Wednesday, June 27, 2007
A Walk Backwards With Tom Jefferson
Good and evil. According to my post on the habits of American readers and American politicians, it appears that such a world of the absolutely virtuous and absolutely craven exists (with no middle ground), if only in the reading habits of Americans and the assumptions of American politicians. Over the last few days, this idea has been ornately decorated by listening to viewers call in to The Washington Journal on C-Span to voice their opposition, nay, their hatred of the immigration bill. The conclusion: we are being invaded by bad people; the good American body politic is being corrupted by foreign bodies.; our leaders have sold us (good people) out, and we have to defeat them. Should there be a strict maintenance of the borders--of course; however, the continuing American narrative of us versus them, good American gunslingers versus felons, murderers, rapists, terrorists, liberals (no, sorry, they are already in the country--the virus within)only creates a monstrous American body and voice, certainly a Hobbesian Golem that is going to right all the wrongs done to poor, virtuous Americans. In that gargantuan Hobbesian monster all the fears of the American populace (and there are quite a few) are expressed in a sweeping black and white sentence structure that reduces reality to a black and white movie televised by a station without adequate power and received on a battered set that at best gets poor reception. Eventaully, all the talk of good and evil will create an American landscape not even worthy of being paved over for a Wal-mart parking lot.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Important Words in The Whale
Worth reading.
http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=277751&&year=2007&
http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=277751&&year=2007&
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sightings of Others in The Whale And That's One Gnostic Whale
Last night on C-Span 3, I watched a fascinating summary of American reading habits:John Heath and Lisa Adams discussed their forthcoming book, "Why We Read What We Read: Exploring Contemporary Bestsellers and What They Say About Our Books and Ourselves" as part of BookExpo America 2007 held in New York City. Their observations about thriller / horror / action fiction (Grisham, King, etc.) revealed a very polarized view of good and evil without either good or evil having any empathy or understanding for the other--evil people are insane and not at all like the good people who cannot fathom evil, crazy people. What they also found in the non-ficiton political genre was the same sort of assumptions: Coulter believes anyone marked by the "L" word is evil, and Franken and others on the left descend to easy generalizations about the right--in other words, whether a fiction thriller or non-fiction socio-political book, the same oversimplifications are in play.
Now add this column on Hullabalo.
[Cuz We're So Good
by digby
After 9/11, I remember being quite surprised that the US government would so freely use the phrase "good and evil" when our attackers had been extreme religious fanatics. Laden as those words are with religious association, it seemed to me to be fanning the flames when a smarter approach would have been to distance ourselves from such rhetoric and try to redirect the focus to more rational ground. I did a post quite early on in which I compared speeches by George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in which their frequent references to God and good and evil and satan were nearly indistinguishable. Both speeches could have come right out of the 13th century. (It was one of the creepiest posts I ever did, and I recall that at the time we were in the grip of such paranoia, I wondered if I would gather the attention of the authorities for writing such a thing.)
From very early on Bush used archaic religious verbal constructions like "the evil ones" and "evil-doers." Perhaps the most startling example is what he reportedly told Palestinian Prime Minister Mamhoud Abbas in 2003: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." Yikes.]
Digby goes on to cite Glenn Greenwald's new book "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency", which emphasizes how the Iraq war between "good and evil" became a reason to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution (see the post on the VP as not part of the executive branch).
So, an electorate that longs to be entertained by and edified by battles between absolute good and evil, absolutely estranged from each other, along with a president who believes in that same battle occurring in the Middle East right now. Lovely.
A loss of reasonable nuance, of understanding of the opposition, of history is critical for a republic, even for an empire.
Now add this column on Hullabalo.
[Cuz We're So Good
by digby
After 9/11, I remember being quite surprised that the US government would so freely use the phrase "good and evil" when our attackers had been extreme religious fanatics. Laden as those words are with religious association, it seemed to me to be fanning the flames when a smarter approach would have been to distance ourselves from such rhetoric and try to redirect the focus to more rational ground. I did a post quite early on in which I compared speeches by George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in which their frequent references to God and good and evil and satan were nearly indistinguishable. Both speeches could have come right out of the 13th century. (It was one of the creepiest posts I ever did, and I recall that at the time we were in the grip of such paranoia, I wondered if I would gather the attention of the authorities for writing such a thing.)
From very early on Bush used archaic religious verbal constructions like "the evil ones" and "evil-doers." Perhaps the most startling example is what he reportedly told Palestinian Prime Minister Mamhoud Abbas in 2003: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." Yikes.]
