Quantcast
Channel: Pax on both houses
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live

Compendium Of Best Pax Posts On Aggressive Ignorance - Proud, Boastful, Evangelical

$
0
0
Sobering Thought
By definition, one of every two people is endowed with double digit intelligence.


Intelligence Quotient

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

American Conservatism
Devoted to the preservation of sound bites heard in middle school

"Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All"
Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167999/its-official-watching-fox-makes-you-stupider


Pax on both houses: American Conservatives And ...

paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../american-conservatives-and-aggressiv...

Aug 10, 2015 - American Conservatives And Aggressive Ignorance. The Guardian: "John Oliver's Viral Video Is The Best Global Warming Debate You'll Ever  ...

Pax on both houses: Aggressive Ignorance - The Informing ...

paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../aggressive-ignorance-informing-passi...

Sep 22, 2013 - Yes, it's also a cigar. Limbaugh Wikiquotes: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh. ***. Michael Savage Quotes.

Pax on both houses: Edith Sitwell On America's National ...

paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../edith-sitwell-on-americas-aggressive.h...

Sep 7, 2015 - Edith Sitwell On America's National Pastime: Aggressive Ignorance & Proud, Boastful Stupidity. Edith Sitwell, poet (1887-1964). "Aggressive  ...

Pax on both houses: Aggresive Ignorance, American ...

paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/.../aggresive-ignorance-american.h...

Mar 10, 2013 - Pax on both houses. The best ... I first realized the ubiquity ofAggressive Ignorance in America while teaching public high school in the 1990s.

Pax on both houses: Bank On It: The South Is Always Wrong

paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../bank-on-it-south-is-always-wrong.ht...
Jul 6, 2014 - And now -- to make a "clean sweep" -- prohibition of same-sex marriage. (Somewhat surprisingly, Catholics "see the light" on gay marriage and .














The Bible's Two Versions Of The Decalogue Are Different. Read The 1st Commandment

$
0
0

Pope Francis: Quotations On Finance, Economics, Capitalism And Inequality


Pope Francis: "This Economy Kills"

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/01/pope-francis-this-economy-kills.html


Catholic Social Teaching

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/01/catholic-social-teaching.html


Pope Francis: One Of The Most Powerful Critiques Of Capitalism You Will Ever Read

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/03/pope-francis-one-of-most-powerful.html


Pope Francis: Moving The Moral Compass 
From "The Individual" Toward "The Collective"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/01/pope-francis-moving-moral-judgment-from.html


Pope Francis: What Christianity Looks Like When Believers Realize "God Is Love"

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/pope-francis-what-happens-when-jesus-is.html

"Pope Francis Links"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/11/pope-francis-links.html


"Idolatry: Why The First Commandment Forgives It"


Alan: According to the original text of the 4th Commandment "To Keep Holy The Sabbath By Doing No Work Of Any Kind," not one Christian in a hundred is compliant. There be NO Christian who is consistently compliant with the 4th Commandment in its entirety.

Concerning false witness, Fox News is routinely non-compliant and most Christians applaud the mendacity

The 6th commandment -- "Thou Shalt Not Kill" -- begs examination of the following data.

It is truly said that Christians of European descent are the most deadly earthlings ever. 

Nolo contendere.


Devout Christian, Blaise Pascal

"The terrible thing about our time is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice.  The more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their realization.  We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations, imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is not the ideal.  Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good.  The best, imposed as a norm, becomes evil.”  
"Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,” by Trappist monk, Father Thomas Merton
More Merton Quotes

Exodus 20 (Living Bible)

The Ten Commandments
20 Then God issued this edict:
“I am Jehovah your God who liberated you from your slavery in Egypt.
“You may worship no other god than me.
“You shall not make yourselves any idols: no images of animals, birds, or fish. You must never bow or worship it in any way; for I, the Lord your God, am very possessive. I will not share your affection with any other god!
“And when I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who hate me; but I lavish my love upon thousands of those who love me and obey my commandments.
“You shall not use the name of Jehovah your God irreverently,[a] nor use it to swear to a falsehood. You will not escape punishment if you do.
“Remember to observe the Sabbath as a holy day. Six days a week are for your daily duties and your regular work,10 but the seventh day is a day of Sabbath rest before the Lord your God. On that day you are to do no work of any kind, nor shall your son, daughter, or slaves—whether men or women—or your cattle or your house guests. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heaven, earth, and sea, and everything in them, and rested the seventh day; so he blessed the Sabbath day and set it aside for rest.[b]
12 “Honor your father and mother, that you may have a long, good life in the land the Lord your God will give you.
13 “You must not murder.
14 “You must not commit adultery.
15 “You must not steal.
16 “You must not lie.[c]
17 “You must not be envious of your neighbor’s house, or want to sleep with his wife, or want to own his slaves, oxen, donkeys, or anything else he has.”
18 All the people saw the lightning and the smoke billowing from the mountain, and heard the thunder and the long, frightening trumpet blast; and they stood at a distance, shaking with fear.
19 They said to Moses, “You tell us what God says and we will obey, but don’t let God speak directly to us, or it will kill us.”
20 “Don’t be afraid,” Moses told them, “for God has come in this way to show you his awesome power, so that from now on you will be afraid to sin against him!”
21 As the people stood in the distance, Moses entered into the deep darkness where God was.
22 And the Lord told Moses to be his spokesman to the people of Israel. “You are witnesses to the fact that I have made known my will to you from heaven. 23 Remember, you must not make or worship idols made of silver or gold or of anything else!
24 “The altars you make for me must be simple altars of earth. Offer upon them your sacrifices to me—your burnt offerings and peace offerings of sheep and oxen. Build altars only where I tell you to, and I will come and bless you there. 25 You may also build altars from stone, but if you do, then use only uncut stones and boulders. Don’t chip or shape the stones with a tool, for that would make them unfit for my altar. 26 And don’t make steps for the altar, or someone might look up beneath the skirts of your clothing and see your nakedness.

Mistakes In Scripture: When The Bible Gets The Bible Wrong

Deuteronomy 5 Living Bible 


The Ten Commandments

Moses continued speaking to the people of Israel and said, “Listen carefully now to all these laws God has given you; learn them, and be sure to obey them!
2-3 “The Lord our God made a contract with you at Mount Horeb—not with your ancestors, but with you who are here alive today. He spoke with you face to face from the center of the fire, there at the mountain. I stood as an intermediary between you and Jehovah, for you were afraid of the fire and did not go up to him on the mountain. He spoke to me and I passed on his laws to you. This is what he said:
“‘I am Jehovah your God who rescued you from slavery in Egypt.
“‘Never worship any god but me.
“‘Never make idols; don’t worship images, whether of birds, animals, or fish. 9-10 You shall not bow down to any images nor worship them in any way, for I am the Lord your God. I am a jealous God, and I will bring the curse of a father’s sins upon even the third and fourth generation of the children of those who hate me; but I will show kindness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

