J. Assuming some objective, platonic realm of Justice holds (or theological if you prefer), yass, WFB’s probably on his merry way to the Malebolge. Assuming that an objective, platonic realm of Justice does not hold, the discriminating consumer could appreciate WFB’s rather Humean wit, while taking issue with his bad taste in regards to the ‘Nam affair.


Buckley vs. The Noamster (those who are able to put aside the Academy Awards for a few minutes, or spring training, the ObamaClinton match, or Coulter's predictable love-fest for Buckley, might recall that Chomsky had some back-up for his opposition to US involvement in 'Nam--including the aged Bertrand Russell, and even JP Sartre. Zut. That was the responsible opposition, as opposed to the stoned, stupid opposition. That's not to say that everything the Noamster has said or done--especially over the last 10 years---was as admirable as his 'Nam stance. Buckley of course offers his smooth reptilian oratory: Edmund Burke meets Goebbels)

Burr-Hamilton Match.

(aka, origins of Scottish-American tyranny)

"Had I read Sterne more and Voltaire less, I should have known the world was wide enough for Hamilton and me."[AaronBurr--]

IN early America, the two-party system consisted of Federalists, and their rakish opponents, the Democratic-republicans. The more Toryish of the Founders, such as Hamilton, Adams, and Marshall, aligned themselves with the Federalist party. Hamilton's Magnum Opus, the Federalist Papers (also with some commentary from Jay and Madison) provides a good overview of Federalist ideology. Jefferson's group led the Democratic-republicans; Madison, during Adam's administration, actually leaves the Federalists, and joins with Jefferson's faction.

While not caring for Hamilton's monarchist leanings, we here at Contingencies do hold the Federalism of Madison to be fairly sound politics in principle. Madison, like Hobbes (though Leviathan a bit more theoretical) worried himself over factions, as did all Federalists. IN Paper 10 Madison addresses his fears of faction, in quite moving and persuasive language:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed
Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its
tendency to break and control the violence of faction.

AS with many traditional conservatives, Madison fears the possibility that Democracy unleashed could result in rule by Vox Populi (if not Porcus Populi). Well and good. There is little talk about a popular vote in the Federalist papers; indeed Madison seems rather conservative in his praise of republican over democratic principles; that is not Republican as in "Reagan republican", but in European sense--e.g. Irish Republican Army: nonetheless, the Republicanism of Madison does seem closer in spirit to modern-day conservativism than to the secular republicanism that French revolutionaries dreamt of (if one wants to bandy categories about):

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a
republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of
faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by
the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist
in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and
virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and
schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation
of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite
endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a
greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being
able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the
increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase
this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles
opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an
unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the
Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

Sounds good in principle: The Union shall be ruled by representatives characterized by enlightened views and virtuous sentiments, instead of by unruly factions and mobs (the Reign of Terror was a common topic at the time, and many feared that Jefferson himself had ties to the Jacobins). At the same time, one could, like Locke reacting to Hobbes' ideas of an all-powerful Sovereign, object. Lockean tradition holds that the democratic right to petition the govt. for grievances outweighs the potential good of republicanism (or for that matter, the great Platonic dream of an enlightened sovereign).



So which model more often leads to despotism? That is something the Federalists did not really establish: they do not demonstrate that it is more prudent to entrust decisions to a few virtuous representatives, than to the will of citizens, expressed in a popular vote: that is a political given, driven at least in part by a fear of rebellion (and the discriminating economic materialist might note Madison's concern over debtors and division of property). It's more of an inductive matter, which Madison does not really resolve.

Jefferson, himself no great empiricist, at least objects to that model in both practice and principle (while granting the possibility that democracy, especially led by the unenlightened and non-virtuous, could lead to mob rule, if not riots--TJ was not down with the sans-cullottes. (Burr, demo-repub., [yet not at all friendly with TJ}, settles his issue with Federalism in a rather more direct manner, by shooting General Hamilton in a code duello).

Republicanism http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/feder16.txt

"John Marshall Checkmated Thomas Jefferson"

(APPROVED by Bubbanius).

Legal hacks love the early American case of Marbury vs. Madison: In M. vs. M., John Marshall, the Tony Scalia of the American Revolution finally flexed his Federalist (aka Tory) muscles, and gave SCOTUS some real power. We are not attorneys, and not overly interested in the finer details of the case (it's rather murky), yet it offers as PoMo's term it, "richly suggestive" entailments or something.


"To give up, in the face of anomalies, Marbury v. Madison...would not cause the same epistemic wrench as giving up the proposition that 2 + 2 = 4 or that all men are mortal." (Richard Posner)

The Court, led by Marshall, good episscopalian, Rev. war hero, and businessman, more or less decided that the Court would be allowed to judge legislation: this is now termed Judicial Review. That sort of Judicial power was NOT clearly outlined in the Constitution, however. The Court ruled an earlier law (passed by Congress) which appeared to award the court the power to grant writs of “mandamus” (a type of appointment right--which Marbury was seeking) was mistaken: so in effect, Marshall, Federalist scumbag (sort of statist republican, if not monarchists), used this petty case to establish the power of the SCOTUS to judge legislation, and to decide whether ANY laws were unconstitutional.

Thus, years later, Judges now may cite M. vs. M when they want to overturn some legislation they don't care for, and say it's unconstitutional (even dimwits like Bubbanius might figure out the problems with that, after a few days, perhaps: a few years ago, the SCOTUS ruled the medicinal pot initatives voted in by thousands were all void (unconstitutional), and put MedPot back on controlled substances list, and have that right per Marbury (and other cases too)).

Yes, Contingencies Fans, Judicial Review could result in "good" in some cases, but the net effect of Marshall's decision (JM hardly some progressive) was to centralize power in the Judiciary, and to remove power from the legislative branch: it's an override, really. American Federalism, it should be noted, was not without intellectual force--but the important aspects stem from Madison (one could say the Constitution itself), rather than from Hamilton (or the judiciary and Marshall's schemes).

Naive liberals often quote M. vs M. as proof of rule by law over rule by men, but it’s really Rule by Judge, not rule by law. Jefferson later wrote some interesting responses to M vs. M (it wasn’t that big of a deal at the time—only later cited as precedent), and one should note his authentic Democratic spirit in his contra-judicial writings: TJ’s mind--not as provincial or sentimental as some might hold--- remains the secular core of the American experiment (yes, TJ was not without character flaws as well: Bon Soir Mlle. Hemmings!).

TJ/Marbury

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem". They would prefer Omni-jurisdictionem, and Marshall's Marbury decision went a long ways towards justifying the American judicial monarchy (ah wager Lysander Spooner wrote something on this as well). Marshall did not checkmate TJ: he checkmated democracy (or at least serious check). Posner might be on the money (though like most in judiciary he waffles, often).

Reverend Obama: Red?

The BS never ends. Obama had/has communist/marxist connections: that's fairly evident. That doesn't necessarily mean BO's a communist, but it IS relevant, except to cheesy wannabe-apparatchiks, like this scheissekopf.

Cliff Kincaid, writing for Accuracy in Media,presents a level-headed account of Obama's association with marxist-coalition politics:

"""""In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.""""

So why don't people in Blogland--even Hillary supporters---make an issue of the Davis/Obama relationship? Because they are generally spineless cretins, or have been paid off.

Archbishop ibn Canterburied

Christopher Hitchens does some representin' in regards to one Rowan Williams, Anglican Archbishop, who recently affirmed his support for "sharia" in Merry Olde Engeland:

""""A BBC interview with Williams had him saying that the opening to sharia would "help maintain social cohesion." If that phrase is even intended to mean anything, it can only imply that a concession of this kind would lessen the propensity to violence among Muslims. But such abjectness is not the only definition of social cohesion that we have. By a nice coincidence, a London think tank called the Center for Social Cohesion issued a report just days before the leader of the world's Anglicans and Episcopalians capitulated to Islamic demands. Titled "Crimes of the Community: Honour-Based Violence in the UK," and written by James Brandon and Salam Hafez, it set out a shocking account of the rapid spread of theocratic crime. The main headings were murder and beating of women, genital mutilation, forced marriage, and vigilante methods employed against those who complained. It could well be—since we are becoming every day more familiar with the first three—that the fourth is the one that should concern us most.""""

