Illusion of free will (Grayling)

"Almost every indication from sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and neurophilosophy supports the deterministic side of the argument, entailing that our sense of being choice-makers, deliberators, option-possessors, who could have done otherwise in most of our actions, is an illusion. On the evidence flooding in from these sources, we are as other social animals, only worse off in that we operate under an enormous error theory about our own nature, falsely thinking that we have free will and that we are therefore genuinely ethical creatures. It was from this error—if it is one—that Spinoza sought to free us by arguing in his Ethics that once we recognise that we live by necessity, we cease to repine, and thus are liberated from unhappiness.

For of course the very idea of ethics premises freedom of the will. There is no logic in praising or blaming individuals for what they do unless they could have done otherwise, any more than one would praise a pebble for rolling downhill upon being dislodged by rain...."

Reinforcement ware via Gibbeting, circa 1700

So Help me, Logos

“OATH, n. In law, a solemn appeal to the Deity, made binding upon the
conscience by a penalty for perjury.” [Bierce]

John Quincy Adams did not swear the Oath of Allegiance on a Bible, believing
that the Bible should be reserved for strictly religious purposes. Instead, JQA
swore--quite properly, according to Contingencies--on the US Constitution. Given
the separation clause of First Amendment, it's questionable whether any
politician should be allowed to take an oath on a Bible, or Koran, or Torah, or
any religious text, or use religious language. JFK did not did not take the oath
on the bible, though he had a Douay Bible--french catholic version of Good
Book-- on the podium. Herbert Hoover, descendent of Quakers, affirmed, but did
not swear the oath: that was the tradition of many puritans and protestants, who
considered oath-swearing and pledging fealty to a worldly institution like the
State a type of pagan idolatry, or at least vaguely latinate--papist. On
President Obama's second time through the oath, he did not use a Bible--southern
baptists may be calling him Apollyon for that right this minute.

John Marshall, Caiaphas of American history, swore in Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, notwithstanding his dislike for the Democrats--including Madison, reportedly
(tho' Madison shifted his politics a few times, going from Federalist, to
Democrat, and then to a slightly more moderate position). Evidence suggests that
presidents and senators until about time of Abe Lincoln did NOT generally take
the oath on the Good book: Lincoln, closer to fundamentalism than many realize,
made it mandatory for many state officials. The Constitutional oath itself
probably follows more from royalist tradition than from say baptists, or the
more liberal founding fathers. Though the Federalist papers are not handy, I
suspect Alexander Hamilton, swashbuckler and duellist--at least until Burr put
an end to that-- had a say in retaining oaths for his yankee republic.

The oath was not a mere formality (and at least JQ Adams realized that),
but a solemn occasion, akin to the vassal-knights pledging fealty to a king, or
baron: ancien regime oaths were contracts--not so different than "touching the body" ala La Cosa Nostra-- and the contract signings were often attended by a sacrifice or ritual of some sort--cue the statist trumpeters, and tympani with somber Haydn-like concerto. Oaths also seem prima facie evidence of deliberation, and thus have something to do with liberty, and Intentionality, in the philosophical sense: a elected official promises to uphold a specific course of action. Promises, and other tokens of Honor, even as vague as an oath of office, aren't exactly phenomena: though perhaps some astute naturalist could conceivably interpret oaths as totems or meme, of some sort: statist-Ordnung totem. Alas, the great majority of Yokeli Amerikanus do not understand the meaning of Honor, and the discussions of ritualistic aspects of the oath (and inauguration itself) are left to obscure corners of blogdom.

Send your dilemmas........to AC Grayling



""""Can ethics be derived from evolution by natural selection?

""""Given that human beings have evolved by natural selection (with genetic drift and some other factors perhaps assisting), and are ethical creatures, it follows ab esse ad posse that ethics can be derived from evolution by natural selection.
That, though, might not be to answer the purport of the question, which asks: would natural selection be sufficient to produce creatures with a consciousness of ethical principles and a tendency to wish to observe them and see them observed?
The idea might be that whereas other social animals have evolved behaviours that subserve the interests of their sociality—dominance orderings, co-operation in hunting and watching for predators—this does not amount to ethics, the idea of which at least premises an awareness of the demands and responsibilities ethics involves, and the possibility of their non-observance, not least deliberately. Among other animals the evolved social behaviours are largely invariant and automatic; a putative "ethics" that is choicelessly a result of hard-wiring could not be ethics.
Immediately one says this, one has begged what is possibly the hardest question known to metaphysics and moral philosophy: that of free will. Almost every indication from sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and neurophilosophy supports the deterministic side of the argument, entailing that our sense of being choice-makers, deliberators, option-possessors, who could have done otherwise in most of our actions, is an illusion. On the evidence flooding in from these sources, we are as other social animals, only worse off in that we operate under an enormous error theory about our own nature, falsely thinking that we have free will and that we are therefore genuinely ethical creatures. It was from this error—if it is one—that Spinoza sought to free us by arguing in his Ethics that once we recognise that we live by necessity, we cease to repine, and thus are liberated from unhappiness.
For of course the very idea of ethics premises freedom of the will. There is no logic in praising or blaming individuals for what they do unless they could have done otherwise, any more than one would praise a pebble for rolling downhill upon being dislodged by rain. So this month's question becomes, by these selective pressures: could natural selection, resulting in the adaptations otherwise distinctive of human descent, have produced free will?
To answer that requires a clearer conception of "free will." Its formal identifier is the "genuinely could have done otherwise" requirement: but not only does that itself require unpacking, we also need to look for the fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) traces that suggest which structures in the brain import novelty into the world's causal chains, making their possessor a true agent, and not merely a patient—a sufferer—of the universe's history. So the question evolves yet again: could finding such a thing even be a possibility?"""""""

Let's hope so, AC. The contrary--proof that humans are automatons (or even mostly automatons)---would not bode well for those in religion business, or justice business (or academic business, really).

