Friday, 28 August 2009

The Anarchy of Absurdity in American Political Discourse

The Anarchy of Absurdity
in American Political Discourse


Jason Linkins exposes the profound absurdity of Glen Beck’s thinking. [It is startlingly irrational. See these clips that Jason provides:




.
]

Glen Beck passionately wants his viewers to believe his paranoid conspiracy theories. His ideas split people into two warring groups. One of them so far does not exist. And he wants his viewers to take action without delay. He advocates something like a pre-emptive strike against Obama.

In Beck’s mind, doing so will prevent a fascist tyranny from rising-up. He claims that Obama will turn our domestic peace corps into his personal paramilitary, which will enforce his communist rule. One thing they will do is take away gun-owner’s weapons. Then we will be defenseless and enslaved. But Beck emphasizes that this process has already begun. So we must act now to prevent them from using their guns to take our own guns. How could we possibly prevent them from disarming us? I suppose the only way is to use our guns too, and to do so preemptively before they gain the upper hand. So it may come as no surprise that there have been some protesters brandishing assault riffles outside Obama’s town hall meetings.

Let’s not forget, that this is all based on absurd logic. One need only review Beck’s acronym demonstration to see that rational logic does not influence the way he draws his inferences. He forcefully and manipulatively puts ideas in people’s heads, using crude propagandist methods.

Maybe the emotional irrationality of health-care protesters is nothing new. But what about the sheer absurdity that inspires their raucous behavior?

I invite us to wonder if Beck’s instigations will lead to anarchist sentiments. Imagine first if their protests were fueled by rational thinking. Perhaps they actually obtain compelling evidence that it is true Obama is installing a fascist rule. Then their rebellion would be to restore order. But are not their protests instead fueled by absurd thinking? So would their revolution restore things to a rational order, or would the order they install be based on some incoherent, anti-government beliefs? If so, perhaps those protesters driven by absurd ideas also are fighting for a system that at its basis has no ruling logic. I have to wonder. Is anarchy rising in America? Is Glen Beck, knowingly or not, an anarchist instigator?

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Recovering from the American Dream


Recovering from the American Dream

Gene Lyons

"Sickly talking about fixing healthcare"

salon.com

18-June-2006


America's wealth, it's not used to protect all its citizens' health. Liberals tend to support public health care programs. Conservatives do not.

Obama is positive. So he does not see politics as open war. He wants change to come with everyone's participation and cooperation. He claims he is willing to give up a little of what he wants. This way, more conservative senators will vote for his health reform bill. That is more important to him than getting everything he wants with exclusively liberal support.

Lyons says this is Obama's mistake.

Republicans argue that government provided health-care will turn the United States into a social democracy, like a number of Western European countries. But socialized medicine provides better coverage to more people at a lower cost. Moreover, a majority of Americans want public health insurance. So if congressional republicans fight social medicine, they will probably lose big in the next elections.

Hence Lyons thinks Obama has no reason to compromise the plans to win republican votes.

[Compromising the plans might have political consequences as Lyons argues. But I don't think politics in matters of public health should be a deciding factor.

Perhaps the fear of socialism is based on someone reasoning this way: “if we socialize medicine, that will constrain our economic prosperity. If our economy struggles, it will be more difficult for people to get rich. I'm not-rich and I want to be, so I cannot support socialized medicine.”

This line of reasoning seems also to be based on the 'American Dream' which from the perspective of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman might be more accurately described as the "American Delusion" or the "American Psychosis." American children are taught that we all can get rich if we work hard enough for it. Some in fact accomplish this, and they are celebrated for confirming this ideology and for inspiring others to try for the same. But looking at the probabilities of an average person getting rich by their own means, one would seem to be better under a socialist economic system and playing the lottery each day. At least that way they have their basic necessities well-provided-for while they try to get rich against overwhelming odds.

I think a root problem is greed: both the greed of those denying every citizen health care, as well as the greed of average citizens who reject a socialized system because it frustrates their greedy delusions about their own financial future.

Many artists also have dreams. And these make their financial hardships meaningful or irrelevant in the larger picture of their lives. But the artist’s dreams are not based on the plan to sacrifice financial well-being now so that they may one day be over-abundant with it. In a way, they follow an even more profitable 'economics' than that. They do not trade their well-being now for a lottery ticket. Each moment of dedication now to their arts, even at the expense of their financial well-being, produces the immediate return of creation. Yet, the delusional American financial dreamer invests now for something that most likely will never pay-back, and if it does, not until many years later after much sacrifice in the mean time. But the artist gets pay-back from moment one. Artists will develop talents, abilities, and a oeuvre of works. And although their creations may be priced for sale, really artworks challenge our sense of material values. Something about a creative work speaks a value to us that we cannot reduce to bare economic goods.

