The Meaning and Content of Religion

What is God? What does God do? Can there be only one god, or is there one for each of us? What one thinks about supernatural entities, or “gods” clearly has to do with what one knows about the subject. Is there a Pantheon, mirroring our phenomenology, with each god shouldering their own interests in parallel with our own, or is there only a lonely Creator, who has “done it all,” and, “must not play with dice,” as Einstein jests.

The genesis of religion is often misunderstood either because of its seemingly obviousness or apartness of its history, its ubiquity, or the deafening thunder of its mysterium. We can move beyond this mystery however, through objectivity and reviewing various alternative views of religion that have been worked out since the Scientific Revolution.

If religion has a genesis, it is apart from us, since almost no one develops a religion entirely on their own, with a great emphasis here on the word, “almost”. Obviously, the names Joseph Smith and and L. Ron Hubbard must come to mind. The fact that full blown religions, designed with their own beginnings and liturgy don’t come along very often, and yet they do, even though the societal resistance to such upheavals is often great, suggests that religion is a force and entity of its own in human affairs, which can and should be studied.

All religions, seemingly by definition, are human concerns full of supernatural stories, each one marked by its own unprovability. Instead of demanding proof, religious thought seems to demand irrationality, if not full time, at least at certain junctures. The Catholic Rudolf Otto speaks of this, “non-rationality”, carefully in his book, The Idea of the Holy, "The consciousness of a 'wholly other' evades precise formulation in words, and we have to employ symbolic phrases which seem sometimes sheer paradox, that is, irrational, not merely non-rational in import."

A specific religion usually contains tenets about the past that need to be observed or upheld in order to assert group membership. Without a concern for the mystery of holy trinity, there can be no Catholic. No Evangelist is even possible without concern over repentance of her own sins and those of certain others. A Jew is marked by her devotion to honoring the national Covenant. Often, but not always, a non-believing or relatively non-religious Jew searches to discover which movement or human concern will serve as their personal oblation.  

If all religion was invented, as we know Mormonism or Scientology were, how did this happen? Was it simply the act of clever people, the Joseph Smith’s and L. Ron Hubbard’s of the world being at the in the right place at the right time? From looking at holy books, and primitive holy  cultures, such as the Vedic, and a certain universality of religious thought, I think we can say, “Sort of.”

I doubt that all religions started as scams, but that the evolution of many, on the other hand, had to do with power plays, or else a necessity for creating better order in society.

D.H. Lawrence, the famed British author in his book, St. Mawr, had a powerful effect on me personally in casting aside illusions I had regarding religion. As Marx said in his pamphlet, “Religion is the opiate of masses,” so I believed, however Lawrence, a master novelist, understood that all force is natural, especially those forces which are ascribed to supernatural causes, and religions were most natural when they respected these forces of nature. He didn’t believe, like a common atheist, that all religion is bad, but he believed that religions could be compared and judged according to how well religious belief coincided with respect for the forces of nature, with formal religions such as garden-variety Anglicanism being the furthest away from man’s universal religious roots in nature.

In, “The Essence of Christianity”, Ludwig Feuerbach discovers a psychological connection between an individual’s self-image, and his conception of God. For Feuerbach, regardless what the doctrine or books say, the individual always determines the ethos of her own personal God, giving God the capacities and values each individual feels are within herself. Having suffered personally through at least 10 years of Catholic teaching as a child, I have to agree with this assessment wholeheartedly, although I admit that it hasn’t caught on in the religious or counter-religious movements.

Did religion begin in prehistory (the Pleistocene) as quasi-political answers to societal problems? In a sense yes, It is even possible that it arrived prior to the evolution of humans, and humans assumed the operations of religious practice from watching the behaviors of higher rodents, such as prairie dogs, and canines, for example. I say the Pleistocene, because this is when evidence appears of ceremonial burials for the first time. This exploration into prehistory is, to me, one of the most fascinating subjects imaginable.

Probably the best way to observe the genesis of monotheism is to trace back the idea of a single ruler. Single-person rule is not the norm in today’s society, but God is such a ruler, and to understand it, we need to take ourselves out of our personal democratic shell and imagine ourselves as an autocrat setting the rules for many individuals, perhaps a Bill Gates, an Elon Musk, or a U.S. President are good examples. A God would have to make similar decisions as these people do. A God would be responsible for the welfare of many, in the process of unfolding their own personal will, and have developed her own ends to accomplish this. Such a God would not be the “every-man” of Feuerbach’s religious essay, but rather a superman, more akin to the Übermensch of Friedrich Nietzsche, projected by the hero of his fantasy, Thus Spake Zarathustra. So if for Nietzsche, the idea of God evolves to becoming a joke, the idea of a man or woman who behave like a God does not.

Perhaps in the future, society will concern itself with producing new leaders who will control the lives of many, who in turn will continue their belief in being controlled by supernatural entities. Or is that already how it is?   

Terasem Faith, like we really need one more priesthood...

Terasem Faith is the clearest manifestation of, "Scientology" yet for transhumanists, though offered as an "add-on" faith, that would be expected to compete with the previous existing core-beliefs of adherents. As such, it may not be far from what transhumanists actually believe, but that is not reasonable.

I. LIFE IS PURPOSEFUL.

Life has as many purposes as there are species. Only a few of these collaborate exceptionally well together, among these humans. Nevertheless, all of these 'purpose-machines' contribute more than biomass to their purpose and to who we are. Creative individuals can, "pick their poison," of course, resulting historically in vastly different purposes among humans and human groups. This fact alone, seems to mandate that the individual alone must be willing and responsible to choose and define his own purpose, not any organization, movement, or religion.

II. DEATH IS OPTIONAL.

No it's not. Even the sweetest sounding science fiction book you might take to bed, will only tell of artificial life delays, extensions, and 'uploads'. An upload could signify a democratization of death in a sense, in which one would have the possibility to contribute 'infinitely' to human capacities, without having to write a work of literature or art, innovate a technique or technology, or be remembered in some other way available to us now.  - However, any such 'upload' would still need to be controlled and filtered (even if that filtering is determined commercially, and not by merit). "Infinite life", is an easy out, a simple and bland path for the future of people who think their lives will be inconsequential, and/or wish to have no intention of achieving consequence, of never having to accomplish any of the things that have made immortality reasonable in the past.   

III. GOD IS TECHNOLOGICAL.

Correct me if I've said this before, but gods are mythical creations, though useful at times, even as a personal bucket (where we can hide away all of our "good stuff", as we go along with our "normal business"). Why would someone want to make technology mythical? Technologies are the things that are appropriate and useful for a purpose. This is the part where you really need to start looking around for the usual suspects.