ACGrayling

Veblen on marxism

"""The neo-Hegelian, romantic, Marxian standpoint was wholly
personal, whereas the evolutionistic -- it may be called
Darwinian -- standpoint is wholly impersonal. The continuity
sought in the facts of observation and imputed to them by the
earlier school of theory was a continuity of a personal kind, --
a continuity of reason and consequently of logic. The facts were
construed to take such a course as could be established by an
appeal to reason between intelligent and fair-minded men. They
were supposed to fall into a sequence of logical consistency. The
romantic (Marxian) sequence of theory is essentially an
intellectual sequence, and it is therefore of a teleological
character. The logical trend of it can be argued out. That is to
say, it tends to a goal. It must eventuate in a consummation, a
final term. On the other hand, in the Darwinian scheme of
thought, the continuity sought in and imputed to the facts is a
continuity of cause and effect. It is a scheme of blindly
cumulative causation, in which there is no trend, no final term,
no consummation. The sequence is controlled by nothing but the
vis a tergo of brute causation, and is essentially mechanical.
The neo-Hegelian (Marxian) scheme of development is drawn in the
image of the struggling ambitious human spirit: that of Darwinian
evolution is of the nature of a mechanical process.6




Va va voom, Venus



What difference, now, does it make if the materialistic
conception is translated from the romantic concepts of Marx into
the mechanical concepts of Darwinism? It distorts every feature
of the system in some degree, and throws a shadow of doubt on
every conclusion that once seemed secure.7 The first principle of
the Marxian scheme is the concept covered by the term
"Materialistic," to the effect that the exigencies of the
material means of life control the conduct of men in society
throughout, and thereby indefeasibly guide the growth of
institutions and shape every shifting trait of human culture.
This control of the life of society by the material exigencies
takes effect thru men's taking thought of material (economic)
advantages and disadvantages, and choosing that which will yield
the iller material measure of life. When the materialistic
conception passes under the Darwinian norm, of cumulative
causation, it happens, first, that this initial principle itself
is reduced to the rank of a habit of thought induced in the
speculator who depends on its light by the circumstances of his
life, in the way of hereditary bent, occupation, tradition,
education, climate, food supply, and the like. But under the
Darwinian norm the question of whether and how far material
exigencies control human conduct and cultural growth becomes a
question of the share which these material exigencies have in
shaping men's habits of thought; i.e., their ideals and
aspirations, their sense of the true, the beautiful, and the
good. Whether and how far these traits of human culture and the
institutional structure built out of them are the outgrowth of
material (economic) exigencies becomes a question of what kind
and degree of efficiency belongs to the economic exigencies among
the complex of circumstances that conduce to the formation of
habits. It is no longer a question of whether material exigencies
rationally should guide men's conduct, but whether, as a matter
of brute causation, they do induce such habits of thought in men
as the economic interpretation presumes, and whether in the last
analysis economic exigencies alone are, directly or indirectly,
effective in shaping human habits of thought.""""

To reiterate: "Whether and how far these traits of human culture and the
institutional structure built out of them are the outgrowth of
material (economic) exigencies becomes a question of what kind
and degree of efficiency belongs to the economic exigencies among
the complex of circumstances that conduce to the formation of
habits." Sehr schoen. Pure Veblen-speak--.

Smackdown: Rawls vs. Zizek(update!)

"The scary prospect that Žižek raises in Welcome to the Desert of the Real is that the status of Homo sacer (## note) does not so much pertain to the excluded as it does to the possibility of being excluded, i.e. the fact that, due to political contingencies, all of us—citizens—can at any time be stripped of our citizenship rights, i.e. that we can all be reduced to Homo sacer (95). Since Rawls defines men as those who can be citizens, there is always someone who cannot be a citizen."


Yes, scary: though not as scary as say the Bolsheviks circa 1917 denying the right to vote to various groups, whether bourgeois liberals, or peasant anarchists. There were always thousands who could not be citizens under Hegelian statism, whether of russian, or prussian variety. Zizek himself has often praised Bolshevik tactics, and has also suggested some may be excluded from the worker's utopia to come--whether the usual booj-wah villain, or "populists", whether romantic leftists, or presumably rightist wingnuts.

Zizek wants to caricature Rawls’ system by any means necessary and make it appear like hypocritical liberal capitalism, or something (when it’s really a type of socialism, rooted in social contract), and at the same time suggest his own quasi-Bolshevik theory as a real democratic alternative. Zizek's Rawls-bashing does not therefore concern the problems with the political theory per se, but, via the usual pomo-jester tactics, allows him to ridicule the yankee-yokels and Ivy League, if not Enlightenment tradition itself (repeat social contract, mention Locke, or Adam Smith, the Constitution, science, etc.). Rector Zizek in effect conducts a show trial of Rawls and Rawlsian theory, and by extension Anglo-American thought as a whole.

Rawl’s updating of his theory (from man to citizen) improved the ToJ, Contingencies avers, especially the original position: the ToJ left open the problem of rationality (really agency); with Pol-Lib, citizenship is granted to rational people, and rational people decide on the societal structure (in brief). Even James Madison--er, the good Madison--might agree to that. The two over-riding justice principles (see note 1) of Rawls' ToJ are left intact. It should be recalled that Rawls is not a utilitarian as some suggest, nor a libertarian ala Nozick or Locke: democratic socialism seems the most apt description, yet the rationality requirements would preclude, seemingly, complete collectivist equality , whether in terms of wealth or rights. A nurse is not a doctor. A custodian is not an engineer. Its not about empowering bums, but empowering skilled and qualified (and taking down the pimps). Rawls did not adequately address that meritocracy issue in the ToJ.

