Decision 2008: What do we take from this?

In similar fashion to most of the elaborate, moreover factually based explanations I've written in the past on this blog (which to some observers are nothing more than "far stretches of the truth, conspiratorial and/or meaningless) I expect this commentary to go without response.

While I tend to believe Fox News is far from fair and balanced, I'll admit there is an inherent bias(moreover, liberal media bias) in reporting of all the stories you listed.

In addition to those you listed are ones which continue to claim Obama is secretly a Muslim, and has a love child, notwithstanding several which indicate John McCain is not a "natural US citizen" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen#cite_note-5) and
(http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C06E1DF113BE631A2575AC2A9619C946597D6CF) for more details.

I won't get into such arguments because they detract from my point and that which I believe Obama represents: A 21st century initiator of change to facilitate a movement towards policies, which reflect a 21st century approach to our shared problems.

Will Obama succeed in actualizing all his seemingly lofty policies and goals?

Probably not.

Is it worth a shot in the dark to allow this inexperienced embodiment of the American Dream to lead this country?

I think so.

The question is why?

Being that the modus operandi of American politics has typically been intelligence and educational background let's take a brief analysis of the educational and controversy surrounding the background of the past four presidents and/or candidates for the presidency.

Education

Obama-Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School

McCain-Graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis

GWB-2.75 Undergraduate GPA at Yale

Clinton-Rhodes Scholar

Questionable associations

Obama: Pastor Wright, James Johnson,Willliam Ayres, Tony Rezko, etc.

McCain: Keating Five, Randy Scheunemann, John Hagee, Richard Quinn, Clayton Williams, Palin VP (pick being investigated for the firing of her brother in law; 17 year old daughter is pregnant), etc

GWB: Saudi Royal Family, handling of Iraqi prewar intelligence, Hurricane Katarina, etc.

Clinton: Numerous Scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky), etc.

Please note the "etc." verbage indicating there is more to be left to the imagination and/or things to be discovered, or things, which have been excluded, being that, in the spirit of human nature, all things are created equally-IMPERFECT. Much like our constitution, human beings (i.e. this includes political candidates and there supporters) are a work in progress, never to actualize perfection in this life. Thus, why we hold politicians to any higher standard while commendable, is humorous at best.

However, given these mixed examples of success and failed presidencies of one particular administration over another, we rely upon our own interpretation, more less social capital to define “success” and “failure”.

Anyone can view the aforementioned commentary as left ward or right ward leaning, resulting from their perception of reality and their individual social capital.

Hence, just because I know Republican x and he acts this way, speaks that way and does z, doesn't mean Republican y is the same. The same applies to Democrat a, who is dramatically different from Democrat b.

As described in Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" an in depth study is provided about what factors relate to voter participation or in some cases the lack thereof.

Due to the increasing consumer guided environment we live, encompassing the advent of the suburbanization of American and a decline in participation in clubs, unions and associations; notwithstanding the onset of the Internet (amongst other factors) we have seen a decline in social capital since the 1950’s.

Putnam also cites Americans' growing distrust in their government. Putnam accepts the possibility that this lack of trust could be attributed to "the long litany of political tragedies and scandals since the 1960s" (see paragraph 13 of the 1995 article), but believes that this explanation is limited when viewing it alongside other "trends in civic engagement of a wider sort" (par. 13).

My point in referencing this book is that it indicates voter participation was on a steady decline (at the time of publication in 1995) due to a lack of social capital in America.

In my opinion the “Perfect Storm” of geopolitical and socio-economic turmoil (both at home and abroad) over the past 8 years has facilitated a shift towards increased voter participation and overall interest in politics in general. Whether it’d been Bill Bixby or Forrest Gump, America is ripe for change. As mentioned by George W. Bush during the 2000 Acceptance Speech:

“Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment. So tonight we vow to our nation. We will seize this moment of American promise. We will use these good times for great goals.”

Being that voter participation is the hallmark of any healthy democracy one must question:

1. Are the problems America faces self-created (hence the nation of whiners) or a combination of incompetence on all ends of the stick? Moreover, do Americans face problems? (hmmm)
2. Does voter turnout increase due to the issues or candidacy and personality of particular individuals?
3. Lastly, how do we fix it?

Eight years ago a young man from Texas ran on the platform of being a unifying force, in stifling the division and dissent, which had plagued American government. In the opinion of some he has succeeded in protecting the homeland, at the expense of helping the people at home. Across party lines no one is short of categorizing the presidency of GWB as a very cumbersome relationship between reality and the perception thereof.