11 “‘You must never use my name to make a vow you don’t intend to keep.[a] I will not overlook that.
12 “‘Keep the Sabbath day holy. This is my command. 13 Work the other six days, 14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God; no work shall be done that day by you or by any of your household—your sons, daughters, servants, oxen, donkeys, or cattle; even foreigners living among you must obey this law. Everybody must rest as you do. 15 Why should you keep the Sabbath? It is because you were slaves in Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out with a great display of miracles.
16 “‘Honor your father and mother (remember, this is a commandment of the Lord your God); if you do so, you shall have a long, prosperous life in the land he is giving you.
17 “‘You must not murder.
18 “‘You must not commit adultery.
19 “‘You must not steal.
20 “‘You must not tell lies.
21 “‘You must not burn with desire for another man’s wife, nor envy him for his home, land, servants, oxen, donkeys, nor anything else he owns.’
22 “The Lord has given these laws to each one of you from the heart of the fire, surrounded by the clouds and thick darkness that engulfed Mount Sinai. Those were the only commandments he gave you at that time,[b] and he wrote them out on two stone tablets and gave them to me. 23 But when you heard the loud voice from the darkness and saw the terrible fire at the top of the mountain, all your tribal leaders came to me 24 and pleaded, ‘Today the Lord our God has shown us his glory and greatness; we have even heard his voice from the heart of the fire. Now we know that a man may speak to God and not die; 25 but we will surely die if he speaks to us again. This awesome fire will consume us. 26-27 What man can hear, as we have, the voice of the living God speaking from the heart of the fire, and live? You go and listen to all that God says, then come and tell us, and we will listen and obey.’
28 “And the Lord agreed to your request and said to me, ‘I have heard what the people have said to you, and I agree.29 Oh, that they would always have such a heart for me, wanting to obey my commandments. Then all would go well with them in the future, and with their children throughout all generations! 30 Go and tell them to return to their tents.31 Then you come back and stand here beside me, and I will give you all my commandments, and you shall teach them to the people; and they will obey them in the land I am giving to them.’”
32 So Moses told the people, “You must obey all the commandments of the Lord your God, following his directions in every detail, going the whole way he has laid out for you; 33 only then will you live long and prosperous lives in the land you are to enter and possess.

Biblical Literalism And The Cultivation Of Hatred
Pastor John Piper "discusses the vexing problem of God ordering the mass killing of every Canaanite man, woman, and child."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/07/john-piper-on-why-its-right-for-god-to-slaughter-women-and-children-anytime-he-pleases-and-why-i-have-some-major-problems-with-that/

"God Enjoys The 10 Plagues Way Too Much"

"Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?"

"Trial By Ordeal: The Bloody Old Testamental Roots Of Modern Justice"

ISIS And The Inquisition: The Shadow Side Of Religion. 
Why Does Belief Do This?
"What ISIS Really Wants" And How The Patriarch Abraham Appears To Be The Instigator

Christianity's Bedrock Commitment To Torture: Remaking "The Faithful" In God's Image

UNC-CH Professor Bart D. Ehrman:
Biblical Exegete And Former Christian Evangelical
The Bible and Textual Analysis

Time To Expunge Catholicism Of Traditions & Texts That Represent God As A Terrorist
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/06/time-to-expunge-catholicism-of.html

"Love and do what you will."
St. Augustine

"You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image 
when it turns out God hates all the same people you do."
Fr. Tom Weston S. J.


Dorothy Day: “I really only love God as much as I love the person I love the least.”
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/02/dorothy-day-i-really-only-love-god-as.html

Shielded By The Law: Why Killer Cops Walk

$
0
0
"Killed by Police" lists more than 1,450 deaths caused by law-enforcement officers since its launch, on May 1, 2013, through August 2014 - about three per day, or 1,100 a year."

Shielded By The Law 

"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right"
Extrajudicial Execution By Killer Cops: Best Pax Posts

Cop Arrested After Video Shows Her Shoot Unarmed Man in Back Lying Face Down in the Snow

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/cop-arrested-after-video-shows-her.html

Open Season On Unarmed American Black Men, A Compendium Of Pax Posts
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/open-season-on-american-black-men.html

Alan: Blacks are arrested - and prosecuted - at least twice as often as whites for the "contraband" crimes that most often put Americans behind bars. 

If white people were incarcerated as often as blacks for the crimes both commit with the same regularity, and if blacks were incarcerated for the crimes they commit as often as whites are for those same crimes, the "black prison time" figure of 32% (above) would be cut in half and the "white prison time" figure of 6% would double.

The situation is further complicated because it is much harder for released blacks to find work than it is for released whites, making persistent black unemployment a source of recidivism.

Are there any circumstances under which you would hire Jamal ahead of James?

Blacks Arrested For Contraband Twice As Often Though Much Less Likely To Have Contraband

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/blacks-2x-as-likely-to-be-arrested-for.html

The Future Of Race In America: TED Talk By Michelle Alexander, Author Of "The New Jim Crow"

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-future-of-race-in-america-ted-talk.html

Lists Of Americans Killed By Cops In 2013, 2014, 2015
http://www.killedbypolice.net/kbp2014.html

Walter Scott’s Killing Is the Sum of Every Black Nightmare About White Cops

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/walter-scotts-killing-is-sum-of-every_7.html

Killing Good Black People Over Dysfunctional Tail Lights

Open Season On Unarmed American Black Men, A Compendium Of Pax Posts

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/open-season-on-american-black-men.html

50 Police Officers Shot & Killed In 2014. Huge, Steady Decline Since 1970s

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/50-police-officers-shot-killed-in-2014.html

The Beginning Of The End For Cop-Killer Privilege: "#CrimingWhileWhite"

American Cops Fire More Bullets At One NYC Man Than All German Cops Fire In A Year
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/09/85-shots-us-cops-use-more-ammo-per-man.html


1 Small Town's Cops Have Killed More People Than Combined Police Of Germany And U.K.
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/02/1-small-towns-cops-have-killed-more.html

The Caging Of America: Why Do We Lock Up So Many People?
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/04/caging-of-america-why-do-we-lock-up-so.html

Selma, "Glory" And America's Astronomical Incarceration Rate
Particularly For Blacks
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/02/selma-common-and-john-legend-win-best.html


There's Never Been A Safer Time For Cops Nor A More Dangerous Time For Criminals
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/11/theres-never-been-safer-time-to-be-cop.html

"Non-Racist" Gringos Cheer Black Man Who Would "Ventilate Black Asses With M16s"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/09/non-racist-gringos-cheer-black-man-who.html

Jesus Says: If Walter Scott Was Running Away Because He Was Guilty Of Something, Kill Him

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/jesus-says-if-walter-scott-was-running.html

Compendium Of Pax Posts: What's Wrong With Race Relations? 
Hatred, Cops And The Law
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/compendium-of-pax-posts-whats-wrong.html

Here's The News Report We'd Be Reading If Walter Scott's Murder Wasn't On Video
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/heres-news-report-wed-be-reading-if.html

Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of U.S. Prison System Posts

Compendium Of Pax Posts On Violent Criminals And Violent Police

Diane Rehm Guest Gets To The Nub Of Police Violence And How Easily It's Prevented

"Is The United States Still A Nation Of Law? Bad Cops And Bad Politicians Walk"

Killer Cops: Slow Motion Serial Killing By White People


"Why Would You Confess If You Didn't Do It?"
Fact: "Two hundred people confessed to the Linbergh kidnap-murder."

