United States of Aristocracy

If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the United States of America, I think it would be appropriate to drop the pretense of a democratic society and officially rechristen the nation to the United States of Aristocracy. It has become obvious to me that the populace has become a slave to brand names. The society is not intellectually curious about the world around us. We consider ourselves exceptional and don’t properly consider alternative outcomes in any aspect of our lives, being American citizens, Christian followers, living in a relatively prosperous nation or how others came to be the way we observe them.

I’m not saying Hillary Clinton would be a bad president, but it is obvious to me that she is a political animal. She is playing all the little tactical political games that make her political opponents dance to the point where she can actually accomplish what she wants to behind the scenes, not on actual debate but merely cheap punditry. This is the exact reason her criticism reside in the narrow lilliputian band of the political spectrum on any of the president’s policies. I’m sure with her in charge much of the corruption of the Iraq reconstruction process will disappear. We’d actually have a competently run government much like the one under her husband. However, just like her husband’s enforcement of the no-fly zone and status quo of the embargo, I’m sure Hillary will follow in the tradition of the “serious” foreign policy establishment and the U.S. won’t see an immediate withdraw from Iraq.

In short, a vote for Hillary continues the status quo. It justifies the world-view that the Republicans and Democrats are still going through the same politicking they’ve always gone through. The fact of the matter, the Republicans have undergone a radical transformation in recent years. The Democratic party is now reluctantly transforming in reaction.

Again, I’m not saying Hillary would do a bad job, I think it will allow the American people to slumber for another four to eight years. However, it does mean that two families will have occupied the presidency for 24 consecutive years. If we include George H. W. Bush’s time as vice-president, we would add eight more to that number.

The most important trend that I think a Clinton nomination and election signals is a drift to towards authoritarianism; the continuing divine-right elitism that exists at the highest levels of political office. I’m not a Leninist. I don’t believe things must get worse before they get better. However, much like her husband, I think Hillary will turn it around, only for another Republican to take office and leave an even bigger mess. What we need is a rebuke of policies of George W. Bush. Hillary does not represent a rebuke, just a shift towards competent and continued execution. However, we’d still be picking from a class of established elites. In that vain, the tyranny that exists today will expand in the long run. It is an American electorate that gives a continued voluntary submission to hereditary authority, which has not place in a functioning democracy.

The American Way Brought To You By Amway

It is hard to measure the impact of Amway on Western Michigan. However, Amway is a company that probably is underneath many people’s radar much like many people are not aware of dispensationalism or the Left Behind series.

The first thing to understand is that Amway is the hook.  Amway makes good products.  They would probably be competitive with other brands.  However, that is not how Amway operates.  Amway is a legal pyramid scheme.  In that, in the variety of products that they sell, they encourage people to adopt an “Amway” lifestyle.  People consume Amway products, sell Amway products, and try to convert others to adopt an Amway lifestyle also.  It is not a mere coincidence that the Amway evangelism parallels Christian evangelism.  The two actively reinforce one another and the blending of the two is quite intentional.

The organizational structure is a strict hierarchy rewarding the earliest, most feral and evangelical members.  The Bible is then cherry-picked to reinforce and justify the hierarchy.   The encouraged belief is seeing the monetary rewards as gifts from God, telling those not doing so well to keep faith, and expounding the success stories within the organization.

The vast rewards of those at the top of the organization on the backs under them provides a key reinforcement.  One, they undoubtedly went through a tough time when they started out.  Two, God showed favor upon them and is continuing to reward their faith in this life.  Three, there is no need to help those worse off because eventually God will help them out too.

The disconnect is like the superstitious pigeon.  For background, if you deliver a food pellet to a pigeon at random, it will develop wild superstitions about why the food pellet came.  Humans operate much in the same manner.  In winner take all capitalist systems, the ready made reason for random events is God.  It turns out to be essential to give people a sense of desperation to begin with to reinforce their faith.  Those that lose, just give up.  Those that win have God to thank, which builds an organization of Christian-Capitalist-Evangelical believers with the most adamant and successful at the top.