Other Americans might reject the American dream in favor of religious ideals. This seems to translate into something productive only when these ideals induce one to perform community service. However, one does not need religious ideas to be committed to serving the public.

The artist is a giver. Often we see the sacrifices young artists make to get started. And we see their dreams and visions. They give without getting much in return from society. While financial American dreams are based on the desire to get high returns of payback from society, artist-dreams seem more about maximizing how they can give firstly to humanity. Morally speaking their efforts might not be more honorable than anyone else's. They could be driven by the selfishness of their egos.

But my observation is not a moral one. It should be obvious already that providing health care to all citizens, whether that cripples the economy or not, is the moral decision. What I suggest with the artist example is a different sense of economics. If we are driven by the desire to contribute to humanity without financial returns, then we get in exchange things like artistic works and the knowledge that our existence made a positive impact in the world. In a sense, the value of these things 'transcends' whatever value we might attribute to material things. A person who feels good about the contribution they have made to society would not need luxury objects to cover-over the emotional depravations in their lives. Also, the feeling of creating something new is already immensely rewarding. Not to mention the fact that whatever artwork they create itself alone gives rewarding feelings. We know this by listening to a Beethoven symphony, seeing a Cézanne painting, watching Shakespeare, reading Dostoyevsky, and so on. However, those who devote their lives to making money will need large sums of it to distract them from the pointlessness of their material values.

I think beginning socialized medicine will be an initial step to healing many Americans of their financial psychosis. With medical bills taken care-of, they will not need to equate wealth with personal survival. Then also, they can see as viable alternate ways to devote their energies.

A society merely of artists might not last, unless there are enough people who make an art out of providing the society with the basic necessities of life. Fortunately, artistic talent is rare. I am not suggesting that we all become artists. Rather, I suggest we learn about economics from artists, how they get immediate returns of things that transcend our normal sense of material value. Suppose everyone devotes their work, no matter the job, to contributing to society. Then in that case, receiving a gift from someone is not to be greedy, because they were giving it freely to begin with. But taking from other people would be greedy. If everyone is contributing with the spirit of giving, then no one is profiting off of other people. Likewise, people would suffer fewer emotional gaps that could be filled by money.]



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/18/lyons/



Sunday, 14 June 2009

Rock On, Young Scientist



Rock On, Young Scientist

Karl Burkhart



Reported earlier by

Brandon Keim







At age 16, Daniel Burd discovered a bacteria that decomposes plastic. His method was clever. He ground plastic. Then he submerged it in a yeast solution. This encouraged microbe growth. He selected the most productive microorganism species. He interbred them. His microbes now can digest almost half a piece of plastic in six weeks.


Rock on, Daniel



[Another solution to the plastic problem is to only use it when it is necessary. For example, it might be necessary for certain uses in space flight or medical equipment. Plastic is not merely a disaster for the environment. It keeps us dependent on oil.

Consider this too. Look-at a glass bottle filled with water. Then compare it to a filled plastic bottle. Which one gives you a better feeling? Tap the glass bottle, and then tap the plastic one. Which sound gave you a better feeling? Now drink from the glass and also from the plastic. Does not the sensation of glass just feel right? We do not even need logical arguments against plastic. It gives us a bad vibration, so to speak. Does it not? Is it really justified for us to make so many plastic things in the first place?]




and



Saturday, 13 June 2009

De-Industrialized Food


De-Industrialized Food

Andrew O'Hehir




Friday June 12, 2009, 06:25 ETD



Our food might seem ok. It sure can be cheap. But in fact the damage it does is not worth the money we save at the grocery counter. Michael Pollen, with Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser, created a movie about this problem. Pollen investigated American industrialized food production. Most of us prefer not to know how our food is made. That knowledge can make food less appetizing. And it faces us with moral questions we find too difficult to resolve.

Corporate food manufacturers refused Pollen's requests. He wanted to learn how they handle the food they sell us. They must be hiding something.

He discovers that the food damages our health and environment.

[Perhaps organic farming should be subsidized enough so that organic foods equal the price of corporate produce.]



Tuesday, 9 June 2009

Save the Planet from American Oil Consumption


Save the Planet
from American Oil Consumption

Ken Thomas


June 9, 2009

AP


American auto sales are way down. Yet there are still many on the road. And they are terribly inefficient. Congress is considering a remedy. They are offering auto-owners around $4,000. All they need to do is trade-in their car or truck: a fuel-inefficient one for a high gas-mileage one. This will boost auto sales. Also it will decrease oil use and pollution.