Frontline: A Rape-Murder Case Involving A Daisy Chain Of 4 False Confessions

Compendium Of Best Pax Posts On Miscarriage Of Justice And Misplaced Punishment
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/02/compendium-of-best-pax-posts-on_20.html

Selma, "Glory" And America's Astronomical Incarceration Rate
Particularly For Blacks
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/02/selma-common-and-john-legend-win-best.html

There's Never Been A Safer Time For Cops Nor A More Dangerous Time For Criminals


"We Are At War With An Imaginary Islam: Lies, Propaganda And The Real Story," Oxford U. Press

$
0
0

We are at war with an imaginary Islam: Lies, propaganda and the real story of America and the Muslim world

American propaganda exaggerates the power and moral depravity of the Islamic enemy, in the service of our empire


The United States is at war with a very different, mythic Islam of its own making that has nothing at all to do with this Islam of the Qur’an. To make sense of that conjured threat, scholarly studies of Islam or Islamic movements are of no help at all. Even the examination of the real-world history and practice of empire has limited value, unless the perceived Islamic dimension is considered. The American imperial project cannot be brought into clear view without assessment of the distinctive rationale that the Islamist Imaginary provides. The task is not an easy one. The Islamist Imaginary has no simple and unitary existence. Rather, it is a complex amalgam that shapes both the delusions of empire and a conjured threat to imperial power into a co-evolving composite. It is a “difficult whole,” in the helpful language of complexity theory. The Islamist Imaginary, unlike Islam itself and political movements of Islamic inspiration, does not exist outside of the imperial interests that shape it. It has no independent cultural or historical reality, outside its role as predatory threat to Western global interests. The American empire, in turn, requires a hostile and threatening enemy, which today takes the form of Islam of its imagination, to realize and rationalize its expansionist project that must remain unacknowledged and unspoken. The two elements of the imaginary and empire co-evolve. The needs of a threatened empire as vulnerable victim change over time. The Islamist Imaginary transforms itself to meet those needs. Imaginary and empire circle one another in a dance of predator and prey. Their roles are interchangeable, a clear sign that they are not entirely real. The predator is prey; the prey is predator. They develop in tandem in a complex process of mutual adaptation. Boundaries give way between the real and the imagined. In the end it is the imagined that haunts our imaginations and drives our policies.
The idea of the co-evolution of Islam and empire in the Islamist Imaginary is not as strange as it might at first seem. Scholars know that the entanglement of Islam and empire has an intricate chain of precedents. Edward Said provided a useful starting point for analyzing these complex linkages with his frequently quoted assertion that ours is an age of “many Islams.” It is also the time of the singular American empire. He pointed out that Islam and empire have an intricate history of connections.
The dominant notion of civilizational conflict between the Islamic world and the West rightly highlights the Islamic ideological roots of the most persistent resistances to American global dominance, provided that we recognize that the conflict has political and economic causes. However, this same notion obscures an important history of instrumental cooperation between Islam and the United States. American assertions of imperial power have had a consistent and often compliant Islamic dimension. It is now rarely acknowledged, though, that the cooperative dimension is at least as important for understanding the relationship today of the Islamic world and the West as the contrary record of oppositions to American hegemony of Islamic inspiration.
Of the “many Islams,” America has for decades actively fostered and manipulated its own useful preferences. These “preferred Islams” of earlier periods are part of the story of the Islamist Imaginary of our own. The consequences of the manipulations of these preferred Islams have not always been those intended, at least not in the long run. They have often entailed violence that in the end was turned back first on U.S. clients and then on the United States itself. Yet, for all these qualifications, it remains true that the preferred Islams, cultivated and shaped by the United States, have been critical to the post–World War II projections of American power.
At the end of World War II, President Roosevelt made an historic agreement with the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia. In exchange for privileged access to oil, the United States guaranteed the royal family’s hold on power, declaring the defense of Saudi Arabia a vital U.S. interest. The eighteenth-century origins of the current Saudi regime in the alliance between Muhammad Ibn Sa’ud, a local chieftain, and Ibn Abdul Wahhab, a puritanical and ultraconservative Islamic reformer, proved no obstacle.
U.S. material support for all the usual instruments of repression enabled the Saudi royals to impose themselves on “their” people, despite Islam’s deeply rooted antipathy to monarchy. It also allowed the interpretation of Islam to take firm hold in Saudi Arabia and, through Saudi oil revenue funding, make itself felt worldwide as a powerful reactionary tradition. The royal family’s self-appointed role as guardian of Islam’s most holy sites, Mecca and Medina, provided the requisite religious cover for the U.S.-backed repression that secured their hold on power. This critical Saudi connection ensured American triumph over its European rivals for control of Middle Eastern oil. It also ensured a linkage between American empire and one of the most reactionary forces in the Islamic world, if not the world at large.
Complicit Saudi Islam played a critical role in the subsequent geopolitical competition with the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s. The United States knowingly used the retrograde Wahhabi Islam of the Saudis as a counterweight to progressive Arab nationalisms. These nationalisms had shown themselves willing to open doors to the Soviets in exchange for support for their projects of independent national development. By doing so, they threatened to challenge American hegemony over the Middle East and its precious oil resources.
Personified most effectively by Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, Arab nationalists threatened to chart the kind of independent path of development that is intrinsically anathema to any imperial power. A combination of external blows and internal manipulations brought these nationalist assertions to an end by the late 1960s. In the wake of the collapse of the nationalist project, the United States saw no problems when a state-controlled Islam provided ideological cover for the compliant Egyptian successor military regimes. Egypt after Nasser was effectively brought within the American orbit and voided of all genuine nationalist content. For such regimes, the threat to their hold on power came from the left and the memories among the masses of the material and social advances registered under progressive Arab nationalist banners. Such successor regimes were no less repressive in pursuing their regressive aims than their predecessors had been in advancing more progressive objectives of autonomous development and improvement of mass welfare. Once again, Egypt provided the prototype, with Anwar al Sadat as the “believing President” who expelled the “Godless” Soviets, opened Egypt to American penetration, and welcomed disciplined Islamists back into public life as a counter to the “atheist left.” The Americans embraced both Sadat and the domesticated Islam in which he draped himself. In the end, however, Sadat’s cynical manipulation of Islamic symbols as a cover for policies of alignment with America and capitulation to Israel on the issue of Palestine incited the anger of Islamic extremists. Khalid al Islambouli assassinated Sadat on October 6, 1981, shouting “Death to Pharaoh!”
When an already weakened Soviet Union blundered into Afghanistan in 1979, the United States turned to yet another variety of politicized Islam to hasten Soviet defeat. U.S. intelligence services, with assistance from their regional counterparts, actively and effectively mobilized the resources of Islamic militants, drawn from all over the Islamic world and including the Saudi Osama bin Laden. Enormous levels of funding were provided from American and Saudi sources, variously estimated but certainly in the billions. They aimed to take advantage of Soviet vulnerability in occupied Afghanistan. The strategy worked: Defeat in Afghanistan helped precipitate the demise of the Soviet Union.
That direct contribution to unchallenged American hegemony was neither the last nor the most significant by the violent transnational Islamic networks the United States helped finance and train for work in Afghanistan. As a result of the successful American-sponsored guerrilla war against the Soviet Union, violent extremist groups proliferated. They created havoc, everywhere not least in New York City on September 11, 2001. These terrible events were reprisals for American Middle East policies and the work of assassins, whom the United States initially encouraged and even in some cases trained.
The crime against humanity committed on September 11, 2001, had the unintended consequence of serving the breathtaking expansionist plans of the neoconservatives who dominated the Bush administration. Only a plausible enemy was lacking to make their execution possible. From the storehouse of the Western historical imagination, age-old images of a hostile Islam were retrieved. Islamic terrorists conjured up in a believable form for a frightened America the “threat to civilization” that every empire requires to justify its own violent acts of domination.