George Walker Bush was a man dedicated to changing the way America worked, to some he succeeded, to others he failed. His own words stand a testament to his ability to actualize what he sought: a return to the American Promise.

”This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation. Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, like times of crisis, are tests of American character.

Prosperity can be a tool in our hands -- used to build and better our country. Or it can be a drug in our system -- dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty.

Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment.

So tonight we vow to our nation ...

We will seize this moment of American promise.

We will use these good times for great goals.

We will confront the hard issues -- threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security -- before the challenges of our time become crises for our children.

And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.

To every man and woman, a chance to succeed. To every child, a chance to learn. To every family, a chance to live with dignity and hope. For eight years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources and the public will -- even the bipartisan opportunities -- to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare.

But this administration -- during eight years of increasing need -- did nothing.

They had their moment. They have not led. We will.

Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values -- to show we have grown up before we grow old.

But when the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them.

They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

And now they come asking for another chance, another shot.

Our answer?

Not this time.

Not this year..”

I concur….you had your chance and led, in the wrong direction. We will lead, in the right direction….the center to be exact. And now you come asking for another chance, another shot? Our Answer. Not this time. Not this year.

Call him inexperienced, call him questionable, even egotistical. All I can say is Bush’s words sound utterly similar to certain Senator from Illinois and if you can let this administration disillusion you into thinking otherwise I can only say……

For truly everyone is entitled to there own opinion so long as it is based upon fact.

-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

(1927-2003)

Further Thoughts on Media Bias and the Subjective Nature of Reality

Recently, a commenter with the handle Daddio Dude posted several new entries on an older thread. Here are several excerpts of his thoughts on media bias – which he contends exists in favor of liberal viewpoints:

“The last time we blogged about this topic and I gave many examples of liberal bias and was told the NYT has made some mistakes but doesn't have a pro liberal slant. Well, now we have a story that has been bubbling for months about John Edwards having and affair that has proved true because he has admitted it. Guess what: the NYT has ignored it. Does anyone with one ounce of intellectual honesty think that if there were rumors swirling about Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee having a long running affair and fathering a love child that the NYT would have ignored it? No, they would have ran out of front page space writing about it.”

“Let me throw another log on the 'media bias fire'. I just watched a show on Fox about Muslim Honor Killings. In this documentary a number of examples were given about women being raped, persecuted and even killed by Muslim men because they had done something against Islam. Something horrible like getting a divorce from an abusive person or dating a non-Muslim. Why is it that only Fox would report on such degenerate behavior? I wonder how quick the NYT and MSNBC would be to report on god-awful behavior by Christians or Mormons. Oh wait they just did--and appropriately so--on the Polgamist sect in Texas…

Conservatives-liberals; socialism- capitalism, Muslims-Christians; Duke lacrosse players-black stripper, McCain-Edwards; Scooter Libby-Sandy Berger. Example after example of bias. What will the liberal media do first--go out of business or start reporting objectively? Base upon the circulation trends of the NYT, ratings of MSNBC or bankruptcy of Air America, it looks like they will sink in their quicksand of ideology.”

Previous posts on this blog have contended that reality is largely subjective in nature – that is, determined to a large extent by the inherent pre-conceptions of each subjective perceiver. Under this rubric, an individual with a conservative disposition will be more likely to interpret the world and world events through the lens of a conservative viewpoint. The above comments from Daddio Dude indicate just such a view of the media – though from a perspective that does not acknowledge the subjective underpinnings of the view.

By way of contrast, I’d like to consider the viewpoints of several other individuals or groups – groups holding views other than the mainstream conservatism espoused in Daddio Dude’s comments (I believe we can all agree that the idea of a liberally-biased media is one commonly held by conservatives in America)….

1. Several weeks ago while watching a history channel program on the American Nazi Party, one of the party members profiled opined that the mass media in America is controlled by Jewish interests – and therefore biased against the party’s interests. This is not to lend any credence to the claims of the American Nazis – merely to elide one perspective on media bias.

2. An excerpt from an email sent out by Barack Obama’s presidential campaign:

“This week John McCain's campaign hit new lows with their attacks and distortions.