IV. LOVE IS ESSENTIAL.

As far as I can tell, love is a congruence of an emotion and concomitant concern for others reflected in behavior. Humans have many competing emotions, which they reflect 24/7, including negative emotions reflected in behavior towards others in significant relationships, not only "love". Regardless of one's emotional composure and psychological makeup, each of us has bagfuls of concerns that range everywhere, most often edging out that "most perfect" quality a very few poets have aspired towards. The essential takeaway from this is that in our caring about the world, it is our intelligence, taken broadly (not as an emotion), that drives our many purposes positively forward, and not a single confluence of attachments.

Does anyone want a bad religion? Pick a card, any card, I've got lots of them...

Review of UQx DENIAL 101x

DENIAL 101x is a University of Queensland MOOC being promoted as helping people understand the new phenomenon of "Science Denialism", led by John Cook, a career drumbeater for Global Warming. According to the narration, 'Denialism', is distinguishable from normal Scientific Skepticism by the inversion of evidence and opinion, which is today common in thinking about science: To be a Denialist, according to Cook (no relation to this author), one must avoid considering evidence until one makes up one's mind. One can carp about these individuals ignorance of the importance of hypothesis in the scientific method, and how no science would get done, if we were unwilling to sometimes posit hypotheses that have an equal or worse probability of being proven wrong, but we must be patient, in order to not miss any of the ramifications of the position being advanced in such an ostentatious way. This implies that one's position on a particular fact or a group of facts is either right or wrong (regardless of the outcome), based on the order of one's thinking, which as a logician, I agree is possible, yet it also, coming from a nest of 'true-believers', could imply that only people with certain types of beliefs are capable, or "need" to make such a logical inversion.

Not considering all of the evidence is the mark of a pseudoscientist. Many scientists today are pseudoscientists, taking the lazy road of rerunning “established” models over and over again in order to “prove” aspects of climate and geology completely unrelated to the original purpose of the models, which was to discover a hotter temperature, which of course never did occur. Much of what John Cook calls “consilience of evidence” is this very phenomenon, where data or algorithms derived from atmospheric composition models used to predict warming, which doesn’t occur in reality, since they have long been falsified, is reused to verify other loosely related predictions, or statements that can be made to sound like predictions, which then appear in journals as proven, since contradictory models do not exist, and model runs are so expensive as to require consent of governments, making peer refutation all but impossible.

At this point, I realize I have been confused and confounded by the point of the movie, which is to mix up liberal hangers-on and some of the most arrogant scientists into a circle of, "Liberal Angst", directed against what they call, "Doubt", So you will see me "drop my gloves", and begin to draw generalizations on my own side.

Perhaps the wildest error made in one of these episodes is the juxtaposition of a couple of renowned climate science groupies, Stephan Lewandowsky who has written on the psychological illness of climate skeptics, and Peter Doran, who wrote the paper that first described the "Climate Consensus" as 97%. Doran skillfully explains how through tremendous attention to reduction, he was able to create 97% out of 50%, through a process of restricting the number of participants over and over until it was exactly at maximum, self-described climate scientists only, and only those who had published climate science. Then Lewandowsky comes on and complains about the "rest of us", who aren't the scientists owning the 97% consensus, as if he were ever one of them, himself, using Doran's reductive algorithm! What hypocrisy, what hyperbole!

Skeptics are portrayed here by Liberals posing as Scientists and Scientists portraying themselves as Liberals judging skeptics for being morally inferior. There is obviously no possibility whatever that these types of bullies can themselves be morally superior to anyone. The essential purpose of scientific skepticism is to improve the science and improve understanding of the wide body and debates that rage inside of all of the sciences, on a constant and continuing basis. Public skepticism raises interest in science and has never posed any threat to any honest scientist.

Concern that Liberals feel about skepticism is often poised in their rhetoric against conservative beliefs. They state that they are afraid that Conservatives can’t believe Global Warming because Conservatives enjoy the idea of the free market. The free market has ramifications for ideas as well as goods. If goods are exchanged freely on a free market based on demand, price, and supply, then the ideas individuals have will also be accepted, rejected, taken up and used, or discarded based on their value to a larger multitude ready to pay in order to be informed correctly. This Liberal attitude, that ideas have no net worth, is what fuels their psychotic fear of contradiction.

The other complaint Liberals pose is that people’s lack of shared scientific belief, or “denial”, as they prefer to call it, is based on vested interests, such as Farmers, Producers, and Suppliers, for example, not wanting to be affected by social constraints on carbon emissions. However, by this definition, “vested interests” could go much further in terms of an industry in which one is occupied, and even affect one’s lifestyle, from the size and power of the vehicle one can drive, to the, "carbon footprint", owned by men, women, children, and their homes, symbolic of the population control movement's desire to eliminate people's right to live freely, or even at all. And it can simply mean the opposite, that people with reasonably good engineering and investment skills can get into the “renewable energy” market, invigorated through strong (and generous) governments and fearful populations and make a killing. This is not to mention the thousands of scientists who ride on this, ‘one-trick pony’, and receive over $6 billion in grant money (not to mention NASA’s $1,700 million Earth Science budget) even before their Apocalyptic view becomes fully funded.

When all is said and done, however, all of this maneuvering and accusing can be wasted energy, since all types of fossil fuel replacement technologies really need to evolve with time, and time, in a democracy, along with many other things, is primarily controlled by events, the majority and the market, but not the “consensus of climate scientists”, as this team, and their group of fanatic followers claim to wish. The only saving grace I found in the series was the wish of some scientists interviewed, that a few ‘high-quality’ books available (Merchants of Doubt was mentioned.), could possibly change people’s minds about the issue. Not that conflating tobacco smoker health with climate science will help, but discussion and education are pertinent to this issue, since most people who say they believe in climate science have very little information about it, due to the efforts of this climate science propaganda machine. Instead they know about "Denialism".

Review of UQx DENIAL 101x

DENIAL 101x is a University of Queensland MOOC being promoted as helping people understand the new phenomenon of "Science Denialism", led by John Cook, a career drumbeater for Global Warming. According to the narration, 'Denialism', is distinguishable from normal Scientific Skepticism by the inversion of evidence and opinion, which is today common in thinking about science: To be a Denialist, according to Cook (no relation to this author), one must avoid considering evidence until one makes up one's mind. One can carp about these individuals ignorance of the importance of hypothesis in the scientific method, and how no science would get done, if we were unwilling to sometimes posit hypotheses that have an equal or worse probability of being proven wrong, but we must be patient, in order to not miss any of the ramifications of the position being advanced in such an ostentatious way. This implies that one's position on a particular fact or a group of facts is either right or wrong (regardless of the outcome), based on the order of one's thinking, which as a logician, I agree is possible, yet it also, coming from a nest of 'true-believers', could imply that only people with certain types of beliefs are capable, or "need" to make such a logical inversion.