The Islamist Imaginary in the service of the neoconservative version of empire was born. The administration used all the resources of media control at its disposal to make sure that no links were made between the 9/11 crime and unjust U.S. Middle Eastern policies and the bloody instrumentalities the United States forged to enforce them. Plans for the United States to topple the Taliban and occupy Iraq, and for the Israelis to “resolve” the Palestinian issue by force, were all in place before 9/11. The most expansive version of the neoconservative agenda to advance U.S. and Israeli interests found forthright expression in a position paper written for the newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party in 1996. It is entitled “Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” and was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The document calls for a “clean break from the peace process,” the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the elimination of Saddam’s regime in Iraq, as prelude to regime changes in Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The authors all became influential players in the second Bush administration.
President Bush’s elaboration of a more comprehensive strategy of global hegemony came in the fall of 2002 in a document called “National Security Strategy of the United States.” The United States would never again allow a hostile power to approach parity with U.S. military capabilities. The United States would take the offensive to ensure its continued “full spectrum” dominance. Endlessly repeated images of 9/11 provided the backdrop for a doctrine of “preventive” wars that would give a defensive coloration to what were, in reality, projections of American imperial power. The president rallied a cowed Congress to a strategy of endless wars to ensure global hegemony under the cover of a worldwide War on Terrorism whose features, while murky, were still recognizably Islamic.
An innocent and wounded America recast its public role in the Middle East as the champion of democracy and the bulwark against the Islamic wellsprings of irrationalism that ostensibly fed global terrorism. The stage was set for the full-blown evocation of the Islamist Imaginary. There was already an established American practice of manipulating Islam, including the most backward-looking and violent versions, for imperial ends. This time, however, strategic planners for the Bush administration departed from the established pattern with a breathtaking innovation.
At each prior critical strategic moment, America had made use of an existing form of Islam that could be reshaped to serve its needs. The Saudi connection yielded a royal, reactionary, and repressive Islam with which America cooperated without complaints for decades. The American-backed jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in contrast, called forth an assertively violent rather than simply repressive Islam. America enthusiastically assembled, funded, and trained its transnational advocates. At the same time, the subservient successor regime in Egypt needed a domesticated “house Islam” that would support the right-leaning, authoritarian government. The Sadat regime would preside over the deindustrialization of Egypt and facilitate the ruthless pacification of the Palestinians. The United States had little good to say about Nasser and his Arab socialist policies. It did, however, welcome his efforts to “modernize” the venerable mosque-university of al Azhar. Nasser pursued a strategy of enhancing the role of Islam in Egyptian life while at the same time bringing al Azhar under firm state control. The number of mosques doubled and Islamic broadcasts from Cairo, supported by the government, reached to countries across Dar al Islam. Sadat, for his part, sought to manipulate official Islamic figures and institutions to support his right-wing domestic policies and global realignment into the American orbit. The Americans welcomed Sadat’s self-interested efforts to wrap his pro-American policies with whatever legitimacy a domesticated Islam could provide.
In each of these instances, the Islamic dimension derives from a “found Islam” that originated to meet the needs of local actors. It had its own independent roots in the soil of the Islamic world and served, in the first instance, identifiable aims of already existing regimes or movements. The Bush administration sought to pioneer a distinctive variant on this general pattern, in ways that would clarify the new cultural and intellectual dimensions of its exercise of global power. Iraq was made the case in point.
The Islamist Imaginary: America’s Preferred Islam
The preferred Islam of the Bush administration comes into view most clearly and authoritatively in a Rand Corporation study. For that reason, rather than any scholarly value, Cheryl Benard’s work merits very close attention. I know of no other source as revealing about the way Islam was understood by the circle of neoconservative intellectuals to which Benard belonged in these critical years of assertions of American imperial power. The book carries the engaging title Civil, Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies. It was prepared with the imprimatur of Rand’s National Security Research Division in 2003. Benard’s assessment of the Islamic world quiets the apprehensions that resistance in the name of Islam raised for America’s neoconservative strategic planners.
The worries of the Bush team were not entirely misplaced. There was an Islamic threat, not to America per se but rather to American empire. There still is. To be sure, American propaganda exaggerates both the power and moral depravity of the Islamic enemy. The idea that hostility toward America in the Islamic world springs from frustration with the obvious and inherent failings of the Islamic world and envy at the equally obvious success and innate superiority of the West is sheer nonsense, no matter how frequently and portentously repeated. It parrots the message of every expansionist imperial power that history has known. It does so for all the obvious reasons. The colonized are at fault and their failings invite, even demand, colonization. There is no better way to exculpate the West for the consequences of its historical record of violent occupation and exploitation of Islamic lands. Attention is shifted from any serious evaluation of American dominance of the Middle East and its destructive policies in Palestine, Afghanistan, and most dramatically Iraq.
Benard takes the reality of an Islamic threat as a premise of her argument. Her analysis begins with a presentation of the self-imposed predicaments of the Arab Islamic world that threaten to spill over and endanger others. In Benard’s formulation the entire world, and not just the United States, is the innocent and vulnerable witness to the tumultuous internal disorders in the Islamic world. “What role,” she asks, “can the rest of the world, threatened and affected as it is by this struggle, play in bringing about a more peaceful and positive outcome?” Benard states clearly that these dangerous predicaments of the Islamic world are entirely self-imposed. She writes that “Islam’s current crisis has two main components: a failure to thrive and a loss of connection to the global mainstream. The Islamic world has been marked by a long period of backwardness and comparative powerlessness; many different solutions, such as nationalism, pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, and Islamic revolution, have been attempted without success, and this has led to frustration and anger.” To conclude, Benard gravely notes that “at the same time, the Islamic world has fallen out of step with contemporary global culture, an uncomfortable situation for both sides.”
Benard’s assessment eliminates any reference to the West’s colonization of the Islamic world, and of the physical and psychological damage those violent assaults caused. There are no hints at all of an American imperial presence in the Islamic world through an impressive and constantly expanding network of bases. There is no consideration of the ways that presence constrains autonomous development. There are no references to the awkward facts of consistent American political and economic interventions, often violent and consistently aimed at undermining economic and political autonomy. Israel, heavily armed with all forms of weapons of mass destruction, a cruel occupying force, and the regional superpower, mysteriously disappears from view. These awkward realities are overshadowed by the Islamist Imaginary.
Only with these erasures can Benard take for granted the irrational grounding of the Islamic threat. Her analysis highlights the ways that the usual state-based threats to the national security exemplified by the Soviet Union in the era of the Cold War have been replaced by the challenge of nonstate actors, operating below the nation-state horizon. To face this threat, she argues that American strategic planners must make Islam itself a resource. In short, like her predecessors Benard is in the business of strategic manipulations of Islam to serve American economic and political ends. She evokes a malleable Islam that can be turned into an instrument to confront the Islams of resistance, while obediently serving America’s ends. However, Benard does so with a difference.
Excerpted from “One Islam, Many Muslim Worlds: Spirituality, Identity and Resistance Across Islamic Lands” by Raymond William Baker. Published by Oxford University Press. Copyright 2015 by Oxford University Press. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.

