Amos's River of Justice

Category: U.S. Politics

  • Turner, Gallego, Grijalva, Sanders in Phoenix

    I’ve been trying to get back to the conversation since Donald Trump became our president.  I thought the craziness of the election might have discredited the conversation as well as our political participation.  I tried several times to address this but I couldn’t get it straight until I attended the Phoenix town hall held by Nina Turner, Ruben Gallego, Raul Grijalva, and Bernie Sanders.  It helped me see that the political process is not separate from the conversation.  It’s just a more hectic, compacted version.  Elections cram the conversation into one or two years. On the other hand, they never end. They just change gears.

    I knew we would have to talk for generations but that perspective was easy to forget when we came so close in the election. The obstacles in any election are close-up and personal, and sometimes disturbing, but a conversation without the electoral process would just be noise.

    This probably seems too obvious to mention for those who have moved on, but for me it is an important distinction.  A good conversation makes everything seem possible; an election like the one we just had makes everything seem impossible.  I would say that in this particular election one of the main tactics was to demonstrate futility.  However we knew things were bad before we started and believe or not, we’re still on track.  As conversations go, the election of 2016 was an amazing victory.  I recommend watching the Phoenix town hall.

     

  • Bernie Sanders Puts America’s Social Spending in Perspective

  • Another View of the Conflict in Syria

    It turns out the Kurds in Afrin are not the responsibility of the United States. They are the responsibility of Russia. However the United Stated did inflame tensions by announcing the 30,000-strong ‘security force’. According to this video fighting ISIS was the easy part.

  • Can We Get a Time-Out in Afrin?

    Update: 2:28 PM, Jan. 25, 2018 I’ve rethought my tone of voice on this and the previous post. I apologize if it was offensive, I was afraid. In an attempt to be more impartial I’ve added a video below that speaks to the fears of Erdogan and Putin. I owe this change of heart to Bishop Barron’s YouTube channel.

    There are two issues of concern in Syria: the continuation of the Syrian conflict and the safety of the inhabitants of Afrin. The initial cause of the latest conflict is the Americans’ threat to back a new force of 30,000 fighters on Syria’s border. The attack on Afrin is a separate issue and may not be connected to the overall conflict. Many sources are saying that the Kurds in Afrin were never part of the US coalition.(1) Furthermore, the United States has warned its Kurdish allies in the North that if they go to the defense of Afrin they will no longer be part of the US coalition. Instead, it’s becoming clear that Afrin’s misfortune is the fault of Vladimir Putin and Tayyip Erdogan.

    Representatives from the Democratic Administration of Northern Syria, the confederation of Syrian Arab and Kurdish leaders, say the ongoing violence in Afrin was the result of Russian jockeying to strengthen the hand of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. Moscow offered to close the airspace to Turkish airstrikes if the Kurds would hand over their sovereignty to Assad. The Kurds refused and this is their punishment. As for Erdogan, he’s wanted to go after the YPG in Afrin since 2012. Now he claims to have killed Islamic State fighters in Afrin even though everyone in the region knows that the Islamic State is not in Afrin.(2)

    Rex Tillerson has said the border force is no longer in the works, but of course no one believes him and the fighting continues. However, compared to the complexities of the Syrian conflict Afrin’s troubles are not complicated. It is clear that the people of Afrin are not to blame. Recep Tayyip Erdogan is out on a limb in Afrin. (Or at least that’s how I expressed it when I wrote this the first time. Here is another side of the story.)

    https://youtu.be/ro2jo-LBWa8

    [1] Ragip Soylu US Disavowed ‘Afrin Kurds’ long ago, Daily Sabah, Jan. 25, 2018. Available: https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/ragip-soylu/2018/01/25/us-disavowed-afrin-kurds-long-ago

    [2] Ece Toksabay, Ellen Francis and Tuvan Gumrukcu U.S.-backed Syrian Force Denies Islamic State in Area Targeted by Turkey Reuters, Jan. 24, 2018. Available: https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-kills-least-260-kurdish-islamic-state-fighters-000434152.html
    (more…)

  • The Low Standard: Pseudo-Intellectualism in Neo-conservative Thought

    In the book, When Empire Meets Nationalism,[1]the authors expressed their hope for a ‘intellectual alternative’ to the neo-conservative worldview. The problem with this expression, in my opinion, is not its basic sentiment but its wording. It implies that the neoconservative worldview is intellectual. Whatever else might be said about neoconservative pronouncements, they are most definitely not intellectual. A case in point can be found in the introduction of the book, which tells of a political controversy that arose in 2005 surrounding George Lucas’s comments about his Episode III of Star Wars, Revenge of the Sith.