And all too often, the so-called "referees" in the news media are spending a lot of time repeating his false attacks and very little time holding him accountable…

Here's the latest from McCain and the media:

Just last week, McCain and his party attacked Barack Obama and ridiculed the idea that keeping your car tires inflated is an effective way to improve fuel efficiency and keep down the cost of gasoline. The thing is, everyone from AAA to NASCAR agreed with Barack. McCain finally had to face reality this week and reverse his position. But the media had a good laugh about McCain's petty, misguided stunt and ignored his effort to distort the truth to win a few cheap political points.

Earlier this week, the McCain campaign put out an ad saying that Washington is broken. It's gotten a lot of press so far, but it didn't mention that John McCain spent the last 26 years in Washington -- failing to fix this broken system. He portrays himself as a so-called "maverick" but doesn't want people to know that he has voted 95% of the time in support of George Bush's policies.

Another ad uses scare tactics to claim Barack's tax policy will hurt middle class Americans. Press coverage of the ad repeated McCain's smears, but omitted the fact that Barack's economic plan will cut taxes for 95% of American families. Not to mention that McCain's upper class tax cut plan leaves out more than 100 million middle class families.

The media may not be informing the public very well, but you don't have to sit back and wait for them to start telling the truth about John McCain.”

3. The perspective of perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader. This view focuses on the concentration of media ownership in the United States – 6 global corporations control over half of the media outlets in the U.S. This control encompasses a wide spectrum of media: newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television. Thus, Nader contends that:

“Our democracy is being swamped by the confluence of money, politics and concentrated media. We must reclaim our democracy from the accelerating grip of big-money politics and concentrated corporate media.”

4. The progressively-oriented media watchdog group Media Matters. Founded by conservative-turned-liberal apostate David Brock, Media Matters seeks to “comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Further, Brock has alleged that conservatives have mounted an “interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly-partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and academic studies, and other methods.” In support of such a view, Media Matters has conducted detailed studies of Sunday morning news talk shows and nationwide analyses of editorial viewpoints, with the finding that these media institutions disproportionately air conservative viewpoints as opposed to progressive viewpoints (with “progressive” viewpoints here distinguished from “mainstream” media views).

In sum, these views on media bias, taken together with the view urged in Daddio Dude’s comments, support the notion that any one individual’s view on the media is largely dependent on the subjective pre-conceptions held by that individual….

As further illustration of the subjective nature of reality, I’d like to consider the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno. Bruno posited a Reality consisting of an infinite number of possible universes. As a part of this conception, Bruno argued that perception is by nature relative: “space, time, size, weight, motion, change, events, relationships, and perspectives are always relative to any particular frame of reference.” As James H. Birx of Harvard University writes, for Bruno “from the village of Nola, Mount Vesuvius looked like a barren volcano devoid of life. Yet, from the slopes of Vesuvius, it was Mount Cala that now looked like a lifeless volcano. In fact, both geological formations support life. This experience impressed upon Bruno the relativity of perspectives and the crucial distinction between appearance and reality.” Thus, Bruno’s Reality was free of absolutes – the center of the universe is everywhere.

Intimately related to and arising from Bruno’s conception of Reality is the modern quantum physics theory known as the “many-worlds” interpretation. Under this conception, every possible event that could potentially occur does occur – leading to a world of parallel universes and histories. Basically, anything is possible – and has in fact occurred somewhere, in some universe. To bring it all back home to our initial discussion, the nature of any one individual’s reality thus depends largely upon the subjective universe each of us inhabits. These universes are constructed by our own pre-conceptions and perceptions of the world. To some of us, depending on where we are situated, Mount Vesuvius is a lifeless volcano; to others, the mass media in the U.S. is hopelessly liberally biased.

As has been demonstrated, it is impossible to empirically prove through objective data “Truths” that are largely built upon a series of subjective perceptions. All analyses of bias are necessarily dependent upon and colored by the lens of each subjective observer. One man’s liberally-biased media is another’s corporate-controlled lackey. In the realm of media analysis, all are rightfully entitled to their opinions regarding perceptions of bias – however, none should be comfortable in declaiming universal Truths resulting from their perceptions: there are an infinite number of media universes, and to a large extent, we each live in a Reality of our own creation.

The Normative Approach

Listening to NPR last week, I caught a story on Camp Inquiry – a summer camp run by the secular humanist group the Center for Inquiry. It is a camp for children ages 7-16 designed to rationally investigate and question everything – for example, approaching biblical-based creationism with a skeptical eye, relying instead on reason and the scientific method. At base, there is nothing objectionable about such an approach – it is important to deal with life’s great questions with an open mind, and the camp also included a focus on morality outside the scope of religion. On the other hand, there was an unnerving sense of certainty in their skepticism in some of the children interviewed. On a meta-level, a sense of skepticism about their skepticism was missing.