Frackers Face Mass Extinction. One Third Of Fracking Companies Belly Up By Next Year

$
0
0
One-third of the companies could be bankrupt by the end of next year.

The Detroit Bailout Has Produced 400 Times More Permanent Jobs Than Keystone Pipeline Will

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/03/detroit-bailout-has-already-produced.html

Alan: I used to think conservatives were perverse.

Willfully perverse.

They're not.

Rather, they're trapped.

Conservatives do not changed because they cannot change.

They are so heavily invested in the stasis of doing things the way they've "always" been done -- at least in their own lifetime -- that to change is lose one's identity.

And to lose one's identity is perceived as a fate worse than death.

Frackers could soon face mass extinction

Doomsday may finally be coming to the fracking industry.
Despite the big drop in oil prices in the past year, there have been relatively few bankruptcies in the energy industry. That may be about to change. James West, an energy industry analyst at ISI Evercore, says months of low activity have left many of the companies in the hydraulic-fracturing business either insolvent or close to it. He says as many as a third of the fracking companies could go bust by the end of next year.
“This holiday will not be a time of cheer in the oil patch,” says West.
So far oil and gas exploration companies, while cutting back somewhat, have continued to spend based on budgets set a year ago when oil prices were much higher. But now West says the price of oil is catching up to them, and they may soon have to drastically cut back their spending on services. The catalyst is the banks.
Banks lend to oil exploration companies based on the value of their reserves. But they only audit the value of those reserves every October. Given how much oil prices have tumbled in the past year, many analysts expect banks to greatly reduce in the next month how much they are willing to lend to oil and gas companies. Regulators, worried banks may face losses, have recently been pressuring banks to cut back their lending to oil and gas companies.
On Friday, credit ratings firm Standard & Poors reported that its distressed ratio, which measures the percentage of corporate borrowers that investors appear nervous may not be able to pay back their debt, had reached the highest level since 2011. The oil and gas sector accounted for the largest number of the distressed borrowers, 95 out of 270.
Most of the fracking firms that face extinction are relatively small. But the problems are starting to affect some of the bigger companies in the industry. On S&P’s list of distressed borrowers is Linn Energy, a $1 billion market cap oil and gas exploration company based in Houston. It has nearly 2,000 employees. Shares of Linn  LINE  have dropped 90% in the past year. S&P says the company has nearly $6 billion in outstanding distressed debt.
Also on S&P’s list are publicly traded fracking companies Basic Energy Services  BAS  and Seventy Seven Energy  SSE .

Carly Fiorina's Record At Hewlett-Packard Is A Deal Breaker

$
0
0

Barbara Boxer

Barbara Boxer Weighs In On Fiorina


This Is The Boxer Ad That Sank Fiorina's 2010 Senatorial Campaign
It's Totally Replicable

Will Carly Fiorina’s surge be undermined by her HP record? (+video)

In 2010, Carly Fiorina's Senate campaign was severely undermined by a series of attack ads that emphasized her failure as a Hewlett-Packard CEO. Could this happen again?

Carly Fiorina is doing well in polls. As Donald Trump saw his support drastically diminish following the second GOP debate, the businesswoman swiftly rose to No. 2 with 15 percent of Republican support.
But critics are skeptical that her success will persist. The reason? Her dismal tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999 to 2005, during which 30,000 employees were laid off.  
In 2010, Mrs. Fiorina ran for Senate in California, against Democratic incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer. Leading up to the election, Fiorina was performing promisingly. Most polls showed she was within one or two points of Boxer, and some earlier ones even indicated she was ahead.
Then came the attack ads.
“Fiorina outsourced jobs to China. And while Californians lost their jobs, Fiorina tripled her salary, bought a million-dollar yacht, and five corporate jets,” the narrator in an ad released in mid-September of 2010 says of Fiorina’s legacy as CEO of the Fortune 500 tech company. Audio then cuts to a soundbite of Fiorina from a previous interview. “I’m proud of what I did at HP,” she says.
Fiorina lost the race by 10 points. Now as she surges in the 2016 presidential election, her corporate performance is once again the subject of scrutiny.
In an essay published on Medium Tuesday, her Deputy Campaign Manager Sarah Isgur Flores offered 10 points that defend Fiorina’s record as HP’s CEO. Among them were the claim that “Carly saved 80,000 jobs and HP grew to 150,000 jobs by 2005” and “Carly doubled revenues to more than $80 billion, tripled innovation, quadrupled cash flow and more than quadrupled the growth rate. HP went from a Fortune 28 to a Fortune 11 company.”
And yet, in 2009, Fiorina was named the 19th worst CEO of all time by Portfolio (now Upstart Business Journal).
“Mrs. Fiorina tries to obscure these harsh realities with a blizzard of her own ‘facts,’” writes New York Times columnist Steven Rattner in an op-ed. “On the campaign trail, for example, she speaks of having doubled her company’s revenues. However, most of that increase came from adding in Compaq’s sales, which is a misleading way to calculate revenue growth.”
In regards to her added jobs, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 that it was likely Fiorani created jobs overseas instead of adding jobs in the U.S.
But Fiorina isn’t without defenders in the industry.
"The stock took a beating, but she was absolutely correct," venture capitalist Tom Perkins told the LA Times in 2010. He had been a member of the HP board that fired her. "The merger was a brilliant move. Look where HP is now – the biggest computer company in the world."
Fiorina’s leadership at HP was the peak of her corporate career. Since she was fired, she has not run another publicly traded company. Despite that it’s the only substantial executive experience she can present to her voters, it certainly hasn’t been the highlight of her campaign speeches. In fact, she rarely brings it up. 
Perhaps, critics say, this is because the facts simply speak for themselves.

"Why I Still Think Carly Fiorina Was A Terrible CEO," J. Sonnenfeld, Dean, Yale Business School

$
0
0
Alan: Why is "anger" -- one of The Seven Deadly Sins -- the sine qua non pre-requisite for Republican candidates?

"Why I Still Think Carly Fiorina Was A Terrible CEO" 

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld

Dean, Yale Business School

As a professor, hearing my name once, let alone twice, before 25 million TV viewers in an historic U.S. presidential debate is a surreal experience. “The head of the Yale business school, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, wrote a paper recently,” Donald Trump proclaimed in his attack on Carly Fiorina’s business record, “one of the worst tenures for a CEO that he has ever seen.” Immediately, the phones started ringing, text messages dinging, emails beeping—notes from thrilled old students, proud colleagues, teasing friends, pleased former teachers, curious clients, and my own immediate family in shared, flushed, utter shock. So used to being identified before large audiences as Jerry Seinfeld, I’ll admit that I was surprised to hear my name pronounced correctly. But it was a bit traumatic to hear my professional title, professor and senior associate dean, blurred a bit too closely with that of my widely admired boss, who is the actual dean of the Yale School of Management. Last week on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Trump identified me as dean of the Yale Law School. When he makes me dean of the medical school, it will be very sad my mom is no longer around to share the joy. (Importantly, my perspective is my own, independent of any Yale affiliation.)

Trump did get something right, though: my criticism of Carly Fiorina’s disastrous term as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

As Fiorina admits, I have been critical of her for over a decade—long before she announced her political aspirations. I have studied her business record, challenged her leadership abilities and have come to agree with the assessment that she was one of the worst technology CEOs in history. I stand by that evaluation.