The God-reinforced elitism is essential.  The wealth is not generated through free-market means, it is generated through organizational means.  Because the wealth is God-ordained, the well-off have no real sense of earning money.  The money that they have is merely as much as they can take.  This arises in other contexts also.  However, Amway and Western Michigan provides a wonderful example of how business and religion intermix to give rise to what has become modern Republican elites.  They know they are competent because God shows them favor.  We would not expect them to necessarily be unintelligent, but rather arrogant, loyal, elitist and unwaivering.  Much of their world view would be an article of faith without need of evidence.  Such as, private companies are more efficient than the government not in particular circumstances, but always and everywhere.  No matter what incentives are in place to fleece the government.  It is this divorce of reality and understanding in the current leadership that makes the world a scary place to be.  In that respect, Amway is a perfect symbol for the bastardization of the American way of life.

Blackwater U.S.A. Banned From Iraq

Blackwater U.S.A. is a security company that found itself a recipient of many cost-plus contracts in Iraq to provide security. Jeremy Scahill wrote a book called “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” Apparently, Sherry Wolf felt Scahill was slighted on his April 19, 2007 appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I went back and watched it for the sake of reference. Sherry Wolf seems to be upset that Jon Stewart showed a little bit of skepticism, which seemed justified since Scahill does have a tendency to talk about Blackwater, then the number of contractors in Iraq (which are not all mercenaries) and throw out terms like Praetorian Guard.  I think Stewart has a right to slow him down and call him on his premises.  One cannot expect a bunch of bobble-heads to automatically jump to the cause.  It does require one to make a clear and convincing case.  However, Scahill does have some holes in his argument.  The “why-aren’t-you-panicking-like-I’m-panicking-right-now” aspect of the radical left and the attacking of sympathizers rubs many people (and me) the wrong way.  For goodness sake’s, if one thinks Stewart is bad, go on O’Reilly’s, Hannity’s, or Beck’s show.  Needing to convince a reasonable person with evidence is not a grounds for criticism.  We need thinkers in democracy, not sheep, so don’t expect everyone to take what you say on face-value.

However, Scahill was right.  Companies like Blackwater and privatized security are grounds for concern.  The first reason is accountability.  Accountability is necessary so they don’t run around like thugs.   They other issue is transparency.  It is tougher to uncover these incidents or to know exactly where the money went or how it was spent.

Although, it is apparent that much of the money was wasted.

It seems that the Iraqi government has had enough.  Because of an incident that kill 8 and wounded 13 others, Blackwater has been banned from Iraq.  However, given the players involved, I wonder how much pressure Bush will place on the Iraqi government to let Blackwater stay.

Companies like Blackwater are built out of a particular culture.   Erik Prince grew up in Western Michigan and so did I.  I’ll try to describe the region as best as I can next time, but understanding the impact of Amway and the DeVos family is essential to understanding the nature of why this corruption is taking place.  It is not isolated.  I just so happened to have went to school with this guy.  I believe Prince and Vorce are two products of the same culture.

On “Rational Atheism” By Michael Shermer

I picked up the September Issue of Scientific American. I was interested in their take on the obesity epidemic. I didn’t expect anything especially revelatory. Fad diets are unhealthy. Higher caloric intakes combined with more sedentary life-styles, especially among the lower classes is fueling an epidemic. In a way, artificially sweetened food has become the new tobacco as far as public health is concerned. We should expect higher rates of high-blood pressure, heart attacks, and type-2 (adult on-set) diabetes. But, I digress.

There was also an article by Michael Shermer called “Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messr. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.” It is a basic atheist apologist piece. Atheism will attract more people with sugar than vinegar arguments. He warns that a “new militancy has risen among religious skeptics.” With all due respect, I think that Mr. Shermer needs to watch “Jesus Camp” before talking about religious skeptic militancy. If he has, then he should provide one example of equivalent indoctrination of children on the atheist side.

Shermer criticisms also seem to be relatively baseless. He stresses five items.

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail.
2. Positive assertions are necessary.
3. Rational is as rational does.
4. The golden rule is symmetrical.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief.