Not considering all of the evidence is the mark of a pseudoscientist. Many scientists today are pseudoscientists, taking the lazy road of rerunning “established” models over and over again in order to “prove” aspects of climate and geology completely unrelated to the original purpose of the models, which was to discover a hotter temperature, which of course never did occur. Much of what John Cook calls “consilience of evidence” is this very phenomenon, where data or algorithms derived from atmospheric composition models used to predict warming, which doesn’t occur in reality, since they have long been falsified, is reused to verify other loosely related predictions, or statements that can be made to sound like predictions, which then appear in journals as proven, since contradictory models do not exist, and model runs are so expensive as to require consent of governments, making peer refutation all but impossible.

At this point, I realize I have been confused and confounded by the point of the movie, which is to mix up liberal hangers-on and some of the most arrogant scientists into a circle of, "Liberal Angst", directed against what they call, "Doubt", So you will see me "drop my gloves", and begin to draw generalizations on my own side.

Perhaps the wildest error made in one of these episodes is the juxtaposition of a couple of renowned climate science groupies, Stephan Lewandowsky who has written on the psychological illness of climate skeptics, and Peter Doran, who wrote the paper that first described the "Climate Consensus" as 97%. Doran skillfully explains how through tremendous attention to reduction, he was able to create 97% out of 50%, through a process of restricting the number of participants over and over until it was exactly at maximum, self-described climate scientists only, and only those who had published climate science. Then Lewandowsky comes on and complains about the "rest of us", who aren't the scientists owning the 97% consensus, as if he were ever one of them, himself, using Doran's reductive algorithm! What hypocrisy, what hyperbole!

Skeptics are portrayed here by Liberals posing as Scientists and Scientists portraying themselves as Liberals judging skeptics for being morally inferior. There is obviously no possibility whatever that these types of bullies can themselves be morally superior to anyone. The essential purpose of scientific skepticism is to improve the science and improve understanding of the wide body and debates that rage inside of all of the sciences, on a constant and continuing basis. Public skepticism raises interest in science and has never posed any threat to any honest scientist.

Concern that Liberals feel about skepticism is often poised in their rhetoric against conservative beliefs. They state that they are afraid that Conservatives can’t believe Global Warming because Conservatives enjoy the idea of the free market. The free market has ramifications for ideas as well as goods. If goods are exchanged freely on a free market based on demand, price, and supply, then the ideas individuals have will also be accepted, rejected, taken up and used, or discarded based on their value to a larger multitude ready to pay in order to be informed correctly. This Liberal attitude, that ideas have no net worth, is what fuels their psychotic fear of contradiction.

The other complaint Liberals pose is that people’s lack of shared scientific belief, or “denial”, as they prefer to call it, is based on vested interests, such as Farmers, Producers, and Suppliers, for example, not wanting to be affected by social constraints on carbon emissions. However, by this definition, “vested interests” could go much further in terms of an industry in which one is occupied, and even affect one’s lifestyle, from the size and power of the vehicle one can drive, to the, "carbon footprint", owned by men, women, children, and their homes, symbolic of the population control movement's desire to eliminate people's right to live freely, or even at all. And it can simply mean the opposite, that people with reasonably good engineering and investment skills can get into the “renewable energy” market, invigorated through strong (and generous) governments and fearful populations and make a killing. This is not to mention the thousands of scientists who ride on this, ‘one-trick pony’, and receive over $6 billion in grant money (not to mention NASA’s $1,700 million Earth Science budget) even before their Apocalyptic view becomes fully funded.

When all is said and done, however, all of this maneuvering and accusing can be wasted energy, since all types of fossil fuel replacement technologies really need to evolve with time, and time, in a democracy, along with many other things, is primarily controlled by events, the majority and the market, but not the “consensus of climate scientists”, as this team, and their group of fanatic followers claim to wish. The only saving grace I found in the series was the wish of some scientists interviewed, that a few ‘high-quality’ books available (Merchants of Doubt was mentioned.), could possibly change people’s minds about the issue. Not that conflating tobacco smoker health with climate science will help, but discussion and education are pertinent to this issue, since most people who say they believe in climate science have very little information about it, due to the efforts of this climate science propaganda machine. Instead they know about "Denialism".

Review of UQx DENIAL 101x

DENIAL 101x is a University of Queensland MOOC being promoted as helping people understand the new phenomenon of "Science Denialism", led by John Cook, a career drumbeater for Global Warming. According to the narration, 'Denialism', is distinguishable from normal Scientific Skepticism by the inversion of evidence and opinion, which is today common in thinking about science: To be a Denialist, according to Cook (no relation to this author), one must avoid considering evidence until one makes up one's mind. One can carp about these individuals ignorance of the importance of hypothesis in the scientific method, and how no science would get done, if we were unwilling to sometimes posit hypotheses that have an equal or worse probability of being proven wrong, but we must be patient, in order to not miss any of the ramifications of the position being advanced in such an ostentatious way. This implies that one's position on a particular fact or a group of facts is either right or wrong (regardless of the outcome), based on the order of one's thinking, which as a logician, I agree is possible, yet it also, coming from a nest of 'true-believers', could imply that only people with certain types of beliefs are capable, or "need" to make such a logical inversion.

Not considering all of the evidence is the mark of a pseudoscientist. Many scientists today are pseudoscientists, taking the lazy road of rerunning “established” models over and over again in order to “prove” aspects of climate and geology completely unrelated to the original purpose of the models, which was to discover a hotter temperature, which of course never did occur. Much of what John Cook calls “consilience of evidence” is this very phenomenon, where data or algorithms derived from atmospheric composition models used to predict warming, which doesn’t occur in reality, since they have long been falsified, is reused to verify other loosely related predictions, or statements that can be made to sound like predictions, which then appear in journals as proven, since contradictory models do not exist, and model runs are so expensive as to require consent of governments, making peer refutation all but impossible.

At this point, I realize I have been confused and confounded by the point of the movie, which is to mix up liberal hangers-on and some of the most arrogant scientists into a circle of, "Liberal Angst", directed against what they call, "Doubt", So you will see me "drop my gloves", and begin to draw generalizations on my own side.

Perhaps the wildest error made in one of these episodes is the juxtaposition of a couple of renowned climate science groupies, Stephan Lewandowsky who has written on the psychological illness of climate skeptics, and Peter Doran, who wrote the paper that first described the "Climate Consensus" as 97%. Doran skillfully explains how through tremendous attention to reduction, he was able to create 97% out of 50%, through a process of restricting the number of participants over and over until it was exactly at maximum, self-described climate scientists only, and only those who had published climate science. Then Lewandowsky comes on and complains about the "rest of us", who aren't the scientists owning the 97% consensus, as if he were ever one of them, himself, using Doran's reductive algorithm! What hypocrisy, what hyperbole!

Skeptics are portrayed here by Liberals posing as Scientists and Scientists portraying themselves as Liberals judging skeptics for being morally inferior. There is obviously no possibility whatever that these types of bullies can themselves be morally superior to anyone. The essential purpose of scientific skepticism is to improve the science and improve understanding of the wide body and debates that rage inside of all of the sciences, on a constant and continuing basis. Public skepticism raises interest in science and has never posed any threat to any honest scientist.