Fiorina can attack me all she wants, as she did when she called me “a well-known Clintonite” (an absurd allegation I’ll get to later) who “had it out for me from the moment that I arrived at Hewlett-Packard.” But no amount of one-liners to Trump, weekend study of Middle Eastern names or ad hominen attacks on a university professor can take someone from gross business leadership failure to leader of the free world. To do that, she’ll have to own up to her missteps and try to learn from them—which she seems disinclined to do.

Here are the facts: In the five years that Fiorina was at Hewlett-Packard, the company lost over half its value. It’s true that many tech companies had trouble during this period of the Internet bubble collapse, some falling in value as much as 27 percent; but HP under Fiorina fell 55 percent. During those years, stocks in companies like Apple and Dell rose. Google went public, and Facebook was launched. The S&P 500 yardstick on major U.S. firms showed only a 7 percent drop. Plenty good was happening in U.S. industry and in technology.

It was Fiorina’s failed leadership that brought her company down. After an unsuccessful attempt to catch up to IBM’s growth in IT services by buying PricewaterhouseCooper’s consulting business (PwC, ironically, ended up going to IBM instead), she abruptly abandoned the strategic goal of expanding IT services and consulting and moved into heavy metal. At a time that devices had become a low margin commodity business, Fiorina bought for $25 billion the dying Compaq computer company, which was composed of other failed businesses. Unsurprisingly, the Compaq deal never generated the profits Fiorina hoped for, and HP’s stock price fell by half. The only stock pop under Fiorina’s reign was the 7 percentjump the moment she was fired following a unanimous board vote. After the firing, HP shuttered or sold virtually all Fiorina had bought.

During the debate, Fiorina countered that she wasn’t a failure because she doubled revenues. That’s an empty measurement. What good is doubling revenue by acquiring a huge company if you’re not making any profit from it? The goals of business are to raise profits, increase employment and add value. During Fiorina’s tenure, thanks to the Compaq deal, profits fellemployees were laid off and value plummeted. Fiorina was paid over $100 million for this accomplishment.

At the time, most industry analysts, HP shareholders, HP employees and even some HP board members resisted the Compaq deal. (Fiorina prevailed in the proxy battle, with 51.4 percent, partly thanks to ethically questionable tactics, but that’s another story.) But rather than listen to the concerns of her opponents, she ridiculed them, equating dissent with disloyalty. As we saw during the debate when she attacked me, rather than listen to or learn from critics, Fiorina disparages them. She did so regularly to platoons of her own top lieutenants and even her board of directors—until they fired her.

These facts have been documented, both with quotes from her own board members and leadership team and with raw numbers in such revered publications as ForbesFortuneBusiness Week, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and leading tech industry journals. I also have extensive first-hand knowledge of this situation, having spoken at length with two of Fiorina’s successors, past and present HP board members, fellow CEOs and scores of HP employees—including many of her own top lieutenants who contacted me directly, such as her head of employee relations.
And I have to point out the obvious: If the board was wrong, the employees wrong, and the shareholders wrong—as Fiorina maintains—why in 10 years has she never been offered another public company to run?

Now, Fiorina wants to run the country. I am a firm believer in second chances. Just because Fiorina failed at an early career does not preclude her from becoming a good leader later. But I do know, having written a book on how great leaders rebound after career disasters, that to overcome failure is to admit to it and learn from it. During the debate, instead of addressing the facts and taking on my professional observations, Fiorina decided to shoot the messenger. What she failed to see is that this behavior—sidestepping accountability by resorting to demagoguery and deflection—is exactly why she failed as a leader the last time.
Fiorina is clever and articulate, but during events like last week’s debate, it’s clear that she seems to have learned very little from her reign as a tech chief. On the campaign trail as in business, she still displays four key leadership flaws:

1. She refuses to learn from failure. Properly mastered, failure is a badge of honor for heroic leadership. People like Steve Jobs, Martha Stewart, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle, Anne Mulcahy of Xerox and Ellen Kullman of DuPont have all faced crushing adversity and rebounded from it. Walt Disney, Henry Ford and four U.S. presidents—Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Thomas Jefferson and William McKinley—all suffered bankruptcies. The difference between these people and Fiorina is that they all acknowledged their failures and learned from them, providing us with inspiring models of resilience. Fiorina thinks she can sweep obvious public facts of failure under the carpet. But what she doesn’t see is that talking about failure makes you stronger; hiding it makes you weaker. Fiorina’s denials inspire no one.

2. She plays fast and loose with highly misleading metricschanging the goal posts by manipulating peer comparisons. Fiorina brags that she doubled revenues—but she cut value in half. She talks about doubling employment at HP when all she did was combine the employment of two huge firms—and then lay off 30,000 employees. She presents her story as rags to riches saga, from secretary to CEO, when in fact she is the daughter of a Duke University Law School dean and a federal Appeals Court judge. She just worked for a few months as a receptionist after dropping out of UCLA law school.

3. She makes irresponsible decisions. At HP, Fiorina abruptly pivoted from a strategy of chasing IT services to a splashier, but less sound strategy of ramping up in device manufacturing. While her predecessor, revered HP CEO Lew Platt, traveled coach in commercial planes, she demanded the company buy her a Gulfstream IV. More recently, her service on the Taiwan Semiconductor board indicates continued irresponsibility. Financial disclosures at the time Fiorina left the board in 2009 show that she attended just 17 percent of the company’s board meetings.

4. She is intolerant of dissent and resorts to personal attacks. Rather than address the points made by her critics—she elects to attack their character with false information, shifting the spotlight away from her. And, as much as she laid into Trump for his comments about her face, she has been known to be a queen of personal invective—even when it comes to physical appearance. She once ridiculed the music interests and appearance of a dissenting board member Walter Hewitt, son of HP’s co-founder—as well as the allegedly dowdy look of rival Senate candidate Barbara Boxer.

Now, as for Fiorina’s specific charge that I am a close adviser of the Clintons (a charge she repeated about me by name on NBC’s “Meet the Press” recently), that is false. I am a leadership scholar and impartial in my leadership reviews. I vote for the person, not the party. I have had private meetings with four current Republican presidential candidates for private exchanges of ideas—at their request—pro bono, two of them in just the past 10 days.I have never been part of any Clinton advisory group. I have personally known four U.S. presidents across parties—including Bill Clinton and the Bushes—and been the houseguest of President George H.W. Bush and Barbara on several occasions for small private non-political events. I have given unsolicited opinions to Bill Clinton while taking long runs with him, which we both needed. Once in 1994, I suggested to Clinton that he host regional economic summits, and he did so. I have known the Clintons as fellow participants in large recreational, non-political, intellectual/spiritual retreats where my fellow guests included prominent Republicans such as Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard.

My own CEO programs, including one just last week, hosted such Republican political titans and patriots as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. John McCain, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, former Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, political strategist Ralph Reed and taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist.

If the Republican Party seeks great women leaders with proven track records of accomplishment and character for national office, I could recommend many, including New Hampshire’s Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Alaska’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski and, especially, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. But Fiorina is not one of them. Her unacknowledged record of failure and intolerant, no-dissent “my way or the highway” leadership style might better fit high office in China or Russia—or on “The Apprentice” for that matter.