I am most familiar with Dawkins’ work and I haven’t gotten a chance to read the others. However, I can’t understand how Mr. Shermer could write what he did, if he had actually read “The God Delusion.” Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 don’t apply to Dawkins’ work. Dawkins frequently promotes the benefits of a rational rather than superstitious outlook on life (also present in “Unweaving the Rainbow”), therefore 1 and 2 are baseless. Dawkins is supremely rational and frequently promotes the ethic of reciprocity, one of the foundations of any moral philosophy. I would suggest watching Dawkins answering questions from a number of Liberty University students. The questions start around 40 minutes in. Dawkins is more than fair to the questions asked. The only grating thing about Dawkins is that some people don’t like what he has to say, and how forcefully he says it. Otherwise known as a “no win” situation and not a valid criticism.

As for the fifth point, I cannot subscribe to and I don’t think Dawkins does either. Not all beliefs are created equal. A Flying Spaghetti Monster or equally implausible deity should not hold equal standing with the principle of conservation of energy. Astrology should not be a peer to astronomy. Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught along side with evolution, as if they are both equally valid scientifically. Such a train of thought would say holocaust deniers should be given the same respect as holocaust survivors.

So, please call a spade a spade. Theologians are not experts on morality any more than literature professors. The type of diversity endorsement that Mr. Shermer gives is a cancer of liberalism. It promotes the idea that superstition is just as valid as rationality. And that, Mr. Shermer, is falling off a intellectual cliff. Such a view casts objective reality into doubt and gives credence to revelation. It says that there is no answer to the question: who are you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?

In short, it is an equivalence that allows driving mankind back into the dark and a turning away from the enlightenment. No, Mr. Shermer might not be advocating it, but he is enabling it. And, I consider good people who do not fight against oppression pressed down on the backs of their fellow human beings almost as morally repugnant as the perpetrators.

So, Mr. Shermer, I declare the following statements non-negotiable. An objective reality exists. It can be understood through observation, reason and experimentation. And, the ability to understand this reality is open to all mankind.

These just aren’t beliefs, they are facts and religion doesn’t fit. I will not apologize or candy-coat it. Neither should anyone else.

Energy Ignorance: Making Saltwater Burn

The above video is infuriating to say the least. Unquestionably, John Kanzius did something cool. But the lead-in of an inventor did something that could change the world is patently false. Basically, he found a way to break the chemical bonds of water using radio waves to form hydrogen and oxygen which promptly recombines, producing water. The reaction is purely chemical, not nuclear. In short, it is a Rube Goldberg machine, a complicated means of generating power when an electric motor would have been sufficient. The reason for the amazement is that we don’t see the intense radio waves necessary to break the chemical bonds in the first place and semi-amazing feat of making water burn. However, basic scientific principles such as conservation of energy should be broadly apparent even in the most basic observation. The most important question to whether saltwater is an viable energy source is also unasked: how much energy does it take to run the machine that generates the radio waves, and how much energy is produced? It is safe to say the answer is: it takes more energy to run the machine than is produced because some of energy is wasted, radio waves that missed chemical bonds and went elsewhere, heat lost in the reaction, etc.

The “news” report as it stands is merely sensationalist. It isn’t news, it is entertainment. It doesn’t represent the best thinking in society. It represents the basest. How could anyone involved in that report have passed high-school, let alone college? The probable answer is: they didn’t think about it. They just reported the most wild speculation and qualified it. Although, they implied much stronger claims and desperately tried to shore up validity of the report and the findings, but it was merely all appearance. Why hasn’t a business picked up on Kanzius’ invention? Because they are not that stupid, and if they were, they would quickly go out of business!

That said, I don’t blame Mr. Kanzius at all. He had a good idea for curing cancer. However, the difficult part is developing the nano-machines or viruses that will attach themselves to cancer cells, not killing the cancer cells after they have been tagged. Although, he was probably just working in the area that he understood better first.

So, the problem isn’t with Mr. Kanzius, the problem is with the news station that ran the report. The one that put out speculation, mindless blather and fabricated fantasy without the most basic consultation with the equivalent of a high-school physics teacher.