Concern that Liberals feel about skepticism is often poised in their rhetoric against conservative beliefs. They state that they are afraid that Conservatives can’t believe Global Warming because Conservatives enjoy the idea of the free market. The free market has ramifications for ideas as well as goods. If goods are exchanged freely on a free market based on demand, price, and supply, then the ideas individuals have will also be accepted, rejected, taken up and used, or discarded based on their value to a larger multitude ready to pay in order to be informed correctly. This Liberal attitude, that ideas have no net worth, is what fuels their psychotic fear of contradiction.

The other complaint Liberals pose is that people’s lack of shared scientific belief, or “denial”, as they prefer to call it, is based on vested interests, such as Farmers, Producers, and Suppliers, for example, not wanting to be affected by social constraints on carbon emissions. However, by this definition, “vested interests” could go much further in terms of an industry in which one is occupied, and even affect one’s lifestyle, from the size and power of the vehicle one can drive, to the, "carbon footprint", owned by men, women, children, and their homes, symbolic of the population control movement's desire to eliminate people's right to live freely, or even at all. And it can simply mean the opposite, that people with reasonably good engineering and investment skills can get into the “renewable energy” market, invigorated through strong (and generous) governments and fearful populations and make a killing. This is not to mention the thousands of scientists who ride on this, ‘one-trick pony’, and receive over $6 billion in grant money (not to mention NASA’s $1,700 million Earth Science budget) even before their Apocalyptic view becomes fully funded.

When all is said and done, however, all of this maneuvering and accusing can be wasted energy, since all types of fossil fuel replacement technologies really need to evolve with time, and time, in a democracy, along with many other things, is primarily controlled by events, the majority and the market, but not the “consensus of climate scientists”, as this team, and their group of fanatic followers claim to wish. The only saving grace I found in the series was the wish of some scientists interviewed, that a few ‘high-quality’ books available (Merchants of Doubt was mentioned.), could possibly change people’s minds about the issue. Not that conflating tobacco smoker health with climate science will help, but discussion and education are pertinent to this issue, since most people who say they believe in climate science have very little information about it, due to the efforts of this climate science propaganda machine. Instead they know about "Denialism".

On Science Bullying

I found myself overdue for a good talk on Global Warming, and someone popped in with a comment about it at our Reason table. (Part of the reason for the comment was the bringing up of the theme of “Bad Science” – I was informed that the topic at the table was to be GOS - Good Ol’ Science, so I was surprised at this, though “Bad Science” commentators, like Ben Goldacre of the Guardian, often have a good point to make.)

Climate Change, or Global Warming is often brought up in the media and often by politicians. You would think that people should talk about this all the time. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard some people say that they are afraid of it, or are very concerned about it. People should talk. It isn’t good to be afraid, especially about things that aren’t personally threatening you, and it isn’t good to be afraid to talk about your fears or concerns, ever. But that’s not how it is. 

Lots of people love science: There’s no doubt about that they love the practice of science, they love hearing about it, and they love the things that science offers us, including the technical improvements and discoveries we share in our modern life. Perhaps it seems reasonable to some, since science is the societal boon that it is, that some sciences can and should be singled out to become political propaganda campaigns, to indicate to us that they should become our purpose in life, first to fear and react to the dangers science poses to us, and secondly to reorganize our society in ways that would alleviate that fear.

Case in point, a science called Climate Science, with roots in other sciences, such as Meteorology, Chemistry and Geophysics, becomes selected as one of the causes célèbres of the modern, or ‘Green’ environmental movement, and simultaneously by the population control movement. As such it has taken on a certain sheen and political character that is unmatched by other fields of science. Am I the only one who finds this suspicious? Why is there a science we now have to vote into office? Is it because this science, alone, predicts doom, where others only show the way forward? Perhaps - On this I am willing to obtain other arguments. It would be quite facile, I admit, to believe that the Climate Change movement is merely a new kind of fascism, but for the calls to silence those who disagree with the aims and goals of those who are the motivated believers.

We now have calls for global action by United Nations personnel, ostensibly because of the Precautionary Principle. They could be calling for the world to eliminate hunger or war, or hatred between nations, but they have decided to aim low for some reason, they are asking for carbon pricing (which will raise money for governments, obviously). The governments can promise to hand the money back to the people, but the mechanism is clear, it’s another tax on someone, and benefits world governments, who are the members and sponsors of the UN. Good for them, I suppose. Alternatively, countries could elect to eliminate emissions in other ways, but some of these could cause societal dislocations. [Case in point, the Peruvian government, because of UN imposed rules, has elected to issue a pair of solar panels and 3 low-wattage light bulbs to each house in the Andes the UN rules prevents them from extending the grid to.]

I’m all for elevating the hard work and facts of Climate Science, just like any other scientific area, but the political movement for political change due to global warming, and the media exaggerations of the claims that scientists make, have contributed to an atmosphere (Honest, that’s not a pun.) in which people simply don’t feel as free to talk anymore. There are lots of things I haven’t said about this on my side, and lots, I’m sure, on other sides that need to be reflected, but I wanted to simply set a tone for individuals to talk about what they believe and why they believe what they do free from bullying. 

Scientific Iterative Warfare

We seem to experience a long train of historical wars in Gaza, first related to Intifada, others to rocket fire, and now, even to kidnapping of teenagers. These are all historical events, which by themselves were notable, but what causes the war, the fact that it inevitably repeats itself continually? In particular, what is the meaning of the repeated Israel attacks on Gaza, which inevitably result in killing hundreds of civilians?

From the Gaza side, the fighting is simple and understandable, since there is an Israeli blockade of Gaza. The Israeli side complains, however, that the Palestinians don't accept the status quo. There is no recognition of the Jewish state, the State of Israel. The Palestinians on the other hand, composed of Sunni Muslims, believe that Israel has gone beyond its rights in many ways, and is dedicated to their destruction.

When Israel conducts its war against the Palestinians, as a matter of fact, it has this meaning, "We will kill you." They don't have to say it, of course, they just have to kill hundreds or thousands every time they attack, and then obtain a cease fire, so that the message will be delivered to every Palestinian man, woman and child.

Alternatively, the Israelis could kill all. This is clear. A superior military force usually gets to assert its own conditions on a settlement. Its easy to imagine that most Israelis would not want to kill 1.8 million Gazans, however they might like to permanently defeat Gaza militarily. If Gaza was defeated militarily in such a way that the people were humiliated and enough of their rights taken away so that they were unable to exercise the right to elect a government freely, and this could be enforced as a permanent status quo, there could be no danger of Gazans ever again demanding anything at all. This has been tried already, of course, and the ultimate failure of armed occupation, is the reason why Gaza is self governing now, instead of being run by the IDF, as it used to.