I love a good comeback. I’ve devoted my professional life to showing that comebacks and second acts can be positive and successful. But I also know that they must be earned. In order to overcome her business past, Fiorina must acknowledge her setbacks and show the American people what she has learned. She needs to display contrition—and earn redemption.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-ceo-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-2016-213163


Pope Francis To Release Pop Album On November 27

$
0
0

Pope album

The Pope announced the release of Wake Up, an 11-song album set for a Nov. 27 release.


Pope-rock? Yes, the pope really did just drop a single off of his upcoming album

Yes, the pope dropped a single. Alarmingly titled "Wake Up! Go! Go! Forward!", the track was released Friday, and it's part of an 11-song album that will be released on Nov. 27. Part of the proceeds will go to a refugee support fund.
Anyway, once we got over our initial shock (okay, it's a process, but we're getting there), we took a sincere listen to the track and decided that we like it. It's pretty definitively pop-rock — pope-rock! — but it's edgy and a little dark, too.
You go, Pope Francis.
So, does His Holiness lend his own vocals to the track, you ask? Yes! At least to parts of the song. There's also a section that features a speech he made in English, and the whole thing is wrapped up in pulsing contemporary-rock melodies that veer dangerously close to prog-rock territory. I mean, for the pope.
(No offense to the pontiff. We always knew you had it in you.)
This actually isn't the first time a pope has recorded an album; it's just the first album to sound like ... this. Don Giulio Neroni is the producer of the project, and he told Rolling Stone that he "had the honor to work with John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis."
He continued. "As in the past, for this album too, I tried to be strongly faithful to the pastoral and personality of Pope Francis: the Pope of dialogue, open doors, hospitality. For this reason, the voice of Pope Francis in 'Wake Up!' dialogues music. And contemporary music (rock, pop, Latin etc.) dialogues with the Christian tradition of sacred hymns."
Okay. Well. We'll take your word for it, Neroni.
In the meantime, we're off to add this one to our party playlist and baffle all of our guests. Ciao!



In Philadelphia, Pope Francis Promotes Role For Religion In Public Sphere

$
0
0




In Philadelphia, Pope Francis challenges Americans to live up to nation’s ideals

 Pope Francis made his way through jubilant crowds here Saturday, to the symbolic birthplace of the United States, where he challenged the country to renew the promise of its past, and then joined a gala nighttime celebration of the family.
At Independence Hall, where the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were signed, the 78-year-old pontiff reminded Americans, “it was here, that the freedoms which define this country were first proclaimed.”
Introduced by Aaron Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man,” the pope stood at a wooden lectern used by Abraham Lincoln for the Gettysburg Address in November 1863, and told the crowd assembled on Independence Mall that “history also shows that these or any truths must constantly be reaffirmed, re-appropriated and defended.”
And the Argentine-born son of immigrants from Italy told Hispanics living in the United States: “Never be ashamed of your traditions. Do not forget the lessons you learned from your elders, which are something you can bring to enrich the life of this American land.”
Then, before another large crowd on the city’s Benjamin Franklin Parkway, he joined a glittering salute at the church’s World Meeting of Families, where he was serenaded by soul queen Aretha Franklin, and the Philadelphia Orchestra, and heard stories of families from around the word. Then he threw out his scripted remarks and extolled the virtues of traditional families in an animated address that continued until 9:30 p.m.
Philly shuts down as Pope Francis visits city
Play Video1:17
Shouts of “Viva, Papa!” attended him everywhere on a day when he spent considerable time waving to crowds and interacting with the faithful.
The speech at Independence Hall was the pope’s third major address — he previously spoke before Congress and the United Nations — in which he urged his listeners to remember the downtrodden in a world that has forsaken many people in the pursuit of wealth and power.
This time he stressed the importance of freedom of religion, enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment. He spoke alongside U.S. Catholic bishops deeply concerned about the way court rulings on gay rights and federal health-care expansion are affecting Catholic hospitals, schools and nonprofit entities.
“In a world where various forms of modern tyranny seek to suppress religious freedom, or try to reduce it to a subculture without right to a voice in the public square, or to use religion as a pretext for hatred and brutality, it is imperative that the followers of the various religions join their voices in calling for peace, tolerance and respect for the dignity and rights of others,” Francis said.
On his first-ever trip to the United States, the pope arrived in this deeply Catholic region with a message of hope and renewal. He sought to energize the faithful and reengage those who have fallen away from the church.
At the majestic Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul, a brownstone fortress built during the anti-Catholic strife here in the mid-19th century, the pontiff celebrated Mass on Saturday morning and called on Catholics to strengthen their faith and their institutions.
Pope Francis's full speech at Independence Hall
Play Video28:27
“We know that the future of the church in a rapidly changing society will call, and even now calls, for a much more active engagement on the part of the laity,’’ he told parishioners in Spanish.
“One of the great challenges facing the church in this generation is to foster in all the faithful a sense of personal responsibility for the church’s mission,’’ he said.
The pontiff’s presence in Philadelphia set off joyful celebrations among many of his followers, tens of thousands of whom braved suffocating security to glimpse him and hear his message.
Latin American pilgrims lined Benjamin Franklin Parkway, singing, dancing and praying to welcome the first Latin American pope.
Carlos Huertas, a native of Guatemala who lives on Long Island, arrived about 2:30 a.m. Saturday with 100 fellow pilgrims.
“He knows our culture. He speaks our language. There is new hope for all immigrants. He said he was an immigrant, too. What he will do for immigrants is a big question. We’re here and want the papers to stay,” said Huertas, 48, a handyman and landscaper.
Chris Hood, a theology instructor at a Jesuit college in New York, stood by several giant portraits of Francis on a city sidewalk.
“I’m just soaking up the pope,” he said. “He radiates pure joy.”
Yet there were also reminders of the challenges Francis faces in reinvigorating a U.S. church deeply wounded by the clergy sex-abuse scandal.
“Francis: abuse victims forgotten,’’ read a placard outside the basilica.
The birthplace of American liberty was on virtual lockdown to greet Francis.
The pope’s American Airlines charter plane, dubbed Shepherd One, arrived at Philadelphia International Airport just before 9:50 a.m. to cheers from the small group of people waiting amid tight security. The pope smiled, waved, stiffly descended the steps and plunged into a waiting group of dignitaries that included local church officials and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
But the pope reserved his greatest affection for the young and the afflicted. He hugged 8-year-old Gabrielle Bowes, daughter of former Philadelphia police officer Richard Bowes, after she presented the pope with a bouquet of white flowers. Bowes was shot and injured in the line of duty in 2008.
As the pope’s car was about to join his motorcade to leave the airfield, he stopped, got out and greeted a group of people craning to see him from behind a security barrier. Among them was Michael Keating, 10, who was in a wheelchair. His mother cried as Francis greeted her son.
The pope’s motorcade then slowly drove toward the basilica for the Mass. Relatively few people lined the streets, which were guarded by a mass of city police, suburban police, the National Guard and federal agents — who earlier in the morning had outnumbered those waiting to see the pontiff.
Since more than a third of the Philadelphia area’s 4 million residents are Catholics, the pope was expected to draw huge crowds.
Francis arrived at the basilica at 10:15 a.m. to screams from his many fans lined up outside.