The question remains what rational people would actually choose if forced to make disinterested decisions regarding a just society: the real objections are not from Nozick's MBA-libertarianism, or from a Zizek-Marxism perspective (the orthodox marxist simply rejects any reforms anyway which allow capitalism, if not the bourgeois to exist; so even if Rawls' theory were sound, it's not as sound as insurrection). The Rawlsian "maximin" hinges on the hypothetical Original Position, and the veil of ignorance; the same criticism levelled against Hobbes' political ideas for years applies. For one, without any real binding force, the rational choice made under the Veil seems rather provisional if not capricious: one might choose monarchy, and non-cooperation of various sorts (even say, joining the mafia), just as in the Prisoner's Dilemma a perp might choose to rat out his buddy instead of cooperating, notwithstanding that the potential loss is substantially greater. (It could be set up to be binding, we suggest, using modern technology, and computing/the Net: a Rawls bot--).

Tho' the hypothetical may be a stretch for many, the Rawlsian social contract, like Hobbes', does hint that social institutions and economic transactions should be grounded in something like a social contract which presumes fairness--a level playing field and equality as starting point (thus the Rawlsian also in principle opposed to monopoly and dynasties of various sorts--as were the more liberal Founding fathers). The Constitution, while very important does not suffice; a more-than-minimal state then is required in order to implement distributive justice. Lacking some distributive justice maxims, we are left to libertarianism, if not anarcho-capitalism (not to say wall streets, bailouts, the Forbes 400 gang, billionaire brokers or porn producers living a few miles from starving teachers and other skilled workers, etc etc).


Although Zizek and most marxists might object to Rawls' Difference Principle (if they bother to read it at all) the DP offers a political mechanism whereby the rich provide substantial economic assistance to the impoverished and miserable--the working poor--not based on mere charity, or handouts, but on optimization (and on the Original Position OP--so accept the OP, then DP follows. A bit more schematic than British empiricists, emotional liberalism, or romantic marxism). It's Hobbes via Rousseau (and a bit of Kant--but only as an end, ie kingdom of ends) rather than Lockean. Locke's attacks on the Divine Right of Kings are and should remain commendable, yet what's needed is an attack on the Divine Right of Corporation (most leftist/progressives hint at that, but Rawls did the dirty work).


Rawls’s criteria of citizenship based on public reason (see note 2) offers a possible solution to the problem of the romantic masses, and ill-equipped, uneducated rebels: were some 3rd world “homo sacer” (really a typical Zizek straw man; the term is from Agamben, in latin means sacred man, but used to mean something like "loozer") as provably as intelligent or competent as Biff and Bunny in the ‘burbs, then he has the same rights to citizenship (and to political participation). Given Zizek’s own attacks on populism, he also seems to object to romantic marxism: so at times he suggests some shall be excluded from societal and/or political participation (tho it’s probably a lot more than he lets on)--thus, Zizek has his own "homo sacers"(and a mineshaft to toss 'em in). Rawls arguably did not go far enough in terms of specifying a citizenship criteria, but it’s quite more workable than the usual marxist hype (including Zizek’s–really on examination another romantic himself).

The ToJ does lack that spirit of romantic rebellion which many cafe-leftists mistake for politics, however. Rawls put his shoulder to the wheel, but he wasn’t a Che Guevara, Sartre, or Chomsky, or Zizek, etc. He was more like a Galbraith or Dewey than existentialist guru. That lack of continentalist swagger bothers Zizek more than anything; Rawls as symbol of academic reformist, etc, if not American mediocrity. Irregardless the TOJ’s a workable system, and given the history of botched Hegelianism–-stalin, nazis, mao, etc.– the TOJ should be given serious consideration as a type of progressive template.



1). Rawls definition of a just society:

(a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and

(b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).)

2). public reason, per Jefferson: [I]t is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration . . . . [They include] the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reasons..."


##: re "Homo sacer"-- "The meaning of the term sacer in Ancient Roman religion is not fully congruent with the meaning it took after Christianization, and which was adopted into English as sacred. In early Roman religion sacer means anything "set apart" from common society, which equally covers the meanings of "hallowed" and "cursed". The homo sacer was thus simply a man expunged from society and deprived of all civil rights and all functions in civil religion."" (not "homo," like well, your fatboy preacher worries about, Tammany McDreckson)

GWFH

Bush, Obama and the Gaza Blitz/Buchanan

Buchanan's wrong most of the time, but not wrong all of the time:

"""Unwilling to control its fighters, who fired scores of missiles into Israel at the end of their six-month ceasefire, Hamas gave Israel the provocation it needed to deliver a savage blow to the Palestinian enclave in Gaza.

Saturday was the bloodiest day in the history of the Palestinian people since being driven from their homes in the War of 1948. One thousand were killed or wounded, as the Israeli Air Force conducted over a hundred strikes — on graduation ceremonies for Hamas fighters, police stations and storage sites for rockets.

About Israel’s right and duty to defend its border towns, there is no dispute. When Hamas permits Gaza to be used as a launch pad for rockets, it must expect retaliation. Nor can Hamas claim some right to dictate the limits of that retaliation.

Yet the wisdom of so savage a retribution for rockets that killed not one Israeli is open to question. And crass Israeli politics seems to be behind this premeditated and planned blitz. With Likud’s hawkish “Bibi” Netanyahu ahead in the polls for the Feb. 10 election, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Labor’s candidate, had to show that he, too, could be ruthless with Hamas. Kadima Party candidate and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has an even greater need than the highly decorated Barak to show toughness. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, departing in scandal, wants to exit in a blaze of glory, to blot out the memory of a botched war against Hezbollah that he launched in the summer of 2006.

However, while Israel’s politicians all seem to have a stake in these devastating strikes, Israel herself will pay the price. Given the casualty toll, over 300 dead and 1,300 wounded as of this writing, Hamas will have to exact its pound of flesh. The Hamas wing that seeks renewed war with Israel will now shout into silence the wing working with Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak on a new ceasefire.