    The director declared he had developed his saga in reference to the Vietnam War and felt there was a disturbing parallel between this event and the invasion of Iraq. By comparing the ‘philosophy’ behind his work to the current political situation, he was stating that ‘most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons and, as if to underline the polemical aspect of his declaration, he added to the parallel between the American political context and the leitmotiv of his Episode III that ‘In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship’, in other words, how a prosperous Republic, albeit in a crisis, becomes a moralistic and militarist dictatorship. A process which some, on the political left, would use to define George W. Bush’s policy-making.

    Naturally, right-wing American groups felt themselves personally attacked by Lucas’s comments. One group, the pro-republican group, the Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood, (PABAAH), called for a US boycott of Lucas’s latest film. What did surprise the authors however, was the fact that conservatives and neoconservatives did not reject the right-wing position outright. Or at least they did not echo the PABAAH’s call for a boycott. The neoconservatives agreed with Lucas in principle, arguing that he ‘was simply mistaken in his definition of Good and Evil. Anakin Skywalker, who becomes Darth Vader, chose, according to them, the good side, the Empire’.

    I would explain Americans’ failure to develop an intellectual alternative to neo-conservatism in this way: one assumes the neocons are either making a sick joke, or that they are completely mad. Given this understanding common decency dictates one of two things: a cynical guffaw, or a discrete silence. (Note that an intellectual answer is not on the list of possible responses.) This leads me to suspect method in the neo-conservative madness.

    It is difficult to recognize the implicit challenge in their tactics because their remarks are more like a slap in the face than political discourse. However, since I agree that it’s important to confront this particular comment in a coherent way I’ll answer it, in kind.

    With the Darth Vader comment the neo-conservatives made a mockery of everyone and everything, including neo-conservatism itself. The first thing to be understood is that this was a defensive maneuver in response to George Lucas’s criticism of neoconservative policies. In this light, it’s important to assert that not even the neoconservatives could believe that switching the roles of villain and hero in another writer’s work is a respectable course of action. Then why would they take this course of action? I would answer that with another question: what else could they say? The best they could hope for was to divert attention from Lucas’s criticism. And they no doubt also considered it a bonus that they were able to show contempt for the conventions of civil society. Outrageousness is their way of attacking collective confidence and corrupting political rhetoric. What else would you expect from a bunch of Gnostics?

    [1] Didier Chaudet, Florent Parmentier and Benoît Pélopidas, When Empire Meets Nationalism: Power Politics in the US and Russia. Ashgate Publishing, Burlington, VT, 2009

  • Do Neo Conservatives Understand Christmas?

    The Neo Conservatives have used fundamentalist Christians to increase their popularity. This was necessary because without American Christians they would have had no political base in the United States. In my opinion, it is a problem that the neocons are not Christians. It is a bigger problem that they are Gnostics.

    Today Gnosticism justifies itself through Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is called science, but it had metaphysical pretensions from the beginning. That’s why Albert Einstein rejected it. He believed in a God that does not play dice with the universe.

    From an article on transnational interpretation.org:

    Now let’s look at the history of the development of quantum mechanics, which was thoroughly saturated with discussions of consciousness and the mind. First, celebrated mathematical genius and quantum theory pioneer John von Neumann stated in 1955 that ‘N. Bohr, Naturwiss. 17 (1929)…was the first to point out that the dual description…necessitated by the formalism of the quantum mechanical description of nature is fully justified by the physical nature of things [and] that it may be connected with the principle of psychophysical parallelism.’

    The ‘psycho-physical parallelism’ is a purely metaphysical doctrine saying that a physical process in the body is accompanied by a subjective psychological experience in the mind without any causal connection between them. Does this sound ‘New Age-y’ to you? It does to me. Yet Von Neumann not only reports Bohr’s use of this term but explicitly invokes it in his account of ‘measurement’ in quantum theory. [To quote von Neumann]

    “…we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer. In the former, we can follow up all the physical processes…arbitrarily precisely. In the latter this is meaningless…that this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deeply into the interior of the body of the observer is the content of the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism.”

    Von Neumann goes on to refer to the ‘ego’ of the observer as that which experiences a single outcome of the measurement, even though the physical system is described only by a set of outcomes. Connecting the two is the mysterious ‘collapse’, for which Von Neumann gives a formal representation but which he explicitly says lies outside any physically describable system. [1]

    Another problem with quantum physics is the lack of consensus as to what kind of social and economic reality is compatible with the quantum universe. Despite of this lack of consensus quantum mechanics has had real consequences in the world. This would probably explain the Bush administration’s lack of a plan for Iraq, even though they were clearly determined from the beginning to destroy it. Condoleezza

    Rice stated as much in a 2006 press conference. When asked how she intended to restore peace to Iraq, she said:

    “I think it would be a mistake. What we’re seeing here, in a sense is the growing—the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one.”[2]

    According to Eric Voegelin, the Gnostic system is its own logic. That’s why it can’t allow logical questions. System building is not philosophy. It is based on the desire to dominate being. True philosophy on the other hand is based on the love of being.