This is the meaning of the 0.1% death toll of every Israeli military incursion on civilians. It simply states, "We could choose to enslave you, but even though we want to, we can't, so we're here doing the best thing instead. We'll just kill a few thousand of you, enough so that you each know someone killed or injured, and when you agree to a cease fire unconditionally, we'll stop. If you don't agree to the cease fire unconditionally, of course, we might not stop, and the number of dead among you might grow, so think hard before you make any reciprocal demands."

It's all about scientific permanent war. What could be simpler?

What is Politics?

A normal part of the process of becoming an adult in society is to question. Individuals may eventually stop questioning for two main reasons, either they believe they know all the answers, or they begin to fear the consequences of asking.

Generally these low-inquiry people turn out one of two ways: They either eventually become arrogant, dismissing the points of views they haven’t already agreed with, or they become prepossessing, believing that almost any assumptions they make are probably correct.

Typical responses of persons who have been bullied intellectually to new information are, “I need to ask someone about it,” and, “You’re only saying what might be true for you.” In other words, strong disbelief, or distrust of new information is likely to become a personality trait of a person who is mentally non-acquisitive.

Another possibility is the person who starts out as a normal acquisitive teenager can make an assumption that acquisition of information will maintain a certain form throughout his or her life. This thinking pattern is typical of cult members. One believes that one has found a particular source of truth that outweighs all others, and that following that truth, or the source of it, will cause them to become successful and possibly superior to others who do not have access to the source.

One should note carefully here, that there are almost always at least two distinct levels of cultism: The first level consists of persons who believe that the source discloses a pattern for correctness and success. The second level are those persons who believe that the source discloses patterns of ultimate superiority over others who are unaware or less indoctrinated.

In order for cultism to work well, ordinary acquisitiveness has to be turned off. Either the person who is normally acquisitive is warned that his ‘questioning’ is counter-productive, or led to understood that in order for indoctrination to proceed, questioning will not be tolerated. This can be understood as ‘protocol’, or fairness to others. Another technique which is commonly used is that only the leader is allowed to ask questions.

Cultism is a form of politics. It describes for people a way that society ought to be, or how its members ought to be, including how they should act, thus fulfilling the main role of politics.

In a totally free society, politics would be available to anyone. However, individuals and societies today cannot really be described as free, with various tendencies outlawed, in order that natural political contention can be manipulated by the powerful.

It is important to note that all politics has a dual nature: While first, and foremost, politics is, by definition, a concern, “of the people” (which is, after all, only a ‘general’ definition describing a ‘general’ sense of understanding), politics is also the exact concern about the creation, use, maintenance, manipulation and destruction of all power in society.

I fully understand that my opinion about politics is not the only one in existence. We often (un-philosophically) refer to other persons who believe that politics is one of a dozen or so different things as “Idealists”. This includes people that believe that politics is a way to protect the Constitution, people who believe that politics is a wedge driven between different parts of the population, people who believe that politics is a wedge driven between the people and their ruler, etc. etc.

My point is that politics is not a simple little pretty thing we can read with their cereal in the newspapers every day, and vote about every couple of years. It is much more fundamental and serious than that. Regardless of how excellent or depraved the men who form constitutions are, politics means only about one thing, the power to act, which can be seen as what powers exist in contracts, and secondly, what powers exist in laws.

Notice, I am exhibiting a prejudice here: I believe that for something such as a law to exist, there had to be something that naturally preceded it. In this case, an agreement, or contract, “If you leave my fence stand, I won’t tear down your fence,” and “If you don’t kill my family members, I won’t kill yours.”

The concept of Critical Mass leads to understanding how governments are formed. Inequality in relations between individuals of larger and larger successful societies led to the creation of laws, both as a way of ensuring peace, but also in demonstrating the inherent value of the government. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi, and other documents, illustrate for us the common tendency for civilizations of a certain size to not only institute rule, but also rule by law.

Much can be said about ‘natural law’, ‘common law’, ‘ancestral law’, and the like in explaining how our laws operate and came about, but the ultimate point I want to make is that the laws are either made or acquired, by man, in a state of governance of one kind or another, and that the laws exist regardless of what that governance is called, Republic, Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy. All these forms of government are the same in one respect, at least: They utilize the rule of law.

Nor are the government types static, or permanently posed against each other, they morph. (Notice my careful non-use of the word, “evolve”.) Monarchies take on the institutions and ideals of Democracy, Oligarchies are monarchical or socialistic depending on the times, Republics, at the time of their formation, while always Idealist, are either Revolutionary or Nationalistic in nature.

Why do governments tend to morph into other available models? Why is there seem to be no evolution? I recognize one exception to this and that is the Monarchy to Parliamentary Democracy model. Historically, a number of monarchies did eventually turn into Democracies, however I think the reason for this was that Spinoza predicted it. When governments change without a revolution, it is often because of historical force. The War of the Roses in England, and wars of Independence are a common pattern for the establishment of Democracies replacing rule by Monarchy. Another pattern which is not entirely irrelevant is the Lingering Monarchy, such as in Great Britain.

Monarchy and Oligarchy are entirely relevant today. The word, oligarchy means, “rule by the few”, and it describes Communist or totalitarian rule perfectly. Oligarchic rule depends on the state taking on the attributes of a Cult, which involves the leader not just being responsible for making decisions, but making decisions which are inherently perfect and unassailable, and showing wisdom that may be attributed to others by association, a situation where, “close to the leader,” means at least, “smart and capable”.

The effect of Rule by Cult makes it very difficult to destroy an Oligarchy, even if a Democracy is installed to nominally take its place. Over time, due to people’s trust of the familiar, the political elements representing the Cult will gradually become the most powerful.

Governments are accepted by the people when they are loved, they are often revolted against when they are hated. However, that is not the beginning and end of the story: Real life individuals form their attitudes towards their government based on many different criteria, including core beliefs, utilitarianism, the information available to them, comfort and security. All of these constitute the “Cake” of human political consciousness, a Cake of many slices and layers.

The Cake of human political consciousness is similar to many other kinds of consciousness in that it has a “behind-us,” the past, and an “in-front-of-us,” the future, that it always contends with.

To simplify this cake and how it operates, we must now annihilate the parts of it that are unnecessary. These include specifics such as Constitutional Republic, and Dynastic Monarchy and boil everything down to two tendencies, Oligarchy and Democracy.

Political parties are considered a necessary part of Democracy, but they are never Democratic, they are merely Disruptive to the Oligarchy and limiting to the Democracy. When a political party gains ascendancy, the minority is left in a position of suffering and struggle; in at least some sense, the Democracy is ruined since it becomes a 50 or 60 percent democracy, not the 100 percent democracy that was preached and expected. The Republic attempts to circumvent this possibility by introducing the prospect that the ascendancy of a single party may merely be a disruption in a continuing democratic process.