Williams' capitulation to the code of the Imams should offend anyone who values the principles of the American Revolution. To the Tower, Master Williams!

Bill O'Reilly vs. DailyKOS

"There is no God and Mary is His mother." (Santayana)

Like most FOX-News pundits, O'Reilly often appears superficial and a bit too fond of flag-waving. He's not Noam f-n Chomsky (thankfully). O'Reilly, however, does speak fairly well, at least for an anchorman, and avoids the Olbermann-like teary-eyed pleas of the faux-liberal, or the bimbo-speak of KouricCo. O'Reilly seems a bit sentimental on occasion---that proverbial "Irishness", maybe---he seems more Yeats than Joyce, howevah (Joyce btw was no leftist, and a bit closer in thinking to his pal Ezra Pound than most Lit-bots realize). O'Reilly does raise a few interesting points now and then, however generalized. He may be a fool, at times, but does not seem nearly as nazi-like as many hysteria-crats take him to be (who knows what sorts of lives celebs really lead. Katie Kouric might have crack stuffed up her posterior every weekend by her gangsta du jour).

DailyKOS regulars consider O'reilly, like any FOX-news person, persona non grata, a few steps away from Goebbels; the Kossacks go ballistic when a poster (usually a troll who is immediately banned) even mentions FOXnews. The Kossack's vindictive hatred of O'reilly of course overdoes it: it may indicate a type of catholic-bashing that one notes in various media (most blogcrats would hang with baptist-clowns (or jews and muslims), before catholics, even dem. ones). O'reilly's mostly correct that DailyKOS does rely on a type of petty hatred for any who oppose the site-ideology: merely to object implies that one is part of Them.

KOS has, arguably, created a certain "herd-mind" like resentment and bitterness among a large section of the left: KOS-speak itself has developed into a sort of colloquial blog-dialect, something like an amalgamation of bad Hunter S. Thompson columns, marxist-feminist rhetoric-lite, and gangsta rap. Schmutzig! Many blogger-morons (like this ignis fatuus and Bukharin-wannabe, Hunter) specialize in KOS-Speak; it functions as a sort of street-jargon for stoner-liberals who never quite made it through a Ralph Waldo Emerson essay, much less the Constitution. Nietzsche would most likely bark CHANDALA at the Kossack-union were he around to point and click his way across the Information Superhighway.


Yes, all fairly obvious. The central point however is this: DailyKOS serves as a sort of Rush Limbaugh show for the hipster left. KOS depends on the ugly tactics of the right, as much as a rant from Limbaugh or Coulter does, and generally comes off even less witty or entertaining than say Coulter: the unrelenting character attacks, the guilt by association, the ad hominems and other fallacies, generalizations, denials of Due Process really. Kossacks present little or no evidence of the crimes of the right (we grant there may be crimes--like some misrepresentation on the part of BushCo leading to the War Effort--but the KOS-herd mind prevents any sort of rational examination of facts). Indeed, the Kossack herd assists the cause of the right precisely because they have rejected rationality, and any calm assessment of political or economic issues.

bad day at blackrock

A dimwit named Michael Chabon

Chabon on occasion attempts to pass himself off as writer of "literature" (or at least writes sophisticated cartoons); now, on that bastion of Tory Marxism, the Washington Post, Chabon offers up his reflections on ObamaCult. Those who don't care for Obama's campaign simply fear BO's Power (and his powerful message of....Hope and Change, presumably), according to that great political philosopher Chabon:

"""""The point of Obama's candidacy is that the damaged state of American democracy is not the fault of George W. Bush and his minions, the corporate-controlled media, the insurance industry, the oil industry, lobbyists, terrorists, illegal immigrants or Satan. The point is that this mess is our fault. We let in the serpents and liars, we exchanged shining ideals for a handful of nails and some two-by-fours, and we did it by resorting to the simplest, deepest-seated and readiest method we possess as human beings for trying to make sense of the world: through our fear. America has become a phobocracy.

Since I started talking and writing about Obama I have come to see that this ruling fear, and nothing else, lies at the back of every objection or reservation people raise or harbor regarding the man and his candidacy.

Fear whispers to us that white voters have a nasty tendency to tell pollsters, friends and neighbors that they support an African American candidate, then go into the voting booth and let the fear known as racism pull the lever.""""

Pull that lever, citizen! What a load of scheisse. Chabon's half-baked leftist-moralism embodies the problems with the red mafia Obamacult. One could, indeed, assert the same point in regards to leftists: they fear McCain, and a strong US (and fear Hillary as well). So what? It’s a type of bogus politics via profiling (and a great generalization). Choosing a candidate does not, except for neurotics of various sorts, generally hinge on the fear-factor: more about risk aversion, and voting for the person who will advance one’s self-interests (that sort of pragmatic view irks the romantic leftist-visionary, who mistakes democracy for a type of spiritual movement). Chabon in fact shows off his own KGB-like skills in terming that risk-aversion "fear."

Chabon's essay demonstrates the absurdities of the hysteria-crats, the Kossack-herd, and ObamaCult members. Note the loaded language, implied and/or explicit value judgments, if not a nearly bolshevik rage. A “rat’s nest”, serpents, etc. You’d think he was discussing Munich 1925 or so.

Rage is what the left now feeds on. Rage also fueled Stalin’s NVDK, and the Maoists. Indeed, that sort of irrational, plebian rage (anti-Due Process as well) arguably creates a rightist, if not fascist backlash. At that point, one decides: you, Chandala-crat, may ride with Zhukov and the plebes. Ich bin mit Feldmarshall Jodl.

Bubbanius, the Quantum Pen-salesman!



Ah theatre-girl, you're in for a surprise, right soon. Your rightist-salesman scab stupidity shall be known for what it is, Roid-rage. Ah, Bubba spouts forth some of his Nurse at Sunday-school ideology:

"""""Indeed, rape and pillage at will; but don’t get caught, as goes the first Existential Imperative. In fact, ruthless insect dominance is the only Truth; the Meat That Can Beat Is The Meat That Is Neat.

And the Sentimentalists will blather on about ‘looking in your child’s eyes, and no longer questioning Light’, and all that biochemical frippery. But they will soon understand the Power Of The Boot On The Neck — the MommyCrats prattle so, but their heads break so easily against the concrete.

The Pretty Words of the Moralist/Sentimentalists — hear how they extol the virtues of Nature, and ‘Beauty’ — but listen to the slobberings of the predator over its prey, and you’ll understand the true ‘nature’ of Nature. Domination of All is the the Path to Enlightenment — all else is pretension and vanity. Here are a thousand volumes describing the logic — it is virtually a manual, a machine-language level document, if you will, describing in detail why one should either Kill and/or Fuck Everything, or, as I do, recline gently and watch the sway of the Shadeless Lamp, and drink.’"""""""

— Bubba Blubamy, Graduate of Smeagol University.

What a ridiculous little knave. Where is your methodist code located on the Periodic Table, anyways, great Nurse Bubba? Bubbium.

Gary Hart joins the ObamaCult

"Fortuna caeca est"

Does anyone remember Gary Hart? A representative of, shall we say, the long-standing tradition of Jeffersonian hypocrisy, Gary Hart, or rather the wit and wisdom of Hart, now appears on the boards of Huffington Post, the West Coast's version of an online Pravda (featuring the lovely and talented Airheadianna). Hart, not surprisingly, recently decided to stump for Barack Obama, who he views as an agent of "transformation"; transformation a sort of upgrade of the usual Obama mantra of "change". Why change when you can transform!:

Through some miracle of timing, luck, and good fortune Barack Obama has seized the moment. His mantra of "change" has been largely co-opted by lesser figures. He is in fact an agent of transformation. He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians, and this makes him seem elusive to the conventional press and the traditional politicians. His instinct for the moment and the times is orders of magnitude more powerful than the experience claimed by others. Experience in the old ways is irrelevant experience.

In an age of great transformation, experience of the past is worthless because it is a barrier to the breakthrough gesture, the instant response in crisis, the instinctive bold decision in the face of totally new circumstances.