The moderate Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas, who has been talking to Israel, testifying to her good faith, has been made to appear the puppet and fool. A new intifada spreading to the West Bank, with suicide attacks inside Israel, is now possible.
Moderate Arabs, who have recognized Israel or backed peace, will now be seen by the Arab street as appeasers impotent to stop the public suffering of the Palestinian people.

As for President Bush’s hopes of midwifing a peace that would create a Palestinian state, they are as dead as the Annapolis process he set in train. In advancing peace in the Middle East, Bush’s eight-year record is now a near-absolute failure.
For four years, Bush refused to talk to Yasir Arafat, though Bill Clinton had negotiated with him, as had four Israeli prime ministers, two of who shared a Nobel Prize with Arafat. In his second term, Bush, after insisting Hamas be included in free elections in Palestine, refused to recognize Hamas when it won those elections.
Arafat was a terrorist and Hamas is a terrorist organization, declared Bush, and we don’t negotiate with terrorists. Yet, Bush de-listed Libya as a state sponsor of terror and sent Condi Rice to chat up Col. Gadhafi, though Gadhafi still has on his hands the blood of scores of American school kids from the Lockerbie massacre of 1989 that Libya and Gadhafi engineered For eight years, like the “dummy” in a hand of bridge, Bush has sat mute as his Israeli partner, Sharon or Olmert, played America’s cards as well as their own. The Bush response to Saturday’s carnage, as anticipated, was to blame Hamas for causing it and urge Israelis to be careful about civilian casualties as they go about their reprisals.

Whatever Israel decides, we support. For eight years that has been the most reliable guide to U.S. Middle East policy. And Barack Obama? Forty-eight hours after the Israeli blitz began, he and his national security team remain silent.
Hopefully, Obama will bring with him a new Mideast policy, one made in the U.S.A., for the U.S.A. Hopefully, just as Israel has its private links to Syria through Turkey, to Hamas through Egypt and to Hezbollah, Obama will establish independent U.S. channels to all three, and adopt a separate U.S. policy toward all three, as Israel does.

While the United States must support Israel’s right to defend her towns and to strike bases from which Israelis are being attacked, Obama should denounce the collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, by Israel’s cutting off their electricity in the dead of winter and denying them the food and medicine many need to survive.

For us to remain silent in the face of this comports neither with our interests or our values. Israel’s policy of withholding from the weak and innocent of Gaza, women and children, the necessities of life, to punish the guilty who rule at the point of a gun, is a policy that Obama should declare the United States will no longer support with tax dollars.""""""


To reiterate: "....the wisdom of so savage a retribution for rockets that killed not one Israeli is open to question." Das stimmt. Lest we forget who the demopublicans work for, last week the Senate and House voted --unanimously in the Senate, and like 400 to 5 in the House--in favor of more or less unconditional support of AIPAC, and the Israeli military.

Governor Girrly Mann

From the SFGate:

"""Schwarzenegger... resubmitted a proposal the Legislature rejected last year
to cut benefits for the children of welfare recipients if their parents fail to
get jobs. State subsidies for the elderly, blind and disabled also would be
frozen through the end of the decade, while Medi-Cal would be cut by $1 billion.

A large part of the savings would come from eliminating dental coverage
for 3 million adults.

In essence, the governor's budget proposes many of
the deep cuts economists have long said would be necessary to bring the state's
revenue and expenditures in line if the Republican governor would not raise
taxes, which he has pledged not to do.

But the cuts will be politically difficult if not impossible in a state controlled by Democrats, who have long championed robust spending on education and social programs.

The majority of the estimated $14.5 billion deficit would be closed by an
across-the-board cut of 10 percent to almost all state agencies and programs.
The move saves almost $10 billion.

The governor also proposes borrowing an additional $3.3 billion under bonds voters approved for deficit-relief in 2004. That would extend the state's repayment of the bonds, which were designed to cover the budget shortfall resulting from the dot-com bust well into the next decade. """

Schwarzi's deficit now matches that of Davis; before CA voters
decided to curtail the state govt.'s ability to take on more
loans, AS borrowed billions more than Davis did. Government fidiciary
matters--budget-chat-- might be dull for many CA hipsters, yet the talking
points of the Recall show consisted primarily of budget-chat.

Schwarzi and the GOP yacht-club enjoy slashing programs--not merely
welfare-type programs, but public education, services to elderly and
disabled, parks--and he proposes to continue the slashing. Schwarzi has
also substantially increased tuition at community colleges, Cal
States (where most po' CA students go), and UCs; in effect, tuition
increases and higher state fees of all sorts (DMV, licensing etc. ) are a
shadow-tax on lower and middle classes.

Schwarzi, however, has kept his promises to the aristocrats of Cali. Burdening
those gated enclaves and mansion-dwellers of
Westside LA, Malibu, Carmel, the Duchy of Palo Alto,
Fog town: das ist Verboten.

FeinsteinVille

From Wiki-wonderland :

"[CA Senator Diane] Feinstein voted to give the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve international surveillance of the communications of Americans entirely within the executive branch, rather than through the special intelligence court established by FISA. Many privacy advocates have decried this law and Senator Feinstein's vote in favor of it... In February 2008, Feinstein joined Republicans in the Senate in voting "Nay" to strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.... On July 9, 2008, Feinstein broke with counterpart Sen. Barbara Boxer and voted for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304.

Feinstein was the original Democratic cosponsor of a bill to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. In a December 2005 statement, Senator Feinstein stated, "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people." She was the main Democratic sponsor of the failed 2006 constitutional Flag Desecration Amendment. In November 2007, Feinstein was one of only six Democrats to vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.""""

DF's record, especially regarding civil liberties, rates higher on the SnitchConservative-metric than that of many GOP hawks (and her CA congress-crony Pelosi, now doing the Search for Justice schtick with old motown hack Conyers, shares most of her views). The Kossacks clamoring for the heads of Rove and Cheney can't, however, quite grasp the concept of bipartisan guilt: on KOS and other mainstream liberal sites, a female Dem with a record nearly identical to that of say Trent Lott0--tho' Lott values the 2nd Amendment a bit more than DiFi does-- has some exemption (dare we say royalist) not granted to mere mortal rethugs.