Information plays an important part in creating the presentation of the forms and effects of governance designed to create the proper response among the governed. A common but distasteful name for this is Propaganda, a word with religious roots. Attempts have been made to replace this word with Media, but since a lot of Media makes no attempt at persuasion, the only reasonable synonym to use would be Lobbying, but since Lobbying is reserved for actions done with Politicians, there is want for a better word that would also be a politically correct choice to use in all circumstances.

Persuasive handling and manipulation of information is the key to understanding how political difficulties are handled, how fine lines are crossed, and ambiguities erased. The contradictions between oligarchy and democracy, evidenced by political satisfaction in almost every society is most often masked by persuasive handling and manipulation of information.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term meaning the tendency for an individual’s mind to register discomfort with conflicting information about the World. Everyone has it now and then; it is not just something that happens to people whom disagree with you. It occurs in everyday situations of compromise within a family, where one person is asked to sacrifice principles in order to maintain a consensus, for example, and it also commonly occurs in political situations where compromise has been sought among politicians. One knows that the compromise violates principles of his political party, yet one or more trusted political figures has signaled his agreement with the violation. Anyone holding his political beliefs seriously may experience cognitive dissonance until he is able to reconcile the new situation into his political belief system. In this way our political belief system is a lot like an extension of our personal belief system. We understand that politics may be very important to us, perhaps even important to our survival, therefore we are likely to place a similar level of importance and feeling into the political issues we see confronting us as we do to the issues confronting our personal relationships, for example. For some, politics may even be a fully integrated part of their world view, although for others, the importance of politics rises and falls along with the amount of noise it generates in their lives.

This is one key to how oligarchies survive, by the way. In a low-noise political environment, most people care little for politics, so Oligarchy may seem fully logical and coherent with the world view of most individuals in that society.

One could say that Democracy both creates and demands a high level of awareness and participation, which makes life more exciting and informative. People are always concerned about politics because they know they have some input and play a role in the process, even though they may have doubts about why it is such a small one.

Let’s return to the example of the Constitution of the U. S. A. This constitution hides a time-limited President (a type of Oligarch) within its structure. A U.S. president has many of the same prerogatives Monarch’s have during his time in office. He can direct almost every government agency within the framework of laws, and even enter into wars that are limited in scope and duration. Republicanism considers Oligarchy tolerable as long as it falls into a remedial framework of checks and balances, allowing the Constitutional Oligarchy of the Presidency to be removed periodically and in emergencies so that the Pluralistic nature of the society can be preserved. Of course, rule by a President is not the only possibility of Oligarchy inside of a Republic, and when a political party is dominant in Congress, you have the free ability for one tendency to make all laws, and change society in limited ways, as controlled by the Constitution.

A Plurality is really a kind of special interest. While a Plurality may be as large as a majority political party, it consists also of those organizations and groups that navigate local and global power structures, including the Media, in order to achieve their ends.

These are some of the institutional forms of Oligarchy in the U.S.A., each enshrined in the Constitution. However, there are additional non-constitutional ways Oligarchical patterns enter into the government, such as through powerful agencies of Pluralism, such as Lobbies, including Churches, and Lobbies that represent Corporations and foreign powers. By lying under the radar, and controlling Media, Lobbies can deeply influence politics without gaining notice.

Earlier in this article, I discussed how our natural ability to question may be truncated or rendered ineffective in various ways. One can see, how through a variety of social and political structures, individuals ability to pose the right questions about politics may be affected, oftentimes not. Anti-war movements, for example: The tendency for governments to plant “false flags” is often detected by the culture and results in a split society on life and death issues like war, in the case of Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, for example. Not this incident, but the poor manners and statements by the American President, and military actions as well, gradually led to more and more people being opposed to the War, leading to its oddly inopportune ending.

There is no particular Human tendency that causes nations to fight or avoid fighting in wars. Humans are as likely to start war, given a reason, as they are to pursue a strategy of maintaining peace: It all depends on the information. The natural enemy of disinformation is the society itself and its natural inquisitiveness.

Paul Heroux's Huffington Post apology for attacking Iran

This article,  although pretending to be well-reasoned is just one more case of Zionist propaganda against Muslim countries. The West, having drawn the "line in the sand", which is Israel, must work very, very hard to protect their investment above all safety and reason.

What is my evidence that this article is so over the top as to constitute a case of outright propaganda? First the claim that Iran is intransigent regarding the IAEA. It is not, and is cooperating with the IAEA, industriously. One need only read Section A of the latest IAEA Board of Governer's Report to realize this. In addition, Iran has pledged to continue working with the IAEA during the current special mission, which is ongoing. So is Iran instransigent regarding the IAEA? Absolutely not, and the evidence provided by the IAEA proves that it is not with all of Iran's energy and fuel generating stations under regular monitoring and surveillance by that organization.

Mr. Heroux states the painfully obvious, that, "Iran has the right under international law to a peaceful nuclear program (Iran signed the NPT) but considering that it is a very little step to go from nuclear energy to nuclear weapons has a lot of people worried. This boils down to an issue of trust." However, the West has clearly violated that trust beyond all credibility by hurting Iran's economy and imposing sanctions. The sanctions clearly show that Iran's willingness to refrain from developing weapons and submit to inspections is not working, and that it would logically be better off to protect its assets and future the best way it is capable of. The ambiguousness proposed by Mr Heroux is not a proper option. It merely incites the entire world to take sides and propels us towards a possible future Cold War II.

Why am I absolutely sure Mr. Heroux is a Zionist? Because he posted this comment, "When Israel struck Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2006, respectively, the strikes were effective in that neither country developed a nuclear program." Israel is widely believed to be the sixth country to have developed nuclear weapons, according to Wikipedia and other sources. There was never any need for Israel to develop a nuclear program in 2006, since they already had many warheads. The irony in this statement is extremely funny. Israel prepared itself for nuclear victory long before any regional threat emerged against it. This is the "real" reason the 6-day war was so abortive. However, in truth, Israel's neighbors dwarf it. If these neighbors were motivated, not merely interested, in attacking Israel, they could, simply by occupying it. This is the ugly fact against Zionism's threats so often made against other countries. Could Israel (pop. 7.5M)  launch its missiles and destroy much of the World? Sure it could, but it would at the same time, no longer exist if it were occupied by some of the much larger countries, which surround it. These are the real facts of the situation, not facts of Religion, nor facts about imagined weaponry. The United States is in a similar situation. We can, if we like pretty much destroy the entire World. We just need to be motivated. The only escape from this paradigm is to renounce the weapons. But, as in the case of Golem's Ring, we are addicted to them.

Finally, there is the "Blame Iran" argument, "Iran is likely to continue to have an antagonistic policy towards the West, a stance that is reciprocated towards Iran." 1956 saw the overthrow of Iran's democratic government and its replacement by a "Shah". Such interference in other nation's matters hardly ever occurs, but it did in the case of the U.S. vs. Iran, and they have a hard time forgetting it. Iran has taken plenty of opportunities to strengthen ties with the West, but where has it got them?