This type of reporting damages society. People with no understanding of science will use this report as evidence that technology will save us. I can’t dissuade them. I don’t own a television network. This blog doesn’t generate that much traffic. Simply put, I can’t undo the damage Channel 3 has done. They are actively misinforming people. As, Harry Frankfurt argues in “On Bullshit,” bullshit is more damaging to the truth than lying. In lying, one knows the truth but seeks to actively hide it. Bullshit, on the other hand, is what this report is. It shows a capricious disregard for what the truth actually is, as if it is irrelevant. I would be highly surprised if WKYC Channel 3 ever mentioned the report again.

The report speaks to energy superstition instead of reason. With the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism, energy is the single most important environmental, economic and political issue of my life-time. The view broadcast of energy is so shallow. Energy is something that comes out of outlet, much like meat comes from the store. Not something to be understood, but esoteric magic. How did the media develop into a conduit of such mindless blather? Is it because of advertising, or because people do not demand better?

Correction: it is Kanzius not Kansas

The Cold War: a Fight the U.S. Was Not Prepared to Win

One of the most surprising episodes of U.S. history is the Cold War, from the proxy wars that the U.S. always seemed more directly engaged in than the Russians to the nuclear brinkmanship and brushes with nuclear holocaust. It was also a time of great scientific progress and triumph, such as humanity putting the first satellite, monkeys, and humans into space eventually culminating with trips to the moon. Although, as humanity was reaching for space and extraterrestrial bodies, it was also utilizing those and other advances into ever more clever ways to annihilate one another.

It is therefore surprising in the four decades of military build-up and competition that the U.S. seemed to give so little planning to possibility that the U.S. might just win the Cold War. When victory was achieved and the Soviet Union fell, the U.S. seemed to be caught completely unaware. There was no large scale nuclear disarmament or serious reductions in military expenditures. In short, there was no peace dividend. In fact, I wouldn’t expect people under the age of twenty to even know what “peace dividend” meant in any tangible sense, no one speaks of it. It is truly a meme that died.

The fact that the U.S. did not have a strategy ready to execute in the event of the Soviet Union collapse is evidence of the existence of a vested military bureaucracy. Unlike other bureaucracies of the government that are overstaffed, inefficient and expand their missions, this one not only wastes money, it directly results in the loss of life and has a vested interest in endless war.

The standing U.S. military that we have today was justified in one mission: to win the Cold War. A war that was won. The continued existence of this largely vestigial public policy instrument leads to decreased, not increased, security (as argued in such books such as “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” by Robert Pape). Standing armies are a dangerous proposition for any country of liberty and one should not assume the United States is automatically immune from such abuses.

The U.S. build-up during the Cold War was arguably a necessary evil. It has become an unnecessary evil and has now turned into a cancer to such a degree that diplomacy and statesmanship seem alien in “serious” foreign policy debates as opposed to military might and unilateralism. The founders of this nation were aware of the perils we are now facing and sought to build a system to prevent such abuses. It is a tribute to their wisdom the system is still working to a degree, but one cannot help but be dismayed at how poorly. The real threat to the people of this country are not terrorists taking over this nation, but rather the government becoming a tyranny under the pretense of saving the people from internal and external threats.

It is therefore important to understand that the current attitudes and policies are aberrations. We built a machine to protect us from a threat that no longer exists, but we maintained because we can no longer imagine dismantling it. That is the legacy of the Cold War, and all wars since the collapse of the Soviet Union must be viewed in this context: as simply a continuation of Cold War era foreign policy with no equivalent justification. This is why the same rhetoric and fear-mongering is used, but there is such tortured logic to actually explain what the U.S. is accomplishing. Continuing on this misadventure will only lead to ruin.

Bush’s Surge Speech

Bush gave his speech on the Iraq progress report. Here is the most complete video I could find.

Some things are clear. This conflict will be continue as long as Bush is in office. And one he hopes his successor will pick up and follow along in the continuing progress he has made.

Unlike Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, Rick Rowley did not just go on a dog and pony show put on the military to assess the progress that is being made. Here is an interview with Amy Goodman.

Another key piece of news that happened this week is a Sunni tribal leader that Bush met with during his Iraq stop-over on his way to the APEC summit was assassinated.  The tribes vowed to avenge his death.