(Rove and Cheney are hardly the only one in the tumbril (the tumbrils of the Mind). It's the US Govt and US Military. So take it the Hague, crimefighters, or STFU)

El libro de arena

Utopía de un hombre que está cansado (un cuento escrito de JL Borges , en El libro de arena)


""En el cuento, Eudoro Acevedo, de la ciudad de Buenos Aires y nacido en 1897, visita una finca en medio de una llanura desierta, en el futuro. Su anfitrión, que habla en latín, le cuenta la vida del futuro, en la que los hombres viven el tiempo que desean, prefieren la soledad y el arte. Acevedo retorna al presente con una pintura de su anfitrión."""

Mike Whitney re Obama and Gaza

Uno momento de la Izquierda autentica:

"""""....[Obama's] nothing more than an ambitious and well-spoken young man who's being used to conceal the genocidal operation of the imperial machine; a fact that is particularly poignant on a day like December 29, the 118th anniversary of Wounded Knee, when more than 200 Lakota Sioux were mowed down by the 7th Cavalry on the Pine Ridge Reservation marking the end of the Indian Wars. Like the Palestinians, the Indians were guilty of nothing more than having been born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Needless to say, if Obama had been around then, he would have looked askance and bit his tongue just as he has today. The truth is Obama is a "cool guy" who doesn't really feel that strongly about anything. That's why Obama's moral authority has been gravely eroded before he's even been sworn in. The bloody streets of Gaza are an indictment of Obama not Hamas.

When people see the photos of the Palestinian children being extracted from the debris of bombed-out buildings in Gaza; they should ask themselves whether Obama could have saved a few lives by just speaking out. The fact is, he had a chance to defend the people who can't defend themselves, but chose silence and complicity instead...."""""

Viva Malatesta! Recuerde, La Señora Feinstein - La Porcina del CA--es el primer orador en el fiesta de Obama. No, nos se no puedan....

AC Grayling blogs the UDHR

"""""The importance of freedom of speech – which includes, as the jurisprudence of the US's first amendment shows, all forms of expression – is so great that it cannot be overstated. First, though, one must accept that it is not absolute: the hoary old example, no less compelling for being so, is that one cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire. But the circumstances in
which some greater benefit is served by limiting freedom of expression have to
be such that, on a strictly individual and one-off basis, an overwhelming case
can be made for doing it on that occasion alone. There should, in short, never
be a blanket proscription of expression. When such expression is libelous or
damaging, there can be remedy after the fact, as when someone sues for
defamation. Prior restraint on expression, by contrast, should be a rare and
exceptional event, as just suggested. And emphatically, the fact that someone
"feels offended" by someone else's utterances – or cartoons or theatre
performances – ought never to be grounds for quelling free speech.

Why all these shoulds and should nots regarding free speech? Why is article 19 so
important? Because our other rights depend on it. Without free speech you cannot
claim, assert or protect your other rights. You cannot defend yourself in court
or accuse those who harm you. You cannot have democracy, which turns upon the
statement and discussion of policies and challenge to those who propose them.
There cannot be education worth the name when some things cannot be said, when
some information is suppressed, and when enquiry and debate is stifled. There
cannot be fully flourishing literature or theatre or broadcasting services if
there are gags over mouths and blindfolds over eyes.""""""

Hear, hear. 'Mericans could do worse than to sublimate their instinct for British-bashing and study a bit of GraylingSpeak. Multicultural leftists generally dismiss the secular-progressivism and rights-talk of a Grayling, regarding about any British academic--whether a Keynes, Bertrand Russell, or even Dawkins--as imperialist anathema, whereas the US yokel is probably reminded of Hannibal Lector, or Winnie Churchill, assuming they read Guardian-level English at all (--tho of course Grayling not exactly competing with like Paturkno State vs TrojanCo, or ...Bill n Hillary Iguana tripping the light phantastic to Sinatra drones.... Hymn to La Cosa Nostra).

Regardless, Grayling does correctly note the importance of free speech/expression rights. However bor-reeng, trite, or liberal rights-speak seems to some gauchistes (or boring to Coulteresque vichy wannabes, or neo-confederates, etc.), intelligent humans have a fundamental right to express their viewpoints, their objections, their dissent--whether that's via local metro-newspaper (hardly a vehicle for democracy), blogs, magazines, academic journals. Those rights also apply, arguably, to academia, which often controls or purges discussion of various issues (such as the academic bureaucracy itself).

Professor Grayling has a bit of the old Fabian sensibility: that tends to offend romantics, whether marxist, or mafiosi. He's dissed the royals and even that supposed saint Rowan Williams. He's rather well-read in many of the current scientific/evolutionary debates. To people who consider a Bertrand Russell a manifestation of Apollyon, he probably seems demonic; to those of us who would rather sink with the ship--the USS Fabian--with the likes of Bertrand Russell, Keynes, Dewey, Orwell, even Chomsky, than side with stalinists, or jihadists, he's the voice of reason.

Kossacks tackle the existence of G*d and other matters


from terry2wa :

""I find Dawkins' works to be solidly scientific and logical, but
like so many of his intellectual mentors from the Post-War era, there is a
profound sense of existential despair lying just below the surface. He is excellent with explanations of process and hypotheses of causality, but he is simply mute on the wonder of it all. His work is intellectually compelling, but spiritually sterile and flat. He's like Camus in a lab coat.