One might note the specific terms of Hart's vaguely New age rhetoric (or is it a sort of new-agey Christianity? possibly just as pernicious): "miracle," "good fortune," "transformation." It's difficult not to read this as connoting a type of spiritual awakening (though Obama may be more of a Guru than Reverend to Mr. Hart). According to Hart, Obama operates on a different plane than the traditional political joe (one assumes he means Hillary or McCain here); and this ability to transform and Do the Carpe Diem renders the experience question moot: "Experience in the old ways is irrelevant experience." Down with the old ways! (except the proverbial Liberal-Tory maxim, Carpe Diem)

Taking potshots at the old freak might be too easy. Really, we here at Contingencies do not view Mr. Hart as the embodiment of Evil (though that's not to say he, like the Kennedy mobsters, might not be: who knows what goes down in those Florida yachthouses when the the DNC/DLC attorneys par-tay). Hart, however, like many other ObamaCult members, has formed an "idee fixee" that only Obama is fit to represent American democracy as mob boss President.



(Raphael's "School of Athens" ("kindling," in Arabic))

There are many sound reasons to doubt that fitness: one being that BO has for months preached his platform from pulpits as much as he has from factories or farmland (or colleges). As has been noted on this site, Reverend Obama has, along with his usual biblethumping, praised Reagan and entrepreneurship, and at least suggested that the Constitution is not as critical as some might hold (i.e., some comments contra-secularism). He reportedly attends a church which promotes creationism.

In contemporary Amerika, of course, any candidate running for public office at the state or national level must needs pander to the protestant herd (and BO, like HRC, and JM sides with protestants), yet Hart does not even bother himself to address Obama's theocratic leanings. Where are the comments of Hart the old quasi-Federalist in regards to Obama's nearly Huckabee-like pronouncements that "secularists should not expect religious people to leave their faith at the door", even in political matters? So much for the civic virtue, the Madisonian rationalism, and the rest of Hart's pop-Constitutionalist ideology: joining the ObamaCult means getting rid of all that historical baggage, and taking advantage of the moment! You must TRANSFORM, baby. Alter a few terms and HartSpeak seems akin to the messages of 70's mystic-hucksters selling uptight, or repressed consumers on the need to love or die.

The Obama Cult


The LA Times, a safe haven for many west-coast muckrakers for decades, at least features the writings of one JoelStein. Stein, unlike most scribblers associated with Scoop, Inc., on occasion shows that he possesses enough spine to call a spade a spade, as with his recent column on Obama-fever:

""""What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor."""

Hah. Urkel, though, seems slightly more cerebral than does the Rev. BO. Fans of BO of course respond to the pop-celebrity-ness of BO. He's a TV-show icon (like his galpal OprahCo): and another "great communicator" in the MLK fashion. He represents, y'all. His popularity has little or nothing to do with his specific policies or ideas; rather, it has to do with creating a certain charismatic fervor, which is related to celebrity, and (as we have said for weeks) a sort of preacherly enthusiasm. ObamaCo: a big digitalized revival tent. Can ah, ah get a witness? Se-lah, bruthrrs and sisters.

A City of Churches (Donald Barthelme)


"Yes," Mr. Phillips said, "ours is a city of churches all right."

Cecelia nodded, following his pointing hand. Both sides of the street
were solidly lines with churches, standing shoulder to shoulder in a variety
of architectural styles. The Bethel Baptist stood next to the Holy Messiah
Free Baptist, Saint Paul's Episcopal next to Grace Evangelical Covenant. Then
came the First Christian Science, the Church of God, All Souls, Our Lady of
Victory, and the Church of the Holy Apostles. The spires and steeples of the
traditional buildings were jammed in next to the broad imaginative flights of
the "contemporary" designs.

"Everyone here takes great interest in church matters," Mr. Philips said.


Will I fit in, Cecelia wondered. She had come to Prester to open a branch
office of a car-rental concern.

"I'm not especially religious," she said to Mr. Philips, who was in the
real-estate business.

"Not now," he answered. "Not yet. But we have many fine young people
here. You'll get integrated into the community soon enough. The immediate
problem is where are you to live? Most people," he said, "live in the church
of their choice. All of our churches have many extra rooms. I have a few
belfry apartments that I can show you. What price range were you thinking of?"


They turned a corner and were confronted with more churches. They passed
Saint Luke's, the Church of the Epiphany, All Saints Ukrainian Orthodox, Saint
Clement's, Fountain Baptist, Union Congregational, Saint Anargyri's, Temple
Emanuel, the First Church of Christ Reformed. The mouths of all the churches
were gaping open. Inside, lights could be seen dimly.

"I can go up to a hundred and ten," Cecelia said. "Do you have any
buildings that are not churches?"

"None," said Mr. Philips. "Oh course, many of our fine church structures
also do double duty as something else." He indicated an handsome Georgian
facade. "That one," he said, "houses the United Methodist and the Board of
Education. The one next to it, which is the Antioch Pentecostal, has the
barbershop."

It was true. A red-and-white striped barber pole was attached
inconspicuously to the front of the Antioch Pentecostal.

"Do many people rent cars here?" Cecelia asked. "Or would they, if there
was a handy place to rent them?"

"Oh, I don't know," said Mr. Philips. "Renting a car implies that you
want to go somewhere. Most people are pretty content right here. We have a lot
of activities. I don't think I'd pick the car-rental business if i was just
starting out in Prester. But you'll do fin." He showed her a small, extremely
modern building with a severe brick, steele, and glass front. "That's Saint
Barnabas. Nice bunch of people over there. Wonderful spaghetti suppers."

Cecelia could see a number of hears looking out of the windows. But when
they saw that she was staring at them, the heads disappeared.

"Do you think it's healthy for so many churches to be gathered together
in one place?" she asked her guide. "It doesn't seem...balanced, if you know
what i mean."

"We are famous for our churches," Mr. Philips replied. "They are
harmless. Here we are now."

-----

He opened a door and they began climbing many flights of dusty stairs.
At the end of the climb they entered a good-sized room, square, with windows
on all four sides. There was a bed, a table, and two chairs, lamps, a rug.
Four very large brass bells hung in the exact center of the room.

"What a view!" Mr. Philips exclaimed. "Come here and look."

"Do they actually ring these bells?" Cecelia asked.

"Three times a day," Mr. Philips said, smiling. "Morning, noon, and
night. Of course when they're rung you have to be pretty quick at getting out
of the way. You get hit in the head with one of these babies and that's all
she wrote."

"God Almighty," said Cecelia involuntarily. Then she said, "Nobody lives
in belfry apartments. That's why they're empty."

"You think so?" Mr. Philips said.

"You can only rent them to new people in town," she said accusingly.

"I wouldn't do that," Mr. Philips said. "It would go against the spirit
of Christian fellowship."

"This town in a little creepy, you know that?"

"That may be, but it's not for you to say, is it? I mean, you're new
here. You should walk cautiously, for a while. If you don't want an upper
apartment, I have a basement over at Central Presbyterian. You'd have to
share it. There are two women in there now."

"I don't want to share," Cecelia said. "I want a place of my own."

"Why?" the real-estate man asked curiously. "For what purpose?"

"Purpose?" asked Cecelia. "There is no particular purpose. I just want-"

"That's not unusual here. Most people live with other people. Husbands
and wives. Sons with their mothers. People have roommates. That's the usual
pattern."

"Still, I prefer a place of my own."

"It's very unusual."

"Do you have any such places? Besides bell towers, I mean?"

"I guess there are a few," Mr. Philips said, with clear reluctance. "I
can show you one or two, I suppose."

He paused for a moment.

"It's just that we have different values, maybe, from some of the
surrounding communities," he explained. "We've been written up a lot. We had
four minutes on the 'CBS Evening News' one time. Tree of four years ago. 'A
City of Churches,' it was called."

"Yes, a place of my own is essential," Cecelia said, "if I am to survive
here."

"That's kind of a funny attitude to take," Mr. Philips said. "What
denomination are you?"

Cecelia was silent. The truth was, she wasn't anything.

" I said, what denomination are you?" Mr. Philips repeated.

"I can will my dreams," Cecelia said. "I can dream whatever I want. If I
want to dream that i'm having a good time, in Paris or some other city, all I
have to do is go to sleep and I will dream that dream. I can dream whatever I
want."

"What do you dream, then, mostly?" Mr. Philips said, looking at her
closely.