From a theological and scientific perspective, it is impossible to prove the existence of God. To be sure, clever philosophers and theologians have offered clever arguments that purport to prove God’s existence – such as the ontological argument (that we can conceive of God means that He must exist). Obviously, such arguments can not be verified empirically through science because the very nature of God, as conceived theologically, is supernatural – beyond human comprehension within nature. Equally true, agnostics and skeptical secular humanists cannot prove empirically that God does not exist – due to that age-old axiom about not being able to prove negatives, among other things. Thus, the certainty of some Camp Inquiry campers in their skepticism – exemplified by the simple statement “God does not exist” – stretches the limits of skepticism beyond “healthy” and into “dogmatic”. At its core, skepticism embodies uncertainty….

After reading Cali’s latest post on Global Warming, I perceived a nexus between the skeptics of Camp Inquiry and the skeptics of Global Warming Theory. In an even larger sense, it is apparent that there are further linkages between the concepts of Global Warming Theory and God. Much like philosophers groping at a proof of the existence of God, climate scientists theorizing on Global Warming cannot prove to a conclusive degree the ultimate Truth of their hypothesis. Likewise, much like the ontological argument, climate scientists can advance convincing empirical data and reach a consensus agreement that Global Warming Theory represents the true present nature of reality. We have seen this point many, many times on this blog.

Similarly, as to God are the secular humanists; so to Global Warming are the skeptical scientists. Whatever limits there may be to the ultimate veracity of their skeptical claims, we cannot wholly dismiss them. Climate scientists, being human, are susceptible to making mistakes; much like philosophers and theologians are unable to conclusively prove the existence of God. Skeptical scientists are well within their prerogatives to point out the possibility of error – healthy skepticism being at the core of scientific inquiry. However, for some there is an uncomfortable certainty in their skepticism – to the point that they fail to treat their own skepticism with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The point that all of these propositions leads to is that Global Warming Theory has taken on many of the properties of a religion. One must look no further than the title of Cali’s recent post – “it has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming” – to see the connection. Likewise, many converts to the theory of Global Warming approach their beliefs with a faith-like missionary zeal – using similar religious language against the skeptics, such as “deniers”, “denialists” and the like. Such an approach is not at all unlike the dogmatic views of the more evangelical-spirited religious folks (I won’t single out any one religion here, since they all have such adherents among their elect). In both cases, the stridency of the True Believers can often undermine the important undertones of their message – indeed, it is arguable that these undertones are more important than the primary message itself.

These undertones are morality and ethics. As hinted at in the Camp Inquiry piece, an important component of the secular humanist approach was a focus on morality. At base, religion is important for society not so much for the content of its theology as for the values and ethics that provide a way to live justly in the world. Many world religions thus share an emphasis on certain values. Judeo-Christian belief and Buddhist tenet alike share a basic respect for life itself; Jesus and Buddha both favored non-violence, pacifism, social justice and the like. Thus, skepticism overly concerned with the ultimate Truth of God’s existence misses out on building bridges between shared moral values that are ultimately more important than arcane questions of theological provenance.

In a similar manner, the debate over Global Warming Theory has devolved into too much of an ill-focused theological-type inquiry. What has been left out of our discussion to date is the normative, values-based aspect: that regardless of the ultimate Truth of Global Warming Theory, it is still ethically desirable to curb global carbon emissions.

From a normative standpoint, our current reliance on non-sustainable, carbon-based energy is terrible for the natural environment and ecosystems. Drilling for oil, mining coal, and digging up tar sands all share deleterious environmental impacts – they disrupt nature and wildlife, destroy ecosystem values, pollute drinking water, and so on and so forth. In addition, our dependence on such energy sources also help empower corrupt regimes and despots. As a human race, we need to come to a fairly radical realization: that we are not masters of the earth, but merely one part of a larger whole. To destroy the larger whole is also to destroy its constituent parts. Thus, from a normative viewpoint, the truly important aspect of Global Warming Theory is not its ultimate veracity – as the skeptic might say, that may or may not mirror reality – instead, it is the chance that it may lead to a re-ordering of basic priorities. Such a re-ordering would diminish the emphasis on destructive consumptive tendencies and change the focus towards a sustainable approach of respect for the natural order of things. To be sure, this will not be a short road to travel – it will require many tough decisions and sacrifices. But, over time, such an approach ought to be seen as the only ethically responsible choice to make. This, my friends, is the ballgame we ought to be watching.