Hitchens is, in my opinion, simply a contrarian who, if he does not actually actively
despise any human interaction which could be deemed altruistic or noble or self-abnegating, is so skeptical of motive as to be little more than a misanthrope. If his aim is to win converts to atheism, then I am fairly certain eventually Evangelicals like Rick Warren will pass out copies of God Is Not Great along with their religious tracts, because after reading Hitchens the usual reaction is, after taking one long and very hot shower and scrubbing off most one's epidermis, to pray devoutly for the existence of a God who can lock Hitchens safely away for eternity in Hell with the other demons who roam the world seeking the ruin of souls.

That said, I find Daniel Dennett's upbeat and almost lyrical atheist credo, as outlined in Breaking The Spell, to be the most compelling and accessible. His personal philosophy has accomplished the almost miraculous feat of combining a rigorous scientifically-grounded agnosticism with the best elements of Humanist thought. Like EO Wilson, his science flows from his curiosity, awe and wonder at the natural world, and he is able to acknowledge that Beauty, Truth and Goodness are the cornerstones of a fulfilling human existence, the foundation of human ethics, and the lynchpins of civilization. One comes away from Dennett's books with the impression that he has enjoyed life, in spite of being godless, and that you are the better for
having made his acquaintance.

Of course, all I've said here should be tempered by the admission that I remain, in spite of everything, a believer. The Apostle's Creed has long since fallen into disuse and disrepair in this jaded soul, but I continue to judge the affairs of Mankind by the standards of the rebel Jesus. And while I no longer cling to the conviction that anything awaits me after death except recycling, my soul refuses to accept the proposition that life, even individual life, is without purpose or meaning. It may be Freud's "illusion", but I'm too damned old now to care.

That said, I have a great deal of respect for an honest disbeliever. Like Paul Tillich, I believe that no faith exists without doubt, and I join many of you in stating my firm conviction that organized religion is the fountainhead of a large portion of this world's temporal suffering.

Still, as I get older and closer to whatever eternity is, I am absolutely certain that the hunger and thirst for justice which those old Dominican nuns drilled into my dense and feral little head all those years back was a good thing, and I am grateful for the part of me which yearns to see every human given his due and holds all people accountable for the gifts received, in the measure they have received them."""

Rather eloquent for a Kossack.

Hegel-mass

(from GWFH's Phil of History)

""""“Eh bien,” said Napoleon, “we shall go to mass again, and my good fellows will say: ‘That is the word of command!’” This is the leading feature in the character of these nations – the separation of the religious from the secular interest, i.e., from the special interest of individuality; and the ground of this separation lies in their inmost soul, which has lost its independent entireness of being, its profoundest unity. Catholicism does not claim the essential direction of the Secular; religion remains an indifferent matter on the one side, while the other side of life is dissociated from it, and occupies a sphere exclusively its own. Cultivated Frenchmen therefore feel an antipathy to Protestantism because it seems to them something pedantic, dull, minutely captious in its morality; since it requires that Spirit and Thought should be directly engaged in religion: in attending mass and other ceremonies, on the contrary, no exertion of thought is required, but an imposing sensuous spectacle is presented to the eye, which does not make such a demand on one’s attention as entirely to exclude a little chat, while yet the duties of the occasion are not neglected.""""

O Schweigen KristallNacht. Yo BubbaBot: that's sort of like you, blasting bombastically away on a trumpet. GWFH tho' plays Beethoven (or maybe Wagner), and you, alas, play like "Lil Light of Mine." And GWF knows 4 or 5 languages fluently (Deutsch, Latin, greek, romance tongues, probably a bit of sanskrit, chinese, even arabic--and you can barely manage Anglo-preacher speak), has mastered most of the sciences of the time (quite adept with derivatives and integrals), and knows world history, greek and roman thinkers (Caesar one of his faves) up and down. BubbaRon x 10.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm

LPOE

4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: 4:19 How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? 4:20 They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it. (from the Book of Job)

The LPOE has been known for centuries. The Book of Job presents the issue in some form; greek and roman scribes alluded to it. Voltaire, pal of Franklin and Hume had some awareness of the issue , as that great surreal graphic novel Candide reveals. (Jefferson kept a bust of Voltaire, Marquis de Arouet in his Monticello study his entire life). Dr. Pangloss, V's parody of that brilliant mystic-windbag Leibniz, insists this is the best of all possible worlds, even in the face of wars, earthquakes and tidal waves killing untold thousands.

Most modern theologians--Dr. Panglosses are still around--would probably uphold Leibniz's rather optimistic view, and claim that, even apres-Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Bush Administration, their God chose the best of possible worlds (how do they know, without knowing of other worlds??), and at the same time grant that God does allow evil (another problematic normative concept). He does not intervene to stop the suffering of the innocent, say, when by definition He could; and obviously history affords a monumental amount of evidence showing the suffering of innocent (or mostly innocent), via pain, poverty, natural disasters, disease, collateral damage in wars, etc. ("Free will" does not offer the theologian an escape in the above cases).

In short, God's putative Justice, Perfection and Omnipotence are not consistent, or evident or provable in any normal sense of proof, i.e. via axiom, or observation (here is a brief synopsis of the logical problem of evil). The inconsistency of the premises suggests that JHVH (assuming He exists for sake of irritating the pious) is either Omnipotent, but not Just (or "perfect" really), OR he is not Omnipotent (and then not really God), or simply does not exist.


So, God either won't prevent undue suffering, though He could--which seems to suggest an amoral KingGod, sort of a Tamerlane on high---or He can't (which denies his omnipotence, or perhaps suggest a manicheanism, or polydeism, or other oddities), OR since that all seems rather preposterous, we can safely claim He does not exist. However ancient and obscure manicheanism seems, a battle between opposing forces seems a rather more plausible religious model (even somewhat evolutionary) when considering the absurd implications of a monotheist Being. Given a century of brutal wars, genocide, political oppression of all sorts, the conclusion of the LPOE seems rather a fortiori (as do Voltaire's points).