The absolute ugliness of the stories' pretext that that we are "Iran's victims" is horrible. Iran is the country hurt by Heroux' sanctions, and we would be better off by not punishing nations, but pursuing world peace by allowing all nations to survive peacefully and unmolested. Regardless of Heroux's misplacing the victim in the frog allegory, we must not allow our Xenophobia to force us into becoming such monsters as he is describing.

The Islamic Republic and the IAEA Swill

Hello, I've been away for a while, but I have a bone to pick this week. I noticed on the Republican debate that Ron Paul denounced IAEA  Board of Governor’s statement , so I wanted to read it myself. http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

I think this document, based on the "Alleged Studies Documentation", provided to the IAEA by Israel, more than any other I've seen, shows how the process works here: The incredibly rich will always try to use the incredibly influential to influence the attitudes of the common person.

Here is the IAEA board of governers, baking a half-truthful account of how Iran has cooperated fully with them in almost every aspect of their work in recent years, and then presenting a weak attempt at updating Israel's old case that the fact that they were involved in nuclear weapons work in 2003 must prove that somehow they must still be doing it.

I can go into more details, but the bias of Section C and the Annex speaks for itself. Section A basically shows how the Iran has played by the rules and has had relatively good success in its nuclear development. The last parts of the document relies heavily on fallacy, and generally tries to force the point that having evidence of activity in the past is sufficient ground for eternal and infinite suspicion. The coup de gras, for me, though is the final graphic, which basically digests all the suspicion-based and unproven points made in the document regarding high-technology for nuclear or dual-use either developed in Iran, or taught about in Iranian Universities, such as fluid dynamics, and compares them with major defense-related non-nuclear weapons applications. My point about this graphic is that it is not a graphic about high technology for defense, it is a graphic that only deals with a few technologies which relate to nuclear weapons, therefore, the non-nuclear intersections are therefore guaranteed to be few.

I think this document has proven to me, more than any other I have seen, how money always follows politics and information, and you will always have individuals willing to make any kind of statement, or case, no matter how baseless, in order to influence common people to invest their blood and treasure in warfare, even against people who are not threatening and even though the benefits never outweigh the costs nor the risks. The only positive side in this is always profit, and only for those with a large enough share of the wealth to benefit well, the 1%.

Iranium

I saw Iranium (the movie). It was basically a talking head/pot boiler anti-Iran and anti-Islam statement that contrasts the American and Israeli nut jobs (the good guys) against Iranian politicians past and present (the bad guys).

Things I liked about it are: Since it is openly pro-America/Israel, it doesn't try to make the Shah into a saint, like some anti-Iranian films I've seen do, and the film tells the truth about practically every nation in the world preferring Iran to the US/Israel axis, at least on the principle that they are good guys and don't interfere with other countries.

The film also doesn't claim that Israel is that great; it merely states that Iran is so evil, that America should go to war with it by itself. On the negative side, besides only representing the views of the whack jobs, the film substitutes facts and footage from Al-Queda style terrorism in other countries (not even Shia) as substantiating their claims against Iran. I love the fact that one of the "Death to America" chants near the end was all women, while the film tries to make the case that Islam and Iran are anti-female.

The film is so one-sided, that it may actually recruit more whack jobs, but on the other hand it might also be a good hoot for people who know who these whack jobs are and understand the motivations and history behind American foreign policy.

The State of the Union Address

I think that President Obama did a lot of talking about what will occur over the next year and the problems confronting us as a nation. For me it was gratifying to have a president that was in command of so many facts and who understood the importance of each of these issues. What he said was an accomplishment was an accomplishment, in my opinion, but the majority of the speech was about the problems America needs to face now, and can't afford to ignore through partisan bickering.

I believe the spending cuts will result in an additional $130 billion dollars per year off the deficit for three years, based on my own calculations. I'm sure the net result can be estimated differently by different people, but the CBO will be coming out with its figures for the Congress sometime soon. If you don't like the president's proposal, it is like you believe nothing is better than something, which as a realist and not a defeatist, I simply can't believe in.

The curtain is not closed on health care reform. We will see plenty of action on this, and even if the Republicans are successful in their denial strategy, a filibuster will not stop passage of a final bill in the Senate.

In routes like Los Angeles to San Fransisco, driving is not a good alternative - it takes all day to drive. The bullet train is needed badly. Not having it as part of our infrastructure cripples our future. The states know the economy the best, and they are crying for it.

Student loan forgiveness is subsidized education, that's all. Dropping the loans after a period of good payment, is not only an incentive to make the payments, but an improvement in our higher education. I realize it's typical for a Conservative to say, "If I had to pay, everyone should always pay," but times change and so does the importance of higher education to our economy. We have an "intelligence infrastructure", which in the future will need more careful tending by our government than it has in the past.

I don't think that the State of the Union was a perfect moment, but taken together with his bipartisan initiative, it is like a "perfect storm" of movement, speech and intention to help our country in it's time of need.

Not Moscow, but not Iran either

Jeffrey Mankoff has indicated that Russia's position in regards to Iran has hardened and the US should now lay off them to become more effective (The Road to Tehran Does Not Lead Through Moscow http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-mankoff/the-road-to-tehran-does-n_b_284458.html). While this singular fact may be true, the article if full of other distortions and outright lies about the facts pertaining to Iran.

When Mohamed ElBaradei said "breakout capacity", he meant that Iran would, for the first time, have the ability to become self-sufficient in their nuclear fuel cycle, not anything more sinister, as Mankoff intimates. This is only how the most recent in a long chain of articles attacking Iran for imaginary nuclear weapons construction and deployment begins. The lie to this disproved assertion, which is being echoed over and over by U.S. Think tanks and pundits has been challenged by ElBaradei most recently during his statement to the IAEA Board of Governors on September 7, "I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith." There are no nukes, no nuclear weapons development, only lies, and distortions by those paid by government and the media.

The United States and its P6 partners get not one benefit from pursuing this ceaseless attack on Iran and its imaginary nukes, but two - the often essential political and economic benefits of pleasing the pro-Israel lobby, and keeping open the door to a possible 2nd Cold War and the immense defense income and profits that could derive from it. The economic stranglehold the pro-Israel lobby holds over U.S. and European Union politicians combined with the prospects of a continuation of the profitable Cold War, means that we will not likely see an end of this 21st century fantasy for a long time. Remember, we have over 3,000 nukes not being built, but currently deployed and waiting.

Fortunately, Iran has called the P6’s bluff and their serious call for a world free of nuclear arms http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=34271, submitted in their 5-page document, has a possibility of being heeded, if only Mankoff and his friends only don’t succeed in covering it up.