"Mostly sexual things," she said. She was not afraid of him.

"Prester is not that kind of town," Mr. Philips said, looking away.

-----

The doors of the churches were opening, on both sides of the street. Small
groups of people came out and stood there, in front of the churches, gazing at
Cecelia and Mr. Philips.

A young man stepped forward and shouted, "Everyone in this town already
has a car! There is no one in this town who doesn't have a car!"

"Is that true?" Cecelia asked Mr. Philips.

"Yes," he said. "It's true. No one would rent a car here. Not in a
hundred years."

Then I won't stay," she said. "I'll go somewhere else."

"You must stay," he said. "There is already a car-rental office for you.
In Mount Moriah Baptist, on the lobby floor. There is a counter and a
telephone and a rack of car keys. And a calendar."

"I won't stay," she said. "Not if there isn't any sound business reason
for staying."

"We want you," said Mr. Philips. "We want you standing behind the counter
of the car-rental agency, during regular business hours. It will make the town
complete."

"I won't," she said. "Not me."

"You must. It's essential."

"I'll dream," she said. "Things you won't like."

"We are discontented," said Mr. Philips. "Terrible, terribly
discontented. Something is wrong."

"I'll dream the Secret," she said. "You'll be sorry."

"We are like other towns, except that we are perfect," he said. "Our
discontent can only be held in check be perfection. We need a car rental girl.
Someone must stand behind that counter."

"I'll dream the life you are most afraid of," Cecelia threatened.

"You are ours," he said, gripping her arm. "Our car rental girl. Be nice.
There is nothing you can do."

"Wait and see," Cecelia said.

Politics of the sacrament

Psalm 23:4: Und ob ich schon wanderte im finstern Tal, fürchte ich kein Unglück; denn du bist bei mir, dein Stecken und dein Stab trösten mich.

Grant that the existence of a monotheistic "God" cannot be conclusively established via the assistance of that old broad Reason (as Luther himself granted, centuries before Kant sort of ditto'ed him). The only compelling evidence for the judeo-christian code then would seem to be the Old and New Testaments themselves (though conflicting evidence it is). Nowhere in the New Testament may one discover a clearly-stated injunction that Christians must participate in the Mass (as Luther pointed out rather forcefully as well): for that matter, there are no guidelines establishing a priestly caste, or many other sacraments (i.e. monastic orders) which the catholic church has insisted upon, for centuries. There was no Church, and no Mass, as it now exists probably until after Augustine (a great comedian, and not-so- holy as some catholics might think).

Luther, of course, was not a happy camper , and he more or less denounced the papal bureaucracy as anti-christ. A bit harsh, if not Prussian; the Reformation was an ugly baroque drama that needn't concern us overly much. (and we here at Contingencies are hardly suggesting that the protestants are always the good guys, or the rationalists). Yet the reformers' anti-sacramentalism should at least be pondered for a few nano-seconds, even in the here and now of the contemporary I-podopolis.

(We should object to the aged Luther's rants against the jews, however. Another interesting aspect of Lutheranism concerns Copernicus, and the rise of physical science, which the Church of Rome did everything to prevent. Lutheran mathematicians in fact eagerly acquired Copernicus' manuscript, studied it, and wrote in it. Brahe and Kepler were Lutherans. There was some opposition to Copernicus in Germany, but nothing like the catholic's opposition (evident in trial of Gallileo, etc.)


Humans are not awarded some spiritual notch for taking the Mass or going to confession regularly: that in fact is a type of strange dispensationalism that Luther rightly noted (as did the slightly more sinister figure of Calvin). Indeed the absurdity of the Mass (if not most sacraments) becomes apparent rather quickly.



Does Maria, say a cleaning lady who attends Mass regularly (now with her Ash Wednesday stamp on her forehead from Padre X) somehow transcend all the non-mass taking protestants (or jews, muslims, secularists, pagans, etc.) in the neighborhood simply by reason of being blessed by Padre X? Kein. Maria and her familia don't out-rank Kant or Issac Newton or Voltaire (instantiate any great western thinker) either in some putative heavenly abode, merely by reason of weekly or daily sacrament ingestion; nor should Lucky Luciano's be alloted some handicap via the Eucharist. Yet that is what catholic doctrine holds. Regardless of the beautiful symbolism of the catholic tradition, the catholics' insistence on Mass might rank as one of Western history's great oddities, and nearly hinduistic in terms of content.

Le Marquis de Kennedy

At the beginning of WWII, Joseph Kennedy (pere to JFK, RFK, and Teddy K) argued strongly against the USA giving aid to Britain:

"Democracy is finished in England. It may be here,” stated Ambassador Kennedy, Boston Sunday Globe of November 10, 1940. In a one simple statement, Joe Kennedy ruined any future chances of becoming US president, metaphorically committing political suicide. While Blitzkrieg bombs fell daily on England, Nazi troops occupied Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, Ambassador Kennedy unambiguously and repeatedly stated his belief that the war was not about saving democracy from National Socialism (Nazism) or Fascism."""

See the Wiki-school and other sites for further proof that Vati Kennedy was, at least throughout the 30s, and even into WWII, about as close to the nazis as say Chas. Lindberg, and certainly as anti-semitic as Lindberg. Joe Sr. went too far, but be damn sure he's spinning in his grave since TeddyBear Kennedy (and other Kennedy scabs, like Schwarznegger's Schlampe, Maria) have given their blessing to Reverend Obama (who btw has implicitly affirmed creationism, and denied Darwinian evolution and questioned secularism in numerous appearances, hand-shaking with fundamentalist preachers. Got that yet McBozo? And don't spam in Mssr. Tristero's writing when you don't know Crying of Lot 49 from the 49er's [see note]*). It might also be recalled that Joe Sr. supported JoeMcCarthy, even after his censure, and that Bobby boy worked for McCarthy and the House Un-American activities for quite some time.

Maria, Die Ueber-Frau


The Kennedy spectacle, indeed, remains one of the mysteries of the American mind-phuck: a sort of clan of Irish monarchists with mob ties succeed in presenting themselves as "liberals" while living in a manner comparable to the Bourbons of pre-revolutionary France. J'accuse! Put 'em in the tumbrils (and Jefferson would've agreed, probably).

----------------------

Here's a useful criteria for RealPolitik: who would George Orwell support for Prez? First, Orwell was NOT a pacifist (unlike say his glib acolyte Pynchon). Nor was Orwell a Xtian (or religious in any conventional sense). He valued secularism, rationality, and modern science. He was opposed to tyranny on right or left, and to sentimental liberalism (i.e. US democrats). Orwell would therefore, probably support McCain, albeit with a bit of trepidation (and opposition to some of McCain's votes, and to the GOP economics--tho' McCain did vote against Bushco's tax slashes), or perhaps Ron Paul. Ron Paul of course scares the F. out of yogurt-sucking DNCocrat swine "gauchistes," but Dr. Paul hasn't exactly waved a swastika around. He denounces zionism, and is not nice, and not an accommodator, but not exactly Goering. Ed Abbey probably woulda voted for Doc Paul.


(Re: Tristero/Trystero/COL49. Those who actually have made it through Pynchon's complex maze in COL49 (and it's a shawty maze, compared to V or Gravity's Rainbow) know that Tristero is no liberal (or group of liberals). Who (or what) exactly is Tristero? We suggest sort of Wobbly anarchist-couriers--a Wobbly Pony Express if you will (READ it and find out)---rather rustic. Cactus Ed Abbey might be part of the imaginary brigade. Mssr. Tristero of Digby's joint would not likely be par-tay material).

Burroughs vs. the Church of L-Ron?? (No Secret Handshakes, continued).


We shiete you not:

"Although Burroughs writes that he finds some techniques from Scientology "highly valuable," he criticizes what he describes as "Mr. Hubbard's overtly fascist utterances" on American and international politics. He considers Hubbard to be out of sync with the radical youth movement of the period, and asks rhetorically, "which side are you on, Hubbard, which side are you on?"[1]"

NakedScientology

This is interesting, but not completely surprising. Reading a bit about the founding of the COS and the mysterious L-Ron, one soon notes that L-Ron was not quite the do-gooder moralist that many modern Scientologists claim he was (or aspire to be). L-Ron, one time Navy man, dabbled in the occult back in the day, along with his pal Jack Parsons (who dat? He was a rocket scientist who more or less founded Cal Tech and JPL). Care to guess who they were inspired by? None other than old Uncle Aleister Crowley himself (this might be old news to some older El Lay locals--not to MSM). Parsons in fact corresponded with Uncle Al--that is, until Parsons blew himself up in his Pasadena mansion under rather odd circumstances (and --get this--L-Ron had run off with one of Parson's "scarlet ladies"). Much of this is detailed in Mike Davis' great history of LA, City of Quartz (and he's probably leftie enough for much of blogville).