There are other anti-theological tactics of course--such as the Darwinian tactic. Darwin and Lyell did not merely advance biological science: they established the fallibility of the dogma of Old Testament (and all theological texts purporting to account for natural history). Radiocarbon dating disproved the rabbinical and xtian accounts of creation (ie 4000 bc, etc.), and confirmed Darwinian accounts of a very old world, and of common descent with modifications (problems there are with naive Darwinism--McDarwinism--as evidenced by TH Huxley's simplifications. For that matter Darwin himself waffled on the religious question, and at times appears to have agreed with the 'teleological' argument).

The LPOE does something quite different than Darwinism does: the LPOE shows the inconsistencies of the theologians' own assumptions via a fairly obvious set of premises. The correct conclusions drawn from LPOE will not likely phase many biblethumpers, or koranthumpers, most of whom have no problem upholding the code of Credo que Absurdum:theists are generally great romantics. That our elected officials also uphold the Credo q.A. (ie asking fundies to offer invocations and benedictions), however, should concern all Non-Churchians.

Dr. Chu


Dolores May, commenting on Obama's appointment of Dr. Chu to Sec. of Energy(HuffPo):

Progressives should be aware that Dr. Chu's energy research is entirely funded by British Petroleum, through a controversial $500 million dollar contract with UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley Labs (as well as the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). The emphasis at the BP-created initiative is mainly on biofuels. The deal has come under heavy criticism for potentially ensuring that a major oil company will be setting much of the agenda for energy research in the coming century (not to mention setting the agenda for the public universities involved). Not an entirely evil enterprise, perhaps, but hardly free of distortion by economic interests. And Dr. Chu was a major force creating the deal. So not to rain on anyone's parade, but just to add a little perspective. This appointment is very much in the mold of other Obama appointments: Super-smart, super-qualified guy - but no progressive.

Meet the new Energy Czar, same as the old Energy czar. Chu also supports nuclear energy. That said, Chu's scientific credentials appear impressive, and Contingencies does not automatically dismiss the potential viability of nuclear power. (Emo-crats usually do, however--except when Chairman BO assures them it's ok). Obama also has selected former Clintonite EPA boss Carol Browner (Miss Browner's the actual E-Czar--Czarina?) for an eco-bureaucrat position, along with Nancy Sutley, an assistant to Browner: all Clintonites. Hope and Change.

The nerdier DailyKOS sorts approve of Chu for the most part, believing that a real "geek" has taken over the reins of Energy. Chu, however, like most high-powered laboratory scientists, has ties to oil corporations such as BP, as did his predecessors in Bush admin. (BP has in fact greatly profited from the Iraqi war--). The implication seems to be that a pro-nuclear Asian scientist with ties to Big Oil is to be preferred to the pro-nuclear American scientist with ties to Big Oil.

One Counterpuncher, Karl Grossman doesn't seem overly thrilled with the appointment of Dr. Chu: “He’s really big on efficiency and renewables,” says Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, of Chu. But he is “looking at nuclear as well. He and President-elect Obama are not anti-nuclear, and not perhaps as versed on it as they should be.” Mariotte has a major concern that “they will accede to demands to fund nuclear power made by Congress”—awash in contributions from the nuclear power industry and with many members loyal to the national nuclear laboratories in their districts.""

One of the Dept. of Energy's founding members, Admiral Rickover--hardly some tofu-munching, birkenstock'd Greenpeacer--ultimately took a stance against nuclear power, and suggested banning nuclear reactors.

....................................

Cockburn on Politix, Chicago-style. When he keeps his VI Lenin fetish under control, Alex Cockburn actually can scribble a bit. Blogging Blago:

""""Top storyline has been the impact of Blagojevich’s indictment on Obama. At the very moment the president-elect proclaims an era of uplift and constitutional propriety, the slimy tentacles of old-style Chicago corruption snake towards his ankles. The chortles of outgoing President George Bush Jr., himself harassed by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby affair, must be rich and prolonged.

Blagojevich did Obama the enormous favor of denouncing him on the government’s tapes. “F--- him,” bellowed the governor during a call with top aides and Patti, covertly recorded by the FBI on November 10th, “For nothing? F--- him.” The governor was peeved that Obama’s representatives weren’t offering him any material incentives to nominate Obama’s political associate and Chicago powerhouse, Valerie Jarrett, for the senate seat vacated by Obama. The president elect can thank his stars for the expletive, but potential embarrassments still loom.....""

We suspect Kid Obama's closer--much closer--to this than most of the Emo-crats realize. So BO goes with Emanuel--and thus ratted out his one-time ally Blago. Blago then puts BO's Senatorial position on the block. F--- him, indeed. Alas, facts, historical facts interfere with that gleaming Progressive futurity.

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.

Engels, Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx

Darwin. Marx. Darwin and/or Marx.

One Susan Jacoby on American Unreason:

"""The debasement of the nation's speech is evident in virtually everything, on every subject, broadcast and podcast on radio, television, and the Internet. In this true, all-encompassing public square, homogenized language and homogenized thought reinforce each other in circular fashion. As George Orwell noted in 1946, “A man may take to drink because he feels himself a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” In this continuous blurring of clarity and intellectual discrimination, political speech is always ahead of the curve—especially because today’s media possess the power to amplify and spread error with an efficiency that might have astonished even Orwell. Consider the near-universal substitution, by the media and politicians, of “troop” and “troops” for “soldier” and “soldiers.” As every dictionary makes plain, the word “troop” is always a collective noun; the “s” is added when referring to a particularly large military force. Yet each night on the television news, correspondents report that “X troops were killed in Iraq today.” This is more than a grammatical error; turning a soldier—an individual with whom one may identify—into an anonymous-sounding troop encourages the public to think about war and its casualties in a more abstract way. Who lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Troop? It is difficult to determine exactly how, why, or when this locution began to enter the common language. Soldiers were almost never described as troops during the Second World War, except when a large military operation (like the Allied landing on D-Day) was being discussed, and the term remained extremely uncommon throughout the Vietnam era. My guess is that some dimwits in the military and the media (perhaps the military media) decided, at some point in the 1980s, that the word “soldier” implied the masculine gender and that all soldiers, out of respect for the growing presence of women in the military, must henceforth be called troops. Like unremitting appeals to folks, the victory of troops over soldiers offers an impressive illustration of the relationship between fuzzy thinking and the debasement of everyday speech."""