It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming

It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.

And I just read an article about how global warming is causing increased worldwide rainfall on USAToday.com. Huh?

Pretty soon, they're gonna be saying global warming causes worldwide temperatures to decrease.

Dude:

for now, I'd like to refer Cali back to my earlier posts On Skepticism (And its Limits) and Redefining the Debate? (in particular, section III of my response). since I can't state it any better now than I could then, I won't try to.

IRONY OF TELLING THE TRUTH...EVEN WHEN ITS A LIE

It has come time to revisit a very sensitive issue given the current political debate in the House and Senate, respective of the fact the BUSH ADMINISTRATION knowingly misled the American public into justifying an illegal war against the sovereign Iraqi nation (illegal b/c it lack binding authority of the UNSC under Chapter 7, Article 40-1).

I won't go any further than this allegation, despite increasing evidence SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS were directly and/or indirectly involved in the release of CIA operative Valerie Plame name to the press; moreover, THE STATE DEPT, CIA, and PENTAGON's direct involvement in the ILLEGAL TORTURE OF ENEMY COMBATANTS (in violation of the Geneva Convention Articles 3, 17, 87 and 130).

TRUTH

What is truth? As defined by Webster dictionary Truth “is in accordance with fact” or “sincerity in action, character, and utterance”.

We’ve come to view the truth as in accordance of fact, yet in the era of manufacturing consent, we must understand the truth, as interpreted by early 20^th century psychologist William James.

James states, in his definition of the PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH, is

“a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic").”

Hence I must finally concur, to all those who’ve I’ve seemingly tried to convince (i.e. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION KNOWINGLY MISLED THE US INTO THE WAR IN IRAQ) you are correct.

Given James pragmatic theory of truth George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush didn’t mislead the US in to war against Iraq, b/c the ends justified the means.

GHWB-20 words that never mattered

During the September 11^th, 1990 “New World Order” speech by U.S. President George H.W. Bush summed up the reasons with the following remarks:

"Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression."^[18]

The Pentagon claimed that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were the source of this information, but this was later shown to be false when a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times acquired commercial satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert. ^[19]

Polls showed that upwards of 80% of the American public supported the troop deployment.^[20] The anti-war movement and its “No Blood For Oil” slogan did not achieve the levels of support it would get 12 years later.

Interesting….faulty intelligence was utilized to justify US basing troops in Saudi Arabia (for more information about how the US supported the muhajideen and Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Laden-watch Charlie Wilson’s War).

Upon close examination we notice the basing of US troops on Saudi soil was used in the 1996 fatwa, issued by UBL in calling for jihad against the Zionist and Crusader Alliance:

“At the time when the Ummah has not regained the first Qiblah and the rout of the journey of the Prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), and despite of all of the above, the Saudi regime had stunt the Ummah in the remaining sanctities, the Holy city of Makka and the mosque of the Prophet (Al-Masjid An-Nabawy), by calling the Christians army to defend the regime. The crusaders were permitted to be in the land of the two Holy Places. Not surprisingly though, the King himself wore the cross on his chest. The country was widely opened from the north-to- the south and from east-to-the west for the crusaders. The land was filled with the military bases of the USA and the allies. The regime became unable to keep control without the help of these bases. You know more than any body else about the size, intention and the danger of the presence of the USA military bases in the area. The regime betrayed the Ummah and joined the Kufr, assisting and helping them against the Muslims. It is well known that this is one of the ten "voiders" of Islam, deeds of de-Islamisation. By opening the Arab peninsula to the crusaders the regime disobeyed and acted against what has been enjoined by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), while he was at the bed of his death: (Expel the polytheists out of the Arab Peninsula); (narrated by Al-Bukhari) and: (If I survive, Allah willing, I'll expel the Jews and the Christians out of the Arab Peninsula); saheeh Aljame' As-Sagheer.”

The close relationship the Bush Administration and family has with the House of Saud royal family, not withstanding the now acknowledge oil deals arranged by the US and the Saudis in the aftermath of the 1973 War and subsequent oil crisis (as identified in John Perkins “The Confessions of an Economic Hitman”) is without question.