Burroughs' interest in the church of L-Ron then does not seem so strange (we here at Contingencies are not avid Burroughs' fans, but that's old-time religion and Naked Lunch was a formative influence on many, including "Steely Dan"--the curious may google around for a clearer definition). L-Ron did appropriate some of Crowley's techniques (whatever those are--probably mostly derived from yoga and meditation, etc.), and that's probably what intrigued Big Bill B. Hubbard actually was not a complete rightist: he was a pal of Robert Heinlein (both failed engineers, and probably with some CIA connections), and L-Ron made a few slightly anti-war comments during 'Nam, and even hung out with some hippies on occasion, but was of course opposed to drugs--though his autopsy showed abundant quantities of muscle relaxants in his blood (L-Ron himself found dead, in somewhat "mysterious" circumstances, out in the boonies near San Luis Obisbo in 80s). All a big part of the Operation Mindphuck, unknown to most American thanatoids (Tom Cruise, member of the Bavarian Illuminati? Whoa).

Reverend Hillary and the protestant left

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." (Johnson)

During the reign of Bill Clinton,Murray ROTHBARD, of the VonMises school penned some nearly interesting essays on "left millennialism": the Von Misesians may have been wrong-headed on some things (the Keynesians of FDR's time were not as demonic as some libertarians claim), but their secularism and skepticism towards statism of all sorts is deserving of some respect. According to Rothbard, Clintonocracy represented a sort of christian socialism, the aim of which concerned not merely political or economic efficiency, but a type of religious state. Taking on the techno-oligarchies may not be the worst thing a politician could do (really, the Clintons have been content to appease corporations), but the success of authentic anti-trust efforts should not depend on religious zeal.

The liberal reformers' enthusiasm generally assumes the forms of their faith, usually of the calvinist variety (someone might term that "populism" of a sort--while remembering that populism and biblethumping works for conservative yokels like Huckabee as well as it does for Dame Hillary). We here at Contingencies would include Rev. Obama--who campaigned in churches all of Fall '07 (40 Days of Faith and Phamily, y'all), and has questioned the separation clause of 1st Amendment---- along with The Right Reverend Hillary in that category of "leftist millennialists". (Other writers, even fairly liberal figures such as Bertrand Russell, noted this puritanical tendency in leftist and marxist reformers. Marxist or multiculturalist dogma substitutes in quite nicely for methodist tracts).


And here's.........Murray:

"""""Which brings us to our beloved First Couple. I have already mentioned that Slick Willie, in addressing a black Gospel church in Maryland on behalf of God's alleged commandment to pass his crime bill, revealingly told the assembled congregation that the goal of his "ministry" is to bring about "the Kingdom of God on earth." That should have sounded the fire alarm throughout the nation. Unfortunately, to an American public possessing little knowledge of history or theology, Clinton's remarkable statement went unreported.

But, as we all know, it is Hillary, not Slick Willie, who [was] the hard-core ideologue in the White House. Hillary's theological agenda was perceptively unveiled recently by the knowledgeable, if admiring and liberal, Kenneth L. Woodward, religion editor of Newsweek. (Kenneth L. Woodward, "Soulful Matters," Newsweek (Oct. 31, 1994) pp. 23–25) In a lengthy exclusive interview with Hillary, Woodward reports that our Lady Macbeth simply considers herself "an old-fashioned Methodist."

Hillary's pronouncement is not as absurd as it might first seem. Hillary Rodham was born in northern Illinois Yankee country, in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Her grandparents told stories about their Methodism in early-nineteenth-century England, not many generations removed from the founding of Methodism by John Wesley. Hillary's family were pious Methodists, and Hillary herself was inducted into the Social Gospel by the Rev. Donald Jones, the then youth minister at her Park Ridge First United Methodist Church. I am sure that we are all gratified to learn how Hillary got her start in the cause of "social reform"; as Woodward fondly puts it, the Rev. Jones "developed his privileged suburban students' social consciences by taking them to visit migrant workers' children."

The most important passage in Woodward's article is his explanation of the importance of Methodism within the American Protestant spectrum: "More than other Protestants, Methodists are still imbued with the turn-of-the-century social gospel, which holds that Christians have been commissioned to build the Kingdom of God on earth."

.........

Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary's drive to "reinvent" herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late-nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into "old-fashioned Methodism" liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly, and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.""""

* * *

Hallelujah! Kudos for the Lady Macbeth riff too, Mssr. Rothbard (Lady Macbeth might serve as a template for many American political mollies, really--it works for Hillary or DiDi Feinstein or Annie "The Mormon She-wolf" Romney). Rothbard may have gone a bit overboard here, but he was not so far from the mark in terming the Clinton agenda a sort of marxist-methodism (with corporate support, as well. Rev. Obama also gets some help from good American muslims). One notes that marxist-methodist tendency in many contemporary whiny-ass democratic scum leftist scribblers, say, in the PC sanitorium of DailyKOS.

Indeed, one might argue that Hegelianism (sort of the basis for statist tyranny, whether Xtian rightist or secular-marxist) affirms a certain antinomian approach to political theory: Hegel it should be recalled often praised Martin Luther (and Machiavelli for that matter), and Luther's essential objection against Catholicism hinged on an insistence on "sola fide." Catholic tradition (yes, chockful of hypocrisy and superstition), at least understands the danger posed by the doctrine of "sola fide" (common to protestant-robots of all sorts): the absurdity of salvation by "faith" alone.

No secret handshakes, II (BR's version)


ψ(ιx(φx)) ≔ ∃x(∀y(φy ↔ y = x) ∧ ψx).


(What means that? That's Russell's iota notation for definite descriptions (sort of the basis for any artificial language as well). It also means that whenever you assert something, you make an existence claim, and it means you usually are talking scheisse--any predications (such as the King of France is bald, or not bald) about non-existent entities are false)

So, an assertive sentence turns out to entail something like this in predicate form:

--There is an x such that x is Bubba the Sweatshop Boss (∃x(Bx))

--For every x that is Bubba the Sweatshop Boss and every y that is Bubba the Sweatshop Boss, x equals y (i.e. there is at most one Bubba the Sweatshop Boss, hopefully) (∀x(Bx → ∀y(By → y=x))) . That indicates uniqueness, a point which the greeks, classical mathematicians and even Frege had not quite grasped.

---Bubba the Sweatshop Boss is an Oppressor. (∀x(Bx → Ox)) (or, the Sweatshops of Bubba are Oppressive--An Oppressor would run an oppressive business, presumably)


So, one merely verifies that a Sweatshop X operated by Bubba does exist, and proves that X is indeed Oppressive, and calls the Better Bidness Bureau! QED.

No Secret Handshakes, I
History: Fundamental Conditions (Marx, the German Ideology)

"""""Since we are dealing with the Germans, who are devoid of premises, we must begin by stating the first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, the premise, namely, that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to “make history.” But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life. Even when the sensuous world is reduced to a minimum, to a stick as with Saint Bruno [Bauer], it presupposes the action of producing the stick. Therefore in any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its significance and all its implications and to accord it its due importance. It is well known that the Germans have never done this, and they have never, therefore, had an earthly basis for history and consequently never an historian. The French and the English, even if they have conceived the relation of this fact with so-called history only in an extremely one-sided fashion, particularly as long as they remained in the toils of political ideology, have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry."""""



"Du essen. Daher ist es dich gibt": a point which most theists, metaphysicians, idealist historians, and romantics (whether left or right) never quite realize. Marx, of course follows Thomas Hobbes here (and Hobbes had already said as much contra-Descartes), and is not so far from Malthus or Darwin really, except that he has a keener awareness of economics (not that his proposed cures for the disease of finance capitalism are so grand, taken across the board). Marx's writing also might serve as an effective antitode to the identity-politics of blogland, and various e-moralists, whether links oder rechts..