Contingencies-approved.

Meet the new Madame Hillary; same as the old Madame Hillary

Josh Frank on Madame Hillary:

"""It’s official.

Barack Obama has chosen Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State; a choice that confirms US foreign policy is not about to change significantly under the forthcoming Democratic administration. The US will continue to pander to Israel and the War on Terror will still be the rallying cry for our foreign interventions.

In a letter to her constituents in November 2005, Clinton expressed her belief that the war in Iraq shouldn’t be “open-ended,” but was clear that she would never “pull out of Iraq immediately.” She wrote that she wouldn’t accept any timetable for withdrawal and won’t even embrace a “redeployment” of US troops along the lines of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).""""

Those nasty Demopublicans. The choice of Miss Clinton for the rather crucial position of ReceptionistSecretary of State should not shock. That the "liberal" blogging horde did not raise their voice at Obama's selection of Hillary does not shock either (and GOPers already have said they will confirm): that's how the contemporary political process works at this stage, with American politicians shifting from a phony puritanical pacifism (i.e. Obama a year ago), to hard-boiled RealPolitik in a matter of weeks.

One year ago, Obamaites portrayed Hillary as a neo-con, ally of Lieberman, if not the equivalent of Dick Cheney in terms of foreign policy. The hack satirists of DailyKOS and similar DINO.com sites had Hillary outfitted in the She-Wolf of the SS gear. Team Obama removed her jackboots, and she's now an experienced asset, carrying on the noble tradition of Condi Rice. That said, Miss Hillary, does possess some spine, and really more of a Truman-style Dem. than most of Obama's cronies. Perhaps she'll send a message of Love across the earth, like along with the aircraft carriers: the USS Jeee-zuss

Congressman Kevin "Kern Guy" McCarthy,

brought to you by

Chevron, Exxon, JP Morgan-Chase, New York Life, Occidental, RJ Reynolds, Walmart, & Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America Inc.

FEC/Disclosure

De Toke-ville on De-mocracy

Tocqueville: "I have previously stated that the principle of the sovereignty of the people hovers over the whole political system of the Anglo-Americans. Every page of this book will reflect certain fresh instances of this doctrine. In nations where it exists, every individual takes an equal share in sovereign power and participates equally in the government of the state. Thus he is considered as enlightened, virtuous, strong as any of his fellow men."

Tocqueville understands the faulty premise of Jeffersonian democracy (as did TJ, in his gloomier moments). Democracy presupposes that any person is as competent, intelligent and "virtuous" as any other. That is demonstrably false: people vary widely in intelligence and virtue, as a comparison of education scores, or incarceration ratios would show. So "democracy rests on a lie" (Colin McGinn's phrase). D-T also seems to suggest as much: x is "considered" as enlightened as any, but not proven to be. That does not imply, however, the superiority of Pax Regina, except to dolts (a large and controlling tribe, paraphrasing Bierce).

In more formal terms, D-T questions the presumption of agency. That citizens all have the right to vote at 18 does not mean they possess the knowledge to make informed vote-choices; being a citizen in a Democratic society does not mean one is Thomas Jefferson. Criteria does exist for various social roles, employment, for establishing "competent agency," in effect--say driving a car or obtaining an MD--but not for others, such as voting, or running for political office (nor for blogging). It does not seem prima facie unreasonable to require a voting license program similar to a driver's license (or requiring a hs diploma, etc). That might not appeal to the romantic leftist (usually a crypto-rightist anyway) representin' for the Peoples, but would most likely lend a bit more intelligence to the political process.


Miss Rand, America's Phirst Lady of Philosophy

Academics rarely offer some cogent definition of agency for that matter-- anymore than they establish the "Rational Man" standard of Smithian economics (20th century history reads more like the work of Irrational man--). Granting that humans do make choices (even if they are coerced by physiological factors of various sorts--voluntary determinism, aka compatibilism of a sort), some choices are measurably better than others, and in many situations one person is a more competent "chooser" than another. There is a definite tendency among many people, rather Nietzschean and elitist (also seen in Aynnie Rand's pop-Nietzschean ideas) to think that the smarter, competent, more virtuous person has more of a entitlement claim, and greater "rights" of some type than an uneducated or mentally ill, homeless person does (Nietzsche's "chandala"). That's not necessarily mistaken: obviously some people are smarter and more competent than others, and that can be established via various methods, by standardized tests, degrees, credentials, etc. Mistaken however is the usual protestant assumption (or monotheistic, really) that being a good Churchie and believing in Jee-zuss confers some special right..

Indeed, meritocracy (as opposed to naive democracy), given our technological age, would seem to require specified agency criteria. That needn't imply elitism of the Nietzschean sort: rational-agent Meritocracy could be to the advantage of intelligent progressive politics, and a means to dismantling oligarchies of various sorts (say "natural fortune" in Rawlsian terms). Meritocracy based on carefully defined agency-criteria could create a more even, and fairer playing field. Rawls also requires that humans who make disinterested decisions regarding society via his "veil of ignorance" be rational, though he does not hash that out too much (what would be sufficient to establish rationality, and a sort of political-participation right? a HS diploma, or an MD). Meritocracy could in principle avoid the problems of populism, of economic disparity--like that between rich pimps n ho's and starving Einsteins and Jeffersons--and ameliorate mob rule in general (whether that's a mob of biblethumpers for Sarah Palin, or a mob of sans cullottes bent on smashing the state)---don't hold your breath.