The picture Bush tries to paint is so at odds with the way that Iraq is described by credible sources.  The frustrating thing is that a man, so at odds with reality is so cognizant of the political factors in play.  As Jon Stewart put it on September 12th Daily Show, “I get the sense of a man who is very proud of the person he believes himself to be, but he is in fact, the opposite of that person.”  George W. Bush, the Don Quixote president, arguably the worst in American history, a legend in his own mind.  It is ironic, and would be amusing if it were not so tragic for the people caught up in his delusion.  But, from the sacrifice of others, he finds resolve.  Personally, I think he should encourage his daughters to enlist, only then would he begin to gain the proper perspective.  Not as a leader of a nation backed by righteousness, but as a human being living on a spec of cosmic dust.

1,000 Years of Darkness

Carl Sagan explores the library at Alexandria and its downfall. The social environments that allow for affluence in the U.S. and around the world are not the way they are by some default. They are based on principles such as equality, reciprocity, liberalism and reason. In a certain respect, those ideals have never been fully realized in a society.

However, even in their purest forms, there are valid debates on the practical tensions between rational self-interest and social welfare that will never be fully resolved. Instead, history seems to be carried by the charismatic leaders of the day and excesses of the opposing side. However, it is also seems that fate favors the craven and ignorant to kill the noble and enlightened.

We must be defenders of reason and yet also be tempered. We mustn’t be lulled to be so egalitarian to permit the cancer that would destroy the very basis of reason and observable truth spread and go unchallenged.  Lest, we fall once again into the dark.

Glenn Greenwald: Context on Petraeus

Glenn Greenwald does an excellent job in this post summarizing General Petraeus history of claims of “huge” progress in Iraq.   Although, Petraeus said some troops will come home in March.  This is not necessarily a sign of success of the surge, it is rather a sign that the troop levels are unsustainable.  One might call the administrations take on it: spin.   Declaring something that they had to do anyway as a indication that they are convinced of the success of their strategy.

Here is Mr. Greenwald making his case.

MoveOn.org, the Petraeus Ad, and the Sorry State of the Media and Politics in the U.S.

MoveOn.org ran this advertisement in the New York Times.  Although, I don’t enjoy “General Betray Us” part of the ad, much like I don’t like Obama being called Osama, the advertisement raises valid points.  Petraeus came to be leading the Army, not because he was the most competent or most qualified, but rather because of his ability to convincingly tow the Bush administration’s line.  Any General unable to do so previously has been fired, thus the we-are-making-progress-but-we-will-probably-need-to-stay-longer evolutionary result.

However, if you look at how CNN covers the ad, they just focus on the spectacle, not the facts.  In fact, most of the points made in the ad seem to be backed up.   Can we really expect better from news agencies run out of entertainment conglomerates?

Although, on a smaller scale, the New York Times website linked to one of my posts “Robert Murray: Sociopath.”  Apparently, I am part of some fringe.  The New Yorks Times implied that it wasn’t necessary to read my post, but rather focus on the title.  However, there was little disagreement on the actual facts.  The New York Times gives much more credence to Murray’s claims than anyone should who has a basic respect for the truth.  But again, they focused on the spectacle and the controversy, not so much the underlying substance, although they did a significantly better job than CNN.

The hawks in congress have been calling for centrists to denounce the ad.  They want us to believe everything Petraeus says, despite the good reasons to take it with a grain of salt.  Please understand, this has been a hawk media onslaught and buildup since the “A War We Just Might Win.”  The various junkets that the Congressmen go on are not meant to give an honest appreciation of the conflict.

The un-neutered GAO report is probably the closest thing the U.S. government will produce in terms of an honest appraisal of the situation.  And, although I won’t go as far as to say that Iran doesn’t pose a threat to U.S. (and we mustn’t downplay our role in forcing them into such a stance), the thing that is clear is that we shouldn’t trust George W. Bush’s administration on the matter.  If Iran needs to be dealt with, impeach Cheney and Bush, and get an honest assessment.  We shouldn’t let a war and fear-mongering President who lead us into one disastrous, ill-conceived war start another.