    In answer to a similar question to that asked of Rice, George Bush an aide to George W. Bush demonstrated that he is a system builder:

    “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    You might wondering what can be done? After all, quantum mechanics describes the way the universe works, doesn’t it? No, not really. A different physics has always been a possibility. The only real question would be how far back we need to go. In the meantime it is relevant to recall the view of man proposed by William Shakespeare compared to that proposed by Job. This implies two different views of God. The Gnostics gave us the idea of the Superman–just one episode in their struggle to remake mankind. Today they claim to be improving the process of evolution with artificial intelligence. Considering the effects they have had in the world so far, it shouldn’t be surprising that they represent a direct challenge to the Christian religion. Contrary to their pretensions to godliness, Christianity tells us that God became human. And rather than demonstrate his fearsome power He experienced the harsh realities of mortal existence.

    And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed…And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1, 3-7)

    [1] Where did the ‘Wrong’ idea of quantum theory implying consciousness come from? Quantum physicists Transactionalinterpretation.org. Oct 2, 2015

    [2] Thierry Meyssan The Neo Conservatives and the Policies of Constructive Chaos Voltairenet.org, 27 July 2006

  • Movement for a People’s Party

    Last week Nick Braña announced the next stage in his effort–the Draft Bernie movement has become the ‘Movement for a People’s Party’. In a recent interview on the Jimmy Dore Show, Braña explained that although progressives have the numbers, they are ‘too atomized’ to be successful at the polls. He hopes to remedy that situation by enabling collaborative efforts toward independent politics. The new movement’s priority is coalition building, or a pooling of resources rather than a merging of various groups, however the end goal remains the same–the creation of a new party.

    Previously the Draft Bernie effort looked like a catch-22. How do you recruit people without a platform, and what good is a platform if you don’t have the organizational structure to implement it? Furthermore, unless the new party could really challenge the Democratic Party it would have to compete for Democratic votes–somewhat like the Green Party in the 2016 election—which is not exactly an inspiring prospect for people who hoped to blow the Democratic Party out of the water.  Today all that remains is the conviction that the two-party system has to go–and a new strategy. Considering that the Draft Bernie team is not alone in their vision for a third-party, that should be enough.

    Nick often cites a recent Gallop poll revealing that 61% of Americans are fed up with the existing parties. Then there’s the recent AFL-CIO conference, where a third-party was a hot topic of conversation. In other words, this is something people want. The Draft Bernie movement started out as a daring wager that Bernie would leave the Democratic Party. Little did they know, giving up would not be an option. People’s Party, it’s time to get serious.(forapeoplesparty.org)

  • Puerto Rico Follows in the Footsteps of Haiti

    I was shocked when I read this story about five former presidents raising funds for hurricane relief. [1] I’m not picking on the Chicago Tribune, all of the media handled this story in the same way. I assume this means that the majority of Americans don’t know the aid they sent to Haiti didn’t go to Haitians. As of October 21, the ex-presidents’ appeal had raised $31 million for hurricane relief.  Here’s what has been taking place in Puerto Rico since then.  (I originally posted an older video.  This one was published October 17.)

    [1] Will Weissert, 5 Former Presidents Call for Unity at Hurricane Relief Concert in Texas Chicago Tribune, October 21, 2017 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hurricane-relief-concert-ex-presidents-20171021-story.html)

  • Trump’s Puerto Rico Fail

    When I see ‘President’ Trump sitting smugly in the White House as Puerto Ricans are abandoned by the world I am ashamed to be an American. When I see my fellow Americans continue to defend him, grief overwhelms me. When I contemplate the fact that he appears to be a member of my species I am ashamed of the human race.

    The politics of the world have become sordid beyond measure. All of the questions that I used to think were so important have died in my heart and on my lips. Instead, a quotation plays over and over again in my head:

     

    For the youth of the world is past,

    And the strength of the creation already exhausted,

    And the advent of the times is very short,

    Yea, they have passed by;

    And the pitcher is near to the cistern,

    And the ship to the port,

    And the course of the journey to the city,

    And life to (its) consummation.   [*]

    [*]II Baruch 85:10, As quoted by J. Massyngberde Ford, Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation, Doubleday and Company, 1975. Page 160 From II Baruch 85:10

  • Was Election 2016 Just the Way the World Works?