(i.e. "In 1974 [Treasury Secretary William] Simon negotiated a secret deal so the Saudi central bank could buy U.S. Treasury securities outside of the normal auction. A few years later, Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal cut a secret deal with the Saudis so that OPEC would continue to price oil in dollars. These deals were secret because the United States had promised other industrialized democracies that it would not pursue such unilateral policies." Cf. 103-12.) David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999

So the real question is why would we go into Iraq? Perhaps its because all 19 highjackers were Saudi and the Saudi government knowingly supports madrasah? Or maybe it was the fact in the race to end US dependency on Middle Eastern oil officials choose to invade the largest reserves in the world, for truly to the victors go the spoils?

But the question at hand is not why we invaded but how the theory of pragmatic truth was used to justify this incursion. Of course no one has come out right and never will admit, ok you got us!!

This is the FIRST ADMINISTRATION TO DESTROY WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENCES AND CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVLEGE AT EVERY TURN. So let’s be rational here.

FEAR AIDS IN MANUFACTURING CONSENT!

It is the same fear the GHW Bush used to occupy Saudi Arabia, and subsequently the same fear manufactured by GW Bush in invading Iraq.

GWB-16 words that we’ll never forget

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."^[2]

This is by and large the main justification for going to war with Iraq. As we discovered the documents were forged, and while 500 tons of yellow cake uranium were found at the nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq, this claim went largely unreported, was allegedly under the supervision of the UN, YET AND AGAIN ONE MUST QUESTION WHY? Yet this is not the topic of discussion.

SUMMARY

We have seen in both cases how a total of 36 words created two wars. Many questions have been raised and remain unanswered. At face value they are lies, manipulations of the truth and/or at best proven falsehoods. Iraq never sought to dominate Kuwait, nor did they seek uranium from the Africa, b/c they already had 500 tons of low-grade non weapons grade uranium; yet they may have. Truth is b/c the US and UK didn’t cooperate with the IAEA we’ll never know.

In the climate of fear thrust upon us by the WAR ON TERROR, we’ve learned not to challenge the authority or experts. Thus instead of relying upon fundamentally sound truths we become reliant on sound bites, half truths, and pragmatic theories of truth to manufacture consent for reasons beyond the scope of this short prose.

As we have seen and should be understood in the name of preserving and protecting the US and its citizens, you can tell the truth even when you lie in order to justify the means to the ends and that my friend is how the riddle will end…or begin.

One thing is certain. Even if we didn't go to war for oil the fact that the Iraqi government is preparing to sign with Exxon Mobil Corp., (XOM, Fortune 500) Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), Total SA (TOT), Chevron Corp (CVX, Fortune 500)., BP (BP) and other companies, which will inevitably boost production undermine the OPEC quota (we pray) and lower gas prices (current estimates say only by 50 cent) I guess we can say 4,077k lives were inevitably worth saving 50 cent per gallon.
(I will delay discussion of how the lack of a profit sharing agreement amongst the divergent populace will not only facilitate a civil war, increasing Iranian influence in the region, but furthermore will lead to a wider regional war if and/or when the Israeli's strike the Natanz and Arak facilities.)

The Economic Crossroad

I believe that the United States is at an economic cross road. The United States has certainly been the most successful country, economically speaking at least, of all time. That is indisputable. But there are real signs that we are losing our edge.

I believe the government and its nearly incomprehensible magnitude of bureaucracy, the likes of which no country on earth has experienced in the past, is primarily responsible.

However, there are certainly other causes as well. Our corporations share some blame. Thirty years ago, when companies like Honda and Toyota were barely a blip on the international market, American companies like Ford and GM failed to respect and learn from this new competition. It is even stranger when you consider the fact that the American automakers had always done this relative to each other. Many of our corporations have become lumbering and bureaucratic and slow to react to changing conditions. And many have become complacent.

And American citizens share some blame as well. We have become less can-do. Less confident. Less optimistic. And lazier.

In a recent survey, citizens of 47 countries were asked whether free trade is a good thing. The citizens in most countries responded yes 85-90% of the time. This number was in the 60% range for American citizens. In fact, we had the 47th lowest “yes” response rate out of 47.

As a result of much of this, we are no longer the center of innovation in several areas in which we should be taking the lead. Brazil is leading the biofuel race. London is overtaking New York as the premier capital market of the world. Microsoft’s most successful laboratory is in Beijing China.

We are being out capitalized at every turn. Sometimes even by dictatorships and communist countries.