"On The Campaign Trail With Dennis Kucinich" (from theonion)



"Despite trailing every other Democratic presidential candidate in the polls, Dennis Kucinich is still campaigning actively. Here is a sample day on the campaign trail with Kucinich:

6:45–7:00 a.m.: Unbuckle self from underside of the Straight Talk Express bus
7:45–7:50 a.m.: Gaze sympathetically at fly being shooed away from stack of syrup-slathered waffles
Noon–12:15 p.m.: Break down in tears in truck-stop bathroom, pull self together
3:00–3:30 p.m.: Stand in cornfield whispering policy to scarecrow
5:15–8:30 p.m.: Drive around South Carolina looking for vegan-friendly restaurant
8:45–9:15 p.m.: Pick John Edwards' brain
10:30–10:45 p.m.: Drop everything and call campaign headquarters to see if Leno, Letterman, O'Brien, Stewart, or Colbert called..."

"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein." (Nietzsche)

Toulmin

Toulmin's system suggests a middle ground might hold between the hyper-rationalism of analytical philosophy (and the science establishment) and the absurdity and anti-rationalism of postmodernism and marxist aesthetics (tho' we here at Contingencies once in a great while peruse the "textual idealism" of Derrida's Of Grammatology with amusement).

Toulmin's emphasis on practical argument also seems somewhat pragmatist: there are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to pragmatism--the "cash value of Truth" model, as Wm James called it---whether in terms of philosophy or politics. Toulmin, however, understands the problems --and unworkability--of the academic logician's worship of necessity and formal validity; one might think of Toulmin's approach as applied inductive logic, analogous to applied engineering mathematics (and contrasted to the "Theory of the Calculus" posited by those holymen Leibniz and Newton). Though it's unlikely Toulmin-fever will catch on soon, Toulmin offers a fairly comprehensible and sensible approach to communication--one that might conceivably be implemented on blogs, for example, if not the....San Phrancisco Cthulhucle.

In "The Uses of Argument" (1958), Toulmin offered a schema featuring six components for analyzing practical arguments:

1. Claim: conclusions whose plausibility or trustworthiness or "merit" must be established (note the avoidance of the absolute category of "Truth"). For example, if a person tries to convince someone that poverty leads to crime, the claim would be “Poverty leads to crime.” Similar to a conclusion (in a modus ponens argument), or hypothesis (in terms of trad. phil of sci.)

2. Data: the facts appealed to as a foundation or ground for the claim. For example, the person can (and should) support his claim with data, statistics, and any other evidence showing significantly higher rates of crime in poor areas (higher than in middle or upper class areas) supporting his claim “Poverty leads to crime (or poverty has a causal relation to crime).” (so the statement would be, "crime rates are higher in poor areas than in middle or upper class areas: in effect, the minor premise in a modus ponens). Data obviously entails probability and statistical issues, such as sampling (perhaps "confidence intervals" should be attached to the data-statements).

3. Warrant: a statement which justifies the "movement" from the data to the claim (a warrant is similar to a major premise/conditional statement, in modus ponens). In order to move from the data established in 2---"there are higher rates of crime in poor areas than in middle or upper class areas"---there needs to be a warrant bridging the gap between the data and claim, and supporting his claim “Poverty leads to crime": "Since poor areas have higher crime rates (thando middle class or upper class areas), poverty has a causal relation to crime." Note again this is not "necessary" in a tautological or mathematical sense. The warrant itself generally is an inductive generalization (as with most generalizations of "social science"), and involves probability and statistical issues, such as sampling (a point which Toulmin may overlook--perhaps "confidence intervals" should be attached to the warrant as well).


4. Backing: the Wiki on Toulmin refers to these as "credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant"; but it is really an evidentiary question. If the warrant seems overly conjectural, incredible, or merely plausible (instead of "nearly always the case"), the arguer must introduce backing for the warrant. Not all poor people are criminals, and not all criminals come from poverty. IN many practical arguments (where people might grant a warrant/premise) this might not be a problem, but at the level of economics or sociology or journalism it could be. Nonetheless, the warrant-construction is generally not too difficult--no more difficult than say an economist suggesting the historical effects of lower interest rates on consumer spending and the economy at large (which is to say, if most economic or sociological generalizations mean anything, then Toulmin's warrant model can work).

5. Rebuttal: these are statements recognizing possible exceptions to the claim. An obvious one would be that some poor people are hard-working, and are not criminals. And there might be other factors causing crime, even among the poor--mental health issues, education, or gangs. The rebuttal, we suggest, may simply be a recognition that the claim depends on an "existence generalization" (some, or sometimes, or "often") rather than a universal (all): "poverty is one causal factor of criminal behavior, but not the only one." So the arguer must support his claim--and possibly the warrant--with additional evidence which would overcome the rebuttal. This could be difficult, but overcoming the rebuttal strengthens the argument.

6. Qualifier: words or phrases which express the speaker’s degree of emphasis or certainty concerning the claim (thus could be part of the rebuttal, really). Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “Poverty definitely leads to crime” has more force than does the claim “Poverty sometimes may result in crime.”

The first three components---“claim,” “data,” and “warrant”-- are considered to be the essential components of practical arguments (as are the two premises and conclusion in modus ponens), while the second three-- “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal”--- are not always needed in arguments.

In terms of modus ponens, Toulmin's schema looks something like this:

1st premise/Warrant: "If poor areas have higher crime rates (than do middle class or upper class areas), poverty has a causal relation to crime." (Backing may be needed here--and since the claim is contained in the consequent, any rebuttals would be dealt with at this stage as well)

2nd premise/Data: "poor areas do have higher crime rates (than middle class or upper class areas). (Grounds/foundation/evidence may be needed here) . Note that this is the antecedent to the conditional in 1st premise.

Conclusion/Claim: “Poverty leads to crime.”


It might be noted Toulmin's argument form is valid when put in form of modus ponens--though Toulmin most likely wanted to avoid the problems of inductive conditionals with his system). If warrant/1st premise is likely (strongly probable), the argument is cogent as any good inductive argument is--not "sound" as with modus ponens (at least one with necessarily true 1st and 2nd premises), but cogent.

Clint-o-crats

The case against Billary (Hitchens):


""""""During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."""""

Touche. However snide CH may be, a few of his points contra-Clinton are worth reiterating: Hillary has shown herself to be "indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security."

Crepsecule with Alex S.



Ah yeahh homie

Reverend Obama, redux

You need additional evidence of BO's PC-conservativism? Barack praised Reagan while in the sticks Reno a few days ago, while again dissing the Clinton administration: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."


Yes, Rev. Obama, he put us on a fundamentally different path: a fundamentalist path, a path which we still stumble upon. Rather improper comments, and the criticism from Edwards and Clinton seems quite appropriate, even if one does not agree to the Edwards' agenda in full. Reaganomics was not exactly a concept to be admired either--even from a moderate perspective. Who can forget corporate welfare, the S & L crisis, the bloated deficit, boomtowns for the wealthy and powerful, environmental disasters, and the rise of a theocratic "moral majority." The "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship" doesn't quite do Reaganomics justice.

Reagan was arguably even less capable a politician and person than was Nixon (Christopher Hitchens, having met RR, called him a "senile lizard" or something). Anyone recall James Watt or Edwin Meese? After getting his mandate from the American zombies people, Reagan (or perhaps Reagan's bosses) awarded administrative jobs to various mafiosi and shady financiers, the effects of which are still to be felt (check the reports of Dan Moldea for Reagan's hidden connection to the NFL and professional gambling). As Dylan once said, "it doesn't take a weathervane to tell which way the wind blows": Reagan's celebration of Sinatra and Co. indicated fairly clearly the relationship between American politics, celebrity power, and organized crime, for lack of a better word. Obama taps into that power.

Obama's praise for Reagan should be counted as a rather significant faux-pas, but the spineless cretins who now make up the DNCocrats will probably let it slide. Obama's political strategy indeed bears a certain resemblance to Reagan's, even in terms of the "insider-ness"; as with most of the good ol' boys in the GOP, Obama too covets the position of American Mob Boss. The Obama posse might consider spinning Sinatra, say, doing "Chi-caw-go, my kind of town," at the DemCon in honor of the Reagan-Sinatra heritage.