    I think I’ve finally figured out why it’s so hard to describe what happened in the 2016 election. Judging by the comments about Hillary’s Clinton’s book tour the entire election was a demand by establishment Democrats that we recognize them as ultimate authorities. That’s why they don’t hesitate to say things that everyone knows are patently false. They’re trying to force obeisance to their authority. If HRC is as mad as her critics say she is there is a method to her madness. Her post-election rhetoric has stopped just short of gloating over the outcome. Her book says, “Don’t believe your own eyes. Don’t believe your own hearts. Believe me!”

     

    Didn’t she want to be president? It’s probably true that powerful players usurped the Trump candidacy, but was that a complete surprise? Didn’t Bill have a meeting with Trump before he announced his candidacy? Didn’t the corporate media build Trump up during the primary race? Didn’t Hillary ignore the Rust Belt during the general election? One way or the other, it stands to reason that the Clinton Foundation would need to operate. The Clintons still owe their donors after all. But how do we endure the false narrative of the 2016 election? I’m going to propose an alternative to Hillary’s interpretation:

     

    The establishment didn’t think anyone on the left could challenge them, but Bernie’s supporters sent them scrambling. Now their sacred altar has been torn down and they’re desperately trying to shore it up. The question Hillary is trying to answer is whether the entire edifice is going to crumble, and whether the rebellious voters are going to get in line?

     

    Which brings me to the most curious part of this election. Bernie Sanders is not an anti-globalist so what exactly was so dangerous about his challenge relative to the challenge of Donald Trump? It makes me wonder if maybe the new order is not powered entirely by invisible, impersonal forces behind the throne, or by political alternatives like democratic socialism. Maybe it’s personal. That is the scariest thought I have had in a long time–that control of this global order is still up for grabs.

     

    Maybe a literary analogy will lighten the mood. The DNC’s claim that they could have picked the candidate in a smoke-filled room was vintage Clinton. The Clintons believe that’s the way the world works and they’re fine with it. Of course this implies that they either failed to resist this system or they helped to create it. But ignoring that for now, the Clinton belief that that is how the world works reminds me of the movie, Babe.

     

    Farmer Hoggett wins a piglet in a raffle. The piglet, Babe, feels insecure about his position in the farmyard so he decides to become a sheepdog, or rather a sheep-pig. Farmer Hoggett recognizes his talent and encourages him. However, the night before Babe’s competition at the fair Babe has the following conversation with Duchess the cat:

     

    Narrator: “There are many perfectly nice cats in the world, but every barrel has its bad apples, and it’s well to heed the old adage, “Beware the bad cat bearing a grudge.”

     

    Cat:     Oh, do forgive me for scratching you, dear. I got a bit carried away. It’s a cat thing.

     

    Babe:  [laughs] Oh, well, but…

     

    Cat:     Feeling good about tomorrow, are you?

     

    Babe:  Um-hmm, it should be alright I think.

     

    Cat:     You know, I probably shouldn’t say this but I’m not sure if you realize how much the other animals are laughing at you for this sheepdog business.

     

    Babe:  Why would they do that?

     

    Cat:     Well, they say that you’ve forgotten that you’re a pig. Isn’t that silly? And they even said that you don’t know what pigs are for.

     

    Babe:  What do you mean, ‘what pigs are for’?

     

    Cat:     You know, why pigs are here.

     

    Babe:  Why are any of us here?

     

    Cat:     Well, the cow’s here to be milked, the dogs are here to help the boss’s husband with the sheep, and I’m here to be beautiful and affectionate to the boss.

     

    Babe:  Yes?

     

    Cat:     [sighs softly] The fact is that pigs don’t have a purpose.

     

    Babe:  [confused] Wh, I-I don’t, uh…

     

    Cat:     Alright, for your own sake, I’ll be blunt. Why do the bosses keep ducks? To eat them. So why do the bosses keep a pig? The fact is that animals that don’t seem to have a purpose really do have a purpose. The bosses have to eat. It’s probably the most noble purpose of all, when you come to think about it.

     

    Babe:  They…eat pigs?

     

    Cat:     Pork they call it. Or bacon. They only call them pigs when they’re alive.

     

    Babe:  But, uh, I’m a sheep-pig.

     

    Cat:     [giggles] The boss’s husband’s just playing a little game with you. Believe me, sooner or later every pig gets eaten. That’s the way the world works… Oh, I haven’t upset you have I? [chuckles softly]

     

    But the cat was wrong about Babe.

error: Content is protected !!