The U.S. federal government is the single largest source of the problem. Few citizens are happy with anything the government does. This is really remarkable considering there are Americans with an incredibly wide array of issues that they view important. Yet somehow the government manages to pass legislation that makes no-one happy. Legislation which few people (including the politicians) even understand. It is an era of endless campaigns and special interests.

The federal government is consolidating far too much power. The amount of legislation and decision-making required to run this country is staggering, and would be even if we operated more efficiently. There is no reason for Congress to vote on or even address bridge needs in some county in some state. Things like this are best left to state and local government. A good case can even be made that issues such as education or healthcare should have some federal framework, but that substantial control should reside with state and local government. With 50 states, we will see a variety of solutions to issues like education and healthcare. States can emulate what works and avoid what doesn’t. If they don’t, they will surely see and outflow of people to more “successful” states or counties.

It is generally more that the federal government is slow to react and respond to changing world conditions than specific legislation actually being detrimental. For example, twentyish years ago, we had the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Today we have the second highest. We have not increased our rates; the rest of the world has decreased theirs. It is no wonder that our corporations are outsourcing and creating offshore subsidiaries. They are simply trying to remain competitive and relevant in a global market.

But certain legislation does unfairly harm our corporations. We are hitting our corporations with environmental pollution limits that don’t apply to corporations in other countries. I am not advocating widespread pollution, but the crazy system we have concocted that establishes certain pollution limits and uses the trading and buying and selling of pollution accomplishes relatively little and is expensive for our corporations to comply with and for our federal government to oversee.

Also, some talk about hitting Exxon with a windfall tax. Not only will that cause them to increase prices at the pump further, Exxon only controls 3% of the world oil market. Venezuela is a huge player and a windfall tax by the American government on American companies wouldn’t impact Venezuela at all. Or Saudi Arabia. It would be another handicap on our businesses. And then 10 years from now when Exxon and other oil companies are in the same trouble the airline and automotive industries are today, we will wonder why.

How Real is Reality?

In David Lynch's film Inland Empire, the actress Laura Dern plays Nikki Grace - herself an actress in a film-within the-film called On High in Blue Tomorrows. to add another layer of confusion, the film-within the-film is itself a remake of an earlier, unfinished Polish film 4-7 - which was based on a Polish-Gypsy folk tale. the character Nikki Grace plays in Blue Tomorrows - Susan Blue - is a woman with a jealous husband who gets involved with a man with a jealous wife. as Nikki loses herself in her film role, the "reality" of Inland Empire begins to mirror the story of the film - Nikki takes up with her co-star, Devon Berk - to the consternation of her jealous husband.

eventually, Nikki becomes totally lost in the world of Blue Tomorrows - which itself includes the parallel story of 4-7. the entire narrative frame is non-linear, frequently jumping back and forth between the similar parallel plots. the effect of such shifting realities on the viewer is confusion - though the parallel stories all recount a similar story, told with different characters in different settings, the frequent narrative jumps create a dream-like atmosphere in which it is impossible to tell which of the narratives represents the "true" reality that seemed to exist at the film's (Inland Empire, that is) beginning. that is to say: the nature of reality itself becomes upended and unclear....

of course, this is all merely a prelude to a question we have touched upon briefly in earlier posts on this blog - is there really such a thing as "objective" reality? or, contrarily, are all perceptions inherently colored by the subjective pre-conceptions of the percipient?

as an example, we could examine Cali's recent claim that Barack Obama is a "far-leftist". in an objective, empirical sense, it seems unlikely that proof of such a claim can be offered - the concept of "far-leftist" in-and-of itself is rooted in the subjective mind of the observer. while one could offer empirical evidence that Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator; or perhaps that he is generally "liberal", these claims would not in themselves also demonstrate with any conviction that Obama is therefore also a "far-leftist". to those beginning with a conservative worldview, Obama may well seem like a "far-leftist" - however, such a reality would be purely subjective - inherently entwined with the conservative pre-conception from which they are viewing Obama.

similarly, one could analyze Cali's perception that the poor in America are unable to afford health care because they spend money on iPods, high-end TVs, and other "luxury" items instead; or the frequent claims by our commenter(s) of liberal media bias in the same light. when one begins from a certain pre-conception - that the poor are poor largely based upon their own actions, for example - anecdotal perceptions of individual behavior will tend to confirm these pre-conceptions, while contradictory perceptions and evidence will go unnoticed.