Herren- und Sklavenmoral

"Herrenmoral sei die Haltung der Herrschenden, die zu sich selbst und ihrem Leben Ja sagen könnten, während sie die anderen als „schlecht“ (Wortstamm: „schlicht“) abschätzten. Sklavenmoral sei die Haltung der „Elenden […], Armen, Ohnmächtigen, Niedrigen […], Leidenden, Entbehrenden, Kranken, Hässlichen“[8], die zuerst ihr Gegenüber – die Herrschenden, Glücklichen, Ja-Sagenden – als „böse“ bewerteten und sich selbst dann als deren „guten“ Gegensatz ausmachten. Es sei vor allem die Moral des Christentums gewesen, die eine solche Sklavenmoral zum Teil selbst hervorgerufen, in jedem Fall aber begünstigt und sie dadurch zur herrschenden Moral gemacht habe."

(Nietzsche)

Sehr gut.

Robert James Fischer, RIP



"Marx was a very keen chess player... Lenin was keen on chess although he he gave it up because he said it was interfering with his political activities..Marx was a bad loser apparently.. Lenin was a good loser"

(Alexander Cockburn)



Karl Marx (pawn-pusher)

(21) Spassky,B - Fischer,R Reykjavik-Wch Reykjavik (21), 1972


BF mit Schwarz ( with his fave Sicilian defense--Kan variation, methinks)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bd4 0-0 12.Qf3 Be6 13.Rfe1 c5 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Rad1 Rfd8 17.Be2 Rab8 18.b3 c4 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Rxd5 Bxh2+ 21.Kxh2 Rxd5 22.Bxc4 Rd2 23.Bxa6 Rxc2 24.Re2 Rxe2 25.Bxe2 Rd8 26.a4 Rd2 27.Bc4 Ra2 28.Kg3 Kf8 29.Kf3 Ke7 30.g4 f5 31.gxf5 f6 32.Bg8 h6 33.Kg3 Kd6 34.Kf3 Ra1 35.Kg2 Ke5 36.Be6 Kf4 37.Bd7 Rb1 38.Be6 Rb2 39.Bc4 Ra2 40.Be6 h5 41.Bd7 0-1 (take that russ-ski)

Note the moves starting about 18-19- 20 and the great bishop sacrifice/check on h2: Spassky has been doing quite well if perhaps a standard "control the center" type of playing, and then 20 Bxh2+--the tolling of the bell starts (or so it seems). For the end game BF has R and R to Spassky's R and B. How far does Fischer set up the bishop sacrifice in advance? Masterful defensive playing from BF--though methinks a Karpov or Kasparov playing white would probably have seen that possible combination by 16 or 17 and avoided it.

The Huckabilly Constitution

The latest fundie-politician to come up the pike from Dixie recently expressed his viewpoint that, like, Madison, Jefferson and Co were full of mierda: "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Really, the Huckster makes an interesting theocratic belch here. Does he mean to imply (as other comments of his indicate) that the Old and New Testaments should be considered infallible? Were Huck to win and somehow enact his Baptistocracy, the clerics would need to decide which sections of the "word of the living God" to enforce: all? some? who decides? The infallibilists would seemingly be committed to upholding the entire Bible, including the code of Leviticus, which not only features various prohibitions against the usual suspects--the adulterous, the incestuous, the queer, the heathen, etc.--but against, say, pork and shellfish eaters. Ye shall not eat of the squid of infamy! (Perhaps a more frightening theocracy would follow from a Mitt Moroni victory: not only are alcohol, coffee and tobacco banned, the Golden Plates of Nephi could appear at courthouses and other public institutions, and public schools may offer mandatory classes in Mormonic egyptian (the language of the Angel that dictated the glorious visions to Joe Smith). Musick by the Osmond phamily, and nothin' but fiery serpents for the Wicked.)

That may seem palpably absurd. Yet the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Koran are chockful of absurdities and contradiction (for one, the Kissinger-like scribes of the OT insisted on "an eye for an eye", and enjoyed contemplating the deaths of babylonian infants (see Psalm 137); while the fruitier JC yawped "forgive thine enemies"). Additionally, modern physical science--starting at least with Lyell and Darwin--obviously falsified Biblical accounts of natural history (that was reinforced with C14 dating of fossils, and other chronological techniques).


Few in the MSM, not even the so-called liberals, have challenged the Huckabee sort of enthusiasm (or the more subtle theocracy that Romneyoid promotes) nor dared to mention a Darwin or Thomas Jefferson for that matter. (both Hillary and Obama court fundamentalist churches who question Darwinian evolution and uphold Scriptural infallibility; Obama has himself questioned the separation clause of the 1st Amendment.) The predictable resentment and rage against Chuckabea from the Kossacks and the so-called left seems fairly ineffectual and tame as well. What's needed is a re-animated HS Thompson to appear on Scarsborough Kountry, in his aviator shades, sipping Wild Turkey, and while gazing at pics of the Huckabees, to solemnly intone the words: phuck those people.

Toastmasters from Hell (How not to write, continued).

"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good ground for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."

(Bertrand Russell)


Another ignis fatuus of Cyberia offers up deep thoughts on campaign strategy:

""""Had Sen. Clinton done her duty in that first regard, then all she would have needed was the toughness to become a lightning rod for rhetorical hostility from political conservatives and other hawks. Having endured just about as much malicious language as any living politician, I believe she could have weathered the darkness while at the same time serving as a beacon of hope to that tiny minority of us who retained a capacity to distinguish warmongering from patriotism. Had she done that, the vindication that predictably comes to those who champion realism in the face of popular alternative viewpoints would have propelled her into office with the kind of popular mandate not seen since Reagan-Bush in ‘84."""""


Ah Dementia-weed not only wields a powerful trailer-park salesman rhetoric, he predicts the future! (and even possible futures that coulda happened: "Had she done that"). He also has some strategical advice for Ms Clinton ala the Today show. Intense. His slogans and pep-talk do not quite overcome the syntax errors, however: "Having endured just about as much malicious language as any living politician, I believe she could have weathered the darkness....." D-weed himself is a politician who endured malicious language? (That's the error of "amphiboly"). Well, perhaps he did: the malicious retorts of any Podunkville metro-editor responding to his gaseous letters to the editor before deleting or tossing 'em in the Schmutzsack.

Occasionally, D-weed even loses control of his 10th grade Civics speech, as here: "The vindication that predictably comes to those who champion realism in the face of popular alternative viewpoints would have propelled her into office." Yes propelled by vindication! Now, that's refines the deflination of unsoliciphated and irrevulant syncrastical mutterance! Hail Sergeant Dogberry.




Also to be noted are D-weed's repeated uses of auxiliaries--woulds, coulds, and shoulds. That's not merely an indication of, uh, verbal incompetency, but a type of mendacity (and most likely a sign of criminal insanity as well). That might be termed the "subjunctive fallacy", common to leftist scumbags, two-bit political moralists, and wannabe-Marats all over Blogopolis. Or maybe it's better termed paranoid schizophrenia. Either way, no human, especially not D-weed on his crack buzz, knows what "would have happened" in terms of politics or history.

A wannabe-Marat such as D-weed doesn't generally concern himself with established fact or provable assertions, of course: he relies on the insinuation or suggestion, either sinister or sentimental. (D-weed and the NWacheks have yet to allude to Hillary Clinton's massive corporate-sponsored campaign war-chest (BO's a few million behind), about triple the size of John Edwards', and about 20 times that of a Huckabilly or Ron Paul). He manipulates his audience with slogans and trite metaphors: a "lightning rod", "weather{ing} the darkness", a "beacon of hope". (how does one "weather the darkness"? STFU) Like any salesman or low-rent sophist, D-weed also makes use of informal fallacies to score points. He creates the image of the hipster clique who, like, knew the score: "that tiny minority of us who retained a capacity to distinguish warmongering from patriotism": sort of a reversed Ad Populus. (and mistaken as well---the zombies of DailyKOS and similar ugly, Tory-marxist sites are hardly a tiny minority. That a Kossack once in a while says something correct---even in regards to investigating possible mis-rep by Buscho in regards to the war-effort (oh wait, that's no longer cool: chanting "Huckabilly" is) does not excuse the KGB tactics).