The FP Article, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/04/why_moscow_wont_stand_between_tehran_and_its_nukes makes transparent the ultimate goal of establishment foreign policy thinktanks such as CFR. The purpose of the policy of placing pressure on Iran at all costs, despite the evidence that Iran is not interested in building a nuclear weapon, is to restart the Cold War and all the profits it can bring.

"... the absence of effective international action on Iran's nuclear program ... will cause countries throughout Europe and the Middle East again to turn to the United States for protection and leadership."

This is not the kind of foreign policy we want or what we should have. The Obama Presidency should leave a legacy of International Relations free of Cold War tensions and war-mongering.

The Health Care Unplanning of the Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is flying colors again attacking Health Care Reform. The fact that factions like the WSJ, the Insurance Lobby, and the Republican Party are attacking President Obama is because he is leading the change. This is 2009. America just voted for change, and now we have all the unhappy factions wishing they could turn back the clock and using any means necessary to try to "make it so".

Of course the changes include things like better care and service for the elderly, based on medical reports on what the elderly actually want and need. Well, let’s scare them out of wanting these changes; that should be easy! All we have to do is convince them that if they get better care, it will have to be rationed. Of course – what a stroke of genius! Because they really don't deserve the care, do they? No American does. We'll just make it look like striving for a better health care system, is like striving for a better nation, it can only make things worse!

This is the "common sense" of the WSJ and the factions. We are not into scare tactics! We are the Responsible Press, and the Conservative Responsible Republican Party! They are the Usurpers. We should not allow them to improve the lives of anyone, and how dare they save the economy! Did we ask them to? Hell no! The presumptiousness of limiting CEO salaries and bonuses! We will nip this Obama problem in the bud – by any means necessary!

We will tell people that the reformers are using too many non-political entities to control health care, and then write an editorial explaining that government control of health care means that the government must pay for health care. No matter how many safeguards are built into the system, we will insist that the government will rule with an iron hand, regardless if this is true for most other nations with government run plans. We will insist that because this is America, a large nation, we will fail if we rationalize any part of our economy! We are Republicans and we are smart and we know that stuff!

As the article mentions, Obama points out that an alarming amount of rationing is occurring in America today. The WSJ counters that restriction occurs in European Universal Health Care countries. The only difference must be that their babies and seniors aren’t dying as much as ours do. This fact alone should prove that even if there is some rationing in those countries it is not done as randomly as it occurs here.


The WSJ and the factions cherrypick facts to make foreign plans and Medicare look bad.: The French have limited CT-SCAN’s and MRI’s, without mentioning that they are limited throughout Europe for HEALTH REASONS. Medicare doesn’t pay for Virtual Colonoscopies, without mentioning that VC’s, while attractive to patients, are not the prefered procedure. Why in this issue is the WSJ a complete source of misinformation? And then, the coup de gras, the WSJ plays dumb, mentioning that Medicare cost is growing, one of the main indicators driving reform, and proposes that we fix it instead, by offering competitive plans (instead of repairing delivery, as President Obama proposes). Medicare already has competitive plans, but the plans offered by the insurance companies cost both, the seniors and the taxpayers much more than the option offered by government.

The final accusation, aimed partially at AARP, is made to sound like a indictment on all health care reform based on the fact that a publicly finianced Health Care component is part of President Obama’s system. But Medicare already is, and must continue to be, a publicly financed component, and the WSJ won’t explain why it is that Medicare recipients have the most hassle –free service in the U.S. today. I guess this would have something to do with not wanting reform, not wanting public anything, not even roads and drinking fountains, and being so complacent with the status quo and whatever the distribution of wealth happens to be at this moment in time, that any improvements leading to a better society had better be avoided like the plague.

Reply to WSJ Why U.S. Diplomacy Will Fail With Iran

This is my comment on Why U.S. Diplomacy Will Fail With Iran by Edward N. Luttwak.

Edward Luttwak doesn’t miss a beat here in relating all of Iran’s politics, history and policies to the US and Israel. Neither does he fail us for an instance in imagining that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s political dominance in many areas of Iraq could not be overwhelming, even aginst a strident, naive, psuedo-reformist opponent such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi. What all this right-wing analysis so au current in the press fails to appreciate is that while Mousavi is well to the left of Ahmadinejad is several respects, his positions are much less acceptable to the dominant right wing of Iran’s clergy than even Ahmadinejad’s, who is also seen by them as a potentially dangerous progressive. Another weakness in this analysis is that neither Mohammad Khatami nor Ahmadinejad were “chosen” by Ayatollah Khameni, as Mr. Luttwak alledges. Regardless of their strict control of media and the police, the fact is the Iranian clergy are still operating a type of theocratic democracy, no matter how lunatic it may appear to outsiders in love with their own democratic systems.

Add into the mix, Mr. Luttwak’s complete historical reinvention of the details of Operation Ajax, the incredible coup against Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, and you have seen the value the neoconservative movement in America today. What we have here is exactly the view that Iran is anti-American, and anti-Israel, because, well, they’re bad, instead of recognizing that Iran is possibly, and continues to be, the the number one victim of America’s continuing plots to control it and many other countries in the middle east, and the recipient of continuing threats from Israel, a country well-known for its clashes with bordering peoples and military surgical strikes against “common enemies”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that America is “bad” either - it’s just that all belligerent countries are considered badly by their opposing belligerent countries. The main implied assertion by Luttwak that Iran “needs” the US to be an enemy is not at all substatiated: Remember when we were all “Imperialists”, and how quickly that changed once dialogue became possible?

I think I can do Mr. Luttwak one better in his analysis of the 2009 elections. Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as we know, an old hand in Iranian politics, having served as prime minister of an almost completely totalitarian government from 1981 to 1989. The fact that he was available to oppose the phlegmatic and problematic Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2009 shows strong signs of being an “inside job”. The fact that he was allowed to stay under house arrest and maintain claims of election racketeering and stir up dissent on his website while 3,000 of his supporters were arrested, and in many cases, tortured or abused, also looks very fishy. It is still not clear whether he himself will be charged by his old cronies.

Mr. Luttwak wants to return to the good old days of sanctions, threats, and even better, nevertheless he doesn’t take into account is that our perception of Iran is based on our own sociological assumptions about their role in the world, based in turn, here, on the neoconservative world view. What is much superior, is Mr. Obama’s position of staying open to dialogue, and possibly achieve important gains for the Iranian people and ourselves. Even if Iran’s plans to develop nuclear energy are countered prematurely by Israel, or a combination of Israel and America, Iran will not suffer; it will, like Hezbollah, merely impose on its opponent whatever it perceives as a necessary countermeasure, damaging our interests, and sink back into the anti-American, anti-Israel morass it is in even deeper. This is the nature of limited war and sanctions: The opponent never really gets to change their position and appears to be the eternal enemy. Barack Obama’s Iran policy is the exact opposite and carries the possibility of transformation.