likewise, claims of media bias will also tend to conform to one's pre-conceptions. if one begins from a viewpoint that the mainstream media has a blatant liberal bias, one will be able to search out and find examples to support this worldview - while shunting aside examples that would call it into question. equally so, an individual beginning with a perception that the mainstream media has a corporatist, profit and sponsorship-centered bias will see their view of the media, colored through their own lens. they will likely find plenty of examples to support their view - but it will still be a view representing only one portion of a wider reality. thus, when analyzing claims of media bias, it seems accurate to claim that there are several different subjective realities that co-exist. any search for an "objective" reality, with respect to media bias, would have to acknowledge that reality is mutable and highly dependent on the pre-conceptions of the percipient - much like the Lynchian reality of Inland Empire....

in philosophy, ontology is the study of conceptions of reality. in her article in the book Lost and Philosophy, Jessica Engelking discusses ontology, as conceived by the author Robert Anton Wilson in the Illuminatus! Trilogy:

"[R]eality, in the commonsense way we speak of our lived experience, is almost entirely self-programmed. This means that the individual plays a large role in determining what things he or she experiences."*

in other words, reality is largely subjective - positing something as "clearly true" establishes no more than one's subjective, pre-conceived worldview. as an example, Engelking analogizes one's worldview to a stencil. this stencil (worldview) consequently shapes how the world appears to the individual. much like a properly constructed stencil does not allow ink where it is not intended to be, a dogmatic worldview keeps out information that does not conform to the individuals pre-conceptions.* this psychological phenomenon, known as confirmation bias, was discussed in an earlier post here. in short, it is the "tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs."

as Engelking mentions, the theory of quantum mechanics, prevalent in theoretical physics, leads to a similar view of reality.* under the quantum view, reality is probabilistic, rather than deterministic. thus, under such a view, there is no objectively certain, experimentally verifiable reality - only a range of probabilities that describe possible outcomes. here again, much like the Lynchian cinematic world, confusion trumps certainty. hard as it is to believe, then, "reality" seems to actually be in flux - "the way the world appears is a product of the mind's imposing a certain interpretation of it."* or, in other words, reality - as perceived by any given individual - is subjective and dependent on that individual's pre-conceptions; colored by the lens through which they view the world.

(*citations taken from "Lost, The Third Policeman, and Guerilla Ontology", by Jessica Engelking, pages 102 - 110 of Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons.)

Cali:

Excellent post. I believe this is why I have argued that in today's global world where a plethora of information is available at our fingertips, "facts" and "evidence" are seemingly losing relevance.

An empirical fact is the distance in miles or kilometers from New York to Los Angeles. Provided all agree on the definition of a mile or kilometer, the distance is indisputable and easily proven.
But, among intelligent individuals, "facts" or "evidence" in a debate on a certain political issue seem nearly unimportant.

I still often use facts or evidence from various studies to support my argument, of course, which I believe is because I was raised in the tradition that one establishes a hypothesis, supports the hypothesis with three or four or more facts or quotes or studies and then concludes. But, as I am an open-minded individual, I have since realized that another equally intelligent individual could find three or four or more facts or quotes or studies that are equally valid that support the opposite viewpoint.

We could argue until we are blue in the face about the perceived biases of some founder or financer of some organization that performed some study. But if the study was well-designed and well-performed and the results are statistically significant, we are likely to make little headway in such an argument. I believe this is at least partly because, as The Dude suggested, facts and evidence resonate differently with different people for a large number of reasons (i.e. our upbringing, our parents values, certain one-time remarkable experiences either positive or negative, etc.). As my esteemed colleague The Dude contended, we don't try to unravel in our mind a study that supports our viewpoints yet as we are reading a study that purports to prove a viewpoint to which we do not espouse, we are forming our counter arguments.

What makes matters even trickier is that the definition of political buzzwords is subject to debate. For example, the definition of liberal or conservative. To The Dude, I am a conservative and to me, he is a liberal. Yet neither of us would likely agree with that contention for to me conservative represents the somewhat radical far right wing of the Republican party and I tend to think I'm a middle of the road Republican, if not a "liberal" Republican. And visa-versa.

So it is no wonder little is ever accomplished during a political debate when opposing sides do not agree on the definitions of words used by both sides and the facts that support certain contentions are contentious themselves.

But that, my friends, is exactly what makes political debates so incredibly interesting. It's a game of chess, not checkers. Any headway that is achieved is a result of many subtle moves.