Ansteigen an Die Zug, schwein.

Reverend Obama, continued.

Consider the connotations of the modern "Mega-church": most consumers in the Thanatopolis most likely think of white-trash baptists, biblethumpers who deny Darwinian evolution, televangelists, beerdrinking, hellraising capitalists, GOP hawks who thought Nixon "soft", Annie Coulter fans, etc. Most humans would assume the megachurches thus write big tax-deductible checks to their favorite biblethumping Republican politician, when the Bingo Parlor opens election cycle kicks in. Think again. Religious organizations and clergy-peoples now donate a greater quantity of their tax-free shekels to Democrats than they do to GOP candidates (this started with the campaign of that good xtian Bill Clinton in early 90's). Indeed the leading religious fundraiser in the 2008 Prez race is not a GOPer, but Barack Obama, who outdistances 2nd place Mitt Moroni in terms of moneys accepted from religious organizations by a rather substantial margin (BO also outdistances all except Dame Clinton in terms of corporate fundraising: Hill and BO's war-chests are nearing $90 million each---while a Huckabee has not quite cracked $3 million (google 'er (btw Google execs approve of ObamaCorp. too--as do those great progressives Melinda and her wife Billy Gates).

Rev. Obama's appeal to the pious extends beyond simply taking their tithing change, however (in fairness, it might be noted that clergy-bucks hardly match up with, say, donations to candidates from oil executives). As noted in previous posts, BO in fact campaigned recently on a "40 days of Faith and Family" platform, not so different in spirit and substance from a bonehead baptist tent-revival meeting (readers of Contingencies in the El Lay area who were targeted by Bethel AME/Obama spam know what we be representin' about here) Obama also attends a church which distributes creationist pamphlets (see Hitchens' recent interesting anti-Obama essay here). Additionally, BO has on occasion made some slightly peculiar comments in regards to the separation clause of the 1st Amendment.

Obama, given the support he has received from corporate and religious organizations, appears as likely to gain the conservative nomination as does Dame Clinton.

WHOA.

Bubbanius on Modern Pedagogy (how not to write, cont.)

Deep thoughts: "‘Don’t tase me, bro’ — a famous phrase, now." (funny, that happened at a Kerry rally. So Kerry must be counted as part of the Oppressor now too. Cops and campus police are mostly democrats, anyway, and generally members of those massive police unions. So the Taser-specialist, was, one could safely bet, a Dem.).

"Neocons pay good money to right-wing students for illegally taping their professors, to ‘catch’ them in liberal biases."" Evidence or citation for that claim? Not exactly "liberal" biases, Bubba, anyway: Jefferson was a liberal. And it's not a crime to tape any instructor's lectures, moron. The biases lean a bit more towards those of Karl Marx and/or one Jacques Derrida (ever make it through a bit of Sokal and Bricmont, Bubba?). Bubba has no problem, apparently with say radical muslim professors--or communists--- in the Ivy League, or UC edu-gulags, teaching the words of the Prophet--- or Mao-- alongside courses in haploids, Heisenberg or GWF Hegel. He and those of his ilk seemingly don't mind when the latest PoMo du Paris takes his place at the podium and asserts, categorically, that Logic, rationality and western science are all delusions and the product of Western imperialism.

At Bubba U., there would be no history of Maoism or Stalinism, or Islam for that matter. Just some pics of Evil Incarnate: the Neo-Cons, alongside Hitler and the Waffen SS. (any rational dissent opposed to the NW paranoia festival has already been blocked and moderated).


"Homeland Security’ in and of itself was a ridiculous idea, a trillion-dollar boondoggle used primarily to harass Code Pink and Texas Democratic lawmakers, and to install the illegal domestic spying system so sought after by the criminal class, i.e., Neocons."


Ah Bubba might be referring to Diane Feinstein or Jane Harman, who in fact argued for a harsher, more Orwellian version of the Homeland Security act. A few weeks apres-911, DiFi in fact suggested that a nationwide cyber-ID system be implemented. Then the dreaded Neo-cons. Wow. Bubba can barely control his latent anti-semitism and general muddle-headed idiocy when he begins to intone his favorite epithets. You mean like Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, Abrams, or Lieberman, Bubba? Those are the neo-cons. Yes, Abrams sucks. The good ol' boys, even the sinister Rove, mostly work for 'em. And uh so does the Clinton gang. After chuckling at Bubba's hick belch here ("Rusticus," as EP would aver), insert it in the SPAM Spam BACON & Spam file, and flush.

A place you'll nevah Be

Reverend Obama, cont.


Here's a quote from a front-runner in the US Prez audition election battle:

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."


Did that issue from the piehole of the hillbilly bapteest Huckabee? Perhaps a bon mot from MittBot, personally guided by the Angel Moroni? A pious genuflection from altar boy Roody G.? NYET. That's Kid Obama representin', a few months ago (before commencing his "40 days of Faith and Phamily" tour of protestant churches across the USA). Had one of the GOPers yawped that, many liberals and secularists--and atheists--would have turned Sally Fields, waxed righteously indignant for a few days, brought up the separation of church and state, referred to Jefferson, or Darwin, maybe Richard Dawkins---or Marx-- innate rights, and so and so forth. The BO, however, has been granted a sort of tactical dispensation, and appears to be immune from the secularists' criticisms.

* * *

We here at Contingencies have been slightly impressed with some of Senator Edward's recent anti-corporatist rhetoric--if not anti-Tory-yankee rhetoric---which bears some resemblance to "economic-realism" for lack of a better term. We might not agree with Edwards' platform and policies across the board--just as we might not agree with the ideological "message" of some harsh, naturalistic novel by Theodore Dreiser, yet still respect Dreiser for having written it (Sister Carrie for the Peoples!). Edwards walks the talk, sometimes. But his economic-realism doesn't make it in the Simulacra of American politics: Reverend Obama's sermons and Hillary's sob-sistah act apparently do, unfortunately, as does the flag-waving of the right.

Hysteria, Inc.

William F. Buckley........on yahoo? Whoa.

"No. 1 was Mrs. Clinton, with $89 million. Much of the money received reflects the donors' attraction to a favorite. In some contests, only the winner matters; this is not quite the case in a presidential race, because the runner-up may gain influence from a strong showing. And there can always be the candidate who is campaigning on a novel doctrine that catches the favorable notice of the backers.


Gorgon-in-chief


"Surprisingly close to Mrs. Clinton's $89 million was Barack Obama's $79 million. This presaged the revolution that was. Next in line were three Republicans: Romney with $62 million, Giuliani with $47 million and McCain with $31 million. Then came Edwards at $30 million. A caution: These figures do not disclose self-financing. Thanks to the Buckley-Valeo bill--co-sponsored 30-some years ago by the sainted junior senator from New York, on the grounds that then-new campaign-financing law violated freedom of speech--no limits are permissible on what John Edwards can give to Edwards for President."

"Then there are a few eclectic distributions. Who on earth gave $13 million to Senator Dodd, and why? And meanwhile, Huckabee, with $2.3 million, was down near the bottom of the list, behind candidates such as Joe Biden and Sam Brownback."

Never under-estimate the political and financial power of Pathos. Hysteria Clinton, for instance, sitting, or perhaps squatting on the top of the campaign shekels heap, has raked in $89 million in donations (compared to say $2.3 million for Huckabee--who's representing the American working class?). The only way Boy Obama might compete with that is with some reinforcement.....like from Chair-sistah Oprah.

Menckenism


"Whenever 'A' attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon
'B', 'A' is most likely a scoundrel."

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a
waste of time.


No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public.


The objection to Puritans is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that
they try to make us do as they think.


Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Ein Alt fur Fruehstuck, bitte

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right.



[T]he only thing wrong with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was that it was the South, not the North, that was fighting for a government of the people, by the
people and for the people.



The whole drift of our law is toward the absolute prohibition of all
ideas that diverge in the slightest form from the accepted platitudes, and
behind that drift of law there is a far more potent force of growing custom, and
under that custom there is a natural philosophy which erects conformity into the
noblest of virtues and the free functioning of personality into a capital
crime against society.


In f-n dubitably.

Scryabinopolis