Digby goes on to cite Glenn Greenwald's new book "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency", which emphasizes how the Iraq war between "good and evil" became a reason to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution (see the post on the VP as not part of the executive branch).
So, an electorate that longs to be entertained by and edified by battles between absolute good and evil, absolutely estranged from each other, along with a president who believes in that same battle occurring in the Middle East right now. Lovely.
A loss of reasonable nuance, of understanding of the opposition, of history is critical for a republic, even for an empire.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
When An Executive Is Not An Executive Or When A Whale Is Not A Whale
Via Daily Kos here is Executive Order 13292 and as Karo X points out (David Walden who was just on C-Span this morning with Robert Bluey)several, no many instances of the power to safgeguard, classify and declassify information is given to the president and the vice-president, for instance:
[Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. ]
As (1) clearly states, the Vice President has executive duties. And yet,
"Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheney's view said that he and his legal advisor, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vide president's office because it had legistaltive as well as an executive status in the Constitution." (courtesy of Scott Shane in the NYT Friday, June 22)
So . . .
[Article I The Legislative Branch Section 3: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Ariticle II The Executive Branch Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term . . . ."]
The Constitution doesn't seem to have a problem viewing the Vice President as both executive and legislative. In other words, one doesn't eliminate the other.
What is the goal of such obtfuscations? One goal would be the ability of the future to read the past, and the interest of Bush / Cheney to make such a reading difficult if not impossible. What is the relevance of this? Well, let's read Livy.
"There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid" (Founding of the City).
Per my last post, if the executive branch does not allow for itself to be read, then the citizen's ability to know what to imitate or avoid is attacked.
Why do I put this forth? here is a quote from a Wasghington post series on Cheney by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker: "Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it."
Here's another gem:
"Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."
Much more. Excellent, detailed journalism.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
It appears the Vice President is trying to write his history through distortive readings designed to choose what texts will be part of history.
[Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. ]
As (1) clearly states, the Vice President has executive duties. And yet,
"Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheney's view said that he and his legal advisor, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vide president's office because it had legistaltive as well as an executive status in the Constitution." (courtesy of Scott Shane in the NYT Friday, June 22)
So . . .
[Article I The Legislative Branch Section 3: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Ariticle II The Executive Branch Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term . . . ."]
The Constitution doesn't seem to have a problem viewing the Vice President as both executive and legislative. In other words, one doesn't eliminate the other.
What is the goal of such obtfuscations? One goal would be the ability of the future to read the past, and the interest of Bush / Cheney to make such a reading difficult if not impossible. What is the relevance of this? Well, let's read Livy.
"There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid" (Founding of the City).
Per my last post, if the executive branch does not allow for itself to be read, then the citizen's ability to know what to imitate or avoid is attacked.
Why do I put this forth? here is a quote from a Wasghington post series on Cheney by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker: "Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it."
Here's another gem:
"Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."
Much more. Excellent, detailed journalism.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
It appears the Vice President is trying to write his history through distortive readings designed to choose what texts will be part of history.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
He Did Not Speak To Them Without A Parable or What's up with the Jabberwocky or Why We Must Read Cheney's Dark Mind
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
Sweet Jesus! The New Testament in the belly of the whale? What does Mark have to say about parables--"Using many parables like these (parable of the sower, lamp, measure, mustard seed), he spoke the word ot them, so far as they were capable of understanding it. He would not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything to his disciples when alone." [courtesy of The Jerusalem Bible]
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
So the necessity of obscuring language out in view, yet when alone the meaning revealed. A rite is involved, a select community is called upon, narrative conceals and reveals. And as in Kafka's parable of the admittance to the Law, it appears each of us has a moment of interpretation: "No one but you could gain admittance through this door, since this door was intended only for you. I am now going to shut it." [courtesy Parables and Paradoxes, Kafka--Before the Law translated by Willa and Edwin Muir]
"He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought --So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought."
The inestimable Sir Frank Kermode in his parabolic / non-parabolic text "The Genesis of Secrecy" states an important defintion of parable: "Parable,it seems, may proclaim a truth as a herald does, and at the same time conceal truth like an oracle." "Proclamation and concealment" as Sir Frank goes on to define.
"And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!"
The use of herald and oracle (think Oedipus) presents a message to be heard but not necessarily understood, though later on, if one is part of the club, that meaning may be revealed to you. O frabjous day, callooh callay!
"One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back."
Notwithstanding or standing Hobbes injunction against metaphors: " . . . when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other sense than they are ordained for; and thereby deceive others"(Leviathan Chap. 4). We are confronted with a deception of language that neccessitates our interaction, our interpretation.