[Hummers are a god-awful sight.

[Image credits below]

I wonder: what are the psychological motives for buying such an ugly vehicle? We need to discover its redeeming qualities. People who buy them have certain values. They think something is more important than fuel-efficiency. We should discover what that is. Then we could devise a means to communicate alternate values.

My guess: Hummers can do more than other cars and trucks. In fact, if war came to the American streets, a hummer driver is automatically prepared for combat situations. Often Americans look for utility above aesthetics or nature-conservation. Strip malls get the job done. But they are nauseating and forest-consuming. Americans look at their world. It is made of tools. Americans ask: what can this thing do? Perhaps the question should also be: what will this thing do? The Hummer will pollute excessively. However, the fuel-efficient car will decrease our dependence on oil-producing nations. Many of these countries "harbor terrorists." So Hummers really are not the vehicle with true combat power. Fuel-efficient ones will get our soldiers out of Iraq. This will help conserve our military resources instead of depleting them in Arabia. Environmentalism is the new patriotism.]







Monday, 8 June 2009

Superman, Not Socialism


Superman, Not Socialism


Alex Koppelman


in



Friday, June 5, 2009 17:06 EDT


Shortly ago, being college Republican was not so difficult. Now it can be extraordinarily boring. During the Bush years, a lot of excitement surrounded the annual College Republican National Committee meetings. But the most recent one was "a little subdued."

A ballroom that might have been packed during the Bush years had plenty of space for the kids to stretch out in during speeches. An exhibit hall outside had only a few tables.
Being a Republican is "certainly not popular on college campuses these days," admitted Christina Aiuto, 21, the vice chairwoman of the University of Central Florida College Republicans chapter.

They distributed pamphlets on "Leftist Indoctrination in American Colleges."

[To fill this article out, I would want do see a report on the Leftist parties. One might imagine them being more rebellious, perhaps with Rage Against the Machine performing. The Rightist Tea Bag Party movement has potential for such "bad" appeal. Although the fact that they keep the tea in little tea bags rather than dumping them whole-leaf makes it a bit tame, effeminate in fact. Although, there is this clip of Young Republican Rappers.



"Great like the Gatsby, popping poses like it's Acne."
"Superman, not Socialism"
"No such thing as utopia"
"We need more women with intellectual integrity, I'm talkin Megan Kelly, not Nancy Pelosi"
"AIG was hooked up by Chris Dodd"
"Three things taught me conservative love: Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged"
"28% the new capital gains tax"

However, they also distributed a pamphlet, "Affirmative Action: The New Discrimination," which says, "while inequality might have existed back [in the 1960s], the level playing field is quite equal right now." This indicates that Young Republicans on a whole are not warm to urban struggles and culture.

My vision for the Young 'Pubs is that they embark on a Kerouacian "On the Road" journey, or a Sun Also Rises European adventure. It would begin with a faith-crisis. They see that the tide is turning against 'pubism, and they begin questioning their own beliefs. They leave their Bible and Ayn Rand behind. They ride Amtrak to the Northwest and explore British Columbia. There they experience raw uncommericalized nature, socialism, mind-widening BC sativa, and liberal thinking. Then they return, fully conservative, wiser for living the other side. So not a tea-bag adolescent rebellion, but an early-adult inner soul-journey freedom-adventure.]






Sunday, 7 June 2009

Obama's Global Cooling



Obama's Global Cooling

Angela Charlton

Sarkozy Gushes Over Obama Who Keeps His Cool


June 6, 2009 04:00 PM EST

AP


US and French Presidents Obama and Sarkozy met. They commemorated the D-Day landing's 65th anniversary. Sarkozy was "spilling with unusually generous praise for 'the America that we love.'" Yet Obama was merely "grateful, but reserved." They "didn't seem to create much of a spark," with "Sarkozy kinetic and sharp-tongued, Obama cool and measured."

The article ends with Laurence Nardon of the French Institute for International Relations, who explains that:
not all countries necessarily have the idea that they have the right to explain to others what they should do. That's a characteristic of the United States and France that we share
[Obama might be setting the "cool" example for the world. George Bush's cowboy persona sets the wild west standard. We're all in it for ourselves. May the strong survive. Obama's "cool" attitude might set the precident for people to calmly and rationally look at the bigger picture, and come to solutions that work for everyone.]