"A Signe, is the Event Antecedent, of the Consequent; and contrarily, the Consequent of the Antecedent, when like Consequences have been observed, before: And the oftener they have been observed, the lesse uncertain is the Signe. And therefore he that has most experience in any kind of businesse, has most Signes, whereby to guesse at the Future time . . . ." (Leviathan, Chap. 3).
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy!O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy."
Which brings me to the New York Times and Dick Cheney. The NYT reported yesterday that the Vice-President was ignoring requests by the National Archives for information on the classification of documents, and going a step further, by seeking the eliminatino of that agency. Above the continuation of this article in the newspaper, the Times published an article on the imminent release of CIA documents concerning covert activities. An implicit quesiton arisies: what is the nature of secrecy in a society, what's supposed to be a secret in a whale, and without the ability to interpret the secrets how can we possibly gain admittance to the law or save ourselves?
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "
Sweet Jesus! The New Testament in the belly of the whale? What does Mark have to say about parables--"Using many parables like these (parable of the sower, lamp, measure, mustard seed), he spoke the word ot them, so far as they were capable of understanding it. He would not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything to his disciples when alone." [courtesy of The Jerusalem Bible]
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
So the necessity of obscuring language out in view, yet when alone the meaning revealed. A rite is involved, a select community is called upon, narrative conceals and reveals. And as in Kafka's parable of the admittance to the Law, it appears each of us has a moment of interpretation: "No one but you could gain admittance through this door, since this door was intended only for you. I am now going to shut it." [courtesy Parables and Paradoxes, Kafka--Before the Law translated by Willa and Edwin Muir]
"He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought --So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought."
The inestimable Sir Frank Kermode in his parabolic / non-parabolic text "The Genesis of Secrecy" states an important defintion of parable: "Parable,it seems, may proclaim a truth as a herald does, and at the same time conceal truth like an oracle." "Proclamation and concealment" as Sir Frank goes on to define.
"And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!"
The use of herald and oracle (think Oedipus) presents a message to be heard but not necessarily understood, though later on, if one is part of the club, that meaning may be revealed to you. O frabjous day, callooh callay!
"One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back."
Notwithstanding or standing Hobbes injunction against metaphors: " . . . when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other sense than they are ordained for; and thereby deceive others"(Leviathan Chap. 4). We are confronted with a deception of language that neccessitates our interaction, our interpretation.
"A Signe, is the Event Antecedent, of the Consequent; and contrarily, the Consequent of the Antecedent, when like Consequences have been observed, before: And the oftener they have been observed, the lesse uncertain is the Signe. And therefore he that has most experience in any kind of businesse, has most Signes, whereby to guesse at the Future time . . . ." (Leviathan, Chap. 3).
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy!O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy."
Which brings me to the New York Times and Dick Cheney. The NYT reported yesterday that the Vice-President was ignoring requests by the National Archives for information on the classification of documents, and going a step further, by seeking the eliminatino of that agency. Above the continuation of this article in the newspaper, the Times published an article on the imminent release of CIA documents concerning covert activities. An implicit quesiton arisies: what is the nature of secrecy in a society, what's supposed to be a secret in a whale, and without the ability to interpret the secrets how can we possibly gain admittance to the law or save ourselves?
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Ah, the Washington Journal
Truly, it brought tears of homecoming to watch Washington Journal this morning and again hear the voices of America cheer my soul. The man who's voting for Hillary but does not believe that a woman, a black man or a Jew can win in America because this is a mysoginistic, racist, anti-semetic country; the woman who is a Democrat but hates the Clintons, loves Kucinich, and most likely will vote for Rommney; and the man calling in on the Republican line who talked about the nefarious business dealings of the vice-president. What a country! What a surprising marine animal!
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Frontline and the Depths of Leviathan
Ah yes, Captain Langston. This whale is infinitely murky. Make sure you read the discussion section. So many in the great whale. Oh yes, delightful that in the show Cheney is referred to as Moby Dick. That is the beauty of being in such a big, water-bound mammal--it's also a giant rabbit-hole. Everyone put on your best Alice dress and let's go fishing.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrendgame_2007-06-20
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrendgame_2007-06-20
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Down the Rabbit-Hole Again
Yes Sir, that's Rummy on C-Span 3. Here's a link that explains his return to Primetime television: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh
Once More Near the Blow-Hole
Eight months lost in the belly of the great whale; eight months adrift from island to island in the deep waters of the big fish who is not a fish; eight months looking for a way out of the leviathan. No luck. Here's a message that washed up in a large, cavernous intestine.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)