“I got him!” announced Annette McGovern, 56, using a thumb and finger to expand her iPhone photo of the pope entering the basilica. Everyone outside the building was comparing shots, hoping to find between the craning heads and upheld cellphones a digital image of a distant figure in a white robe.
But not everyone shared in the joy of the pope’s presence. The placard outside the basilica about the sex-abuse scandal was stenciled by Robert Hoatson, a 63-year-old former priest whose group, Road to Recovery, works with victims of clergy sexual abuse and who says he is a victim himself.
Hoatson, who lives in West Orange, N.J., said he followed the pope to Washington, New York and now Philadelphia with his message of holding the church “accountable” for the abuses.
It was not clear whether Francis will meet with survivors before he leaves for Rome on Sunday. On Wednesday at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in the District, he praised the “courage” and “pain” of U.S. bishops in dealing with the scandal. That prompted rebukes from some victims’ advocates, who criticized the pope as offering comfort and sympathy to the bishops while saying little to address the suffering of survivors of sexual abuse by clergy.
“It’s a tough week to be a victim,” said Barbara Dorris, spokeswoman for Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. “They feel like once again they’ve been forgotten.”
But others found inspiration in the pope’s being driven in a humble Fiat, and his open manner and self-effacing requests that the faithful “pray for me.”
One of them was Chris Hood’s wife, Maureen, who described herself as a lapsed Catholic who had nearly given up on the church.
“I had one foot out the door, with all the scandals, the hypocrisy, the pomp and circumstance,” said Maureen Hood, 42.
But Francis, she said, has reinvigorated her faith: “I stayed because of him.’’
Her daughter Madeline, 11, put her feelings simply. “He makes me feel proud to be a Catholic,” she said.
Julie Zauzmer, Abigail Ohlheiser, Michelle Boorstein, Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Joe Heim, Terrence McCoy, Pamela Constable, Arelis R. Hernández, Jake Blumgart and Emily Guendelsberger contributed to this report.


Karen Heller is national general features writer for Style. She was previously a metro columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, where she also reported on popular culture, politics and social issues.

Frances Stead Sellers is senior writer at The Washington Post magazine. She joined the magazine in 2014 after spending two years as the editor of the daily Style section, with a focus on profiles, personalities, arts and ideas.


Mike is a general assignment reporter who also covers Washington institutions and historical topics.


If Catholic Parishes Don't Change "Lapsed" Catholics Will Not Find The Home Francis Describes

$
0
0
An Ex-Priest's View Of Misogyny In The Catholic Church

Why Church Fathers Were So Negative About Sex

Alan: Here is a "Philadelphis story" that spotlights "same as it ever was."

Philadelphia (CNN)Sister Lynn Marie Ralph arrived at Philadelphia's Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul more than two hours before Pope Francis' Mass. She sat in a center pew 15 rows back from the altar.
"I've been praying," said Sister Ralph, a member of the Pennsylvania-based Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament for nearly three decades.
"I'm scared. So far, no one has asked me to move."
Moments later, a cathedral volunteer walked up -- shuffling papers in her hands -- and said, "I'm going to have to ask you to move. This section is for the clergy."
As the volunteer continued to the back of the vast cathedral, the nun said, "The sisters are all sitting on the side and we have the clergy here."
Francis, she said, would not approve.
    Saturday's Mass was Pope Francis' first stop in Philadelphia. He celebrated it before more than 2,000 -- mostly priests, "women religious" (as Catholic sisters and nuns are officially known) and deacons. In it, he invoked the name of Katharine Drexel, who founded the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament. He called her "one of the great saints raised up by this local Church."
    Francis praised the "efforts of all those dedicated priests, religious and laity who for over two centuries have ministered to the spiritual needs of the poor, the immigrant, the sick and those in prison."
    He spoke of "the hundreds of schools where religious brothers and sisters trained children to read and write, to love God and neighbor, and to contribute as good citizens to the life of American society."
    For Sister Ralph, 55, and some other nuns, the Pope's praise for them collided with the slight they felt when it came to seating. After being moved from the center pews of the 150-year-old cathedral, Sister Ralph wiped tears from her eyes.
    "I get emotional," she said as she awaited the pontiff. "That hurts. The religious have just as much honor as the clergy. If Pope Francis knew, he would say, 'No. Let her stay.'"
    Sister Ralph had moved about 20 rows back but remained in the middle section, where she felt she would get a good view of the pope. The volunteer stopped by with a reminder: She might have to move again.
    Sister Ralph is director of religious education at the predominantly black St. Martin de Porres Church in North Philadelphia.
    She knelt and prayed to "Mother Mary, Mother Katherine and my mother."
    "I'm cool now," she said, as the basilica began to fill.
    As the white-robed clergy filed into the sanctuary, another nun stepped out from the folding chairs set out for the religious on each side of the church. She, too, wiped tears from her eyes and told a group of reporters," Pope Francis would not like this."
    Msgr. Joseph Gentili, pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in Doylestown -- about 30 miles north of Philadelphia -- sat in the front center row during the Mass.
    He said the placement of the Catholic sisters and nuns in the cathedral was not a measure of their value. But he acknowledged that it was something Pope Francis "would not want."
    But Gentili said the sisters and nuns are "highly regarded" in the five-county archdiocese as well as the church and that was reflected by Pope Francis' high praise for their dedication and work.
    Months ago, the monsignor said, the Vatican closed an investigation of an umbrella group of American nuns.
    In 2012, the Vatican accused the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the country's largest group of Catholic nuns, of sponsoring "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."
    American bishops were appointed to oversee the LCWR and the speakers invited to their conferences. That oversight abruptly ended in April.
    A separate Vatican investigation encompassed all American "women religious" and sought to understand why their membership has dropped so deeply for decades. That investigation ended without any censure of the Catholic women, but some said they were deeply offended by its premise.
    Sister Ralph said the words and actions of Pope Francis were bringing back people who had distanced themselves from the church.
    "They're hearing his message," she said.
    Her twin sister is a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph.
    "I didn't want to be a nun," Sister Ralph said. "I thought, God, you got the wrong one. Even God must have gotten us confused."
    But she attended a retreat one day and realized it was her calling.
    "It was like the biggest burden had been lifted off my shoulders," she said. "I have been truly blessed. I have no regrets."
    A couple of nights earlier in New York, Pope Francis expressed his "esteem and gratitude to the women religious of the United States."
    And these words prompted applause:
    "What would the Church be without you?"


    "When You're An Artist, No One Ever Hits You With The Magic Wand Of Legitimacy"

    $
    0
    0
    Alan: I doubt I would get along with Elizabeth Gilbert. 

    That said, she is an insightful person.

    Big Magic: Elizabeth Gilbert on Creative Courage and the Art of Living in a State of Uninterrupted Marvel

    "When you’re an artist," Amanda Palmer wrote in her magnificent manifesto for the creative life"nobody ever tells you or hits you with the magic wand of legitimacy. You have to hit your own head with your own handmade wand." 

    The craftsmanship of that wand, which is perhaps the most terrifying and thrilling task of the creative person in any domain of endeavor, is what Elizabeth Gilbert explores in Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear (public library) – a lucid and luminous inquiry into the relationship between human beings and the mysteries of the creative experience, as defined by Gilbert's beautifully broad notion of "living a life that is driven more strongly by curiosity than by fear." It's an expansive definition that cracks open the possibilities within any human life, whether you're a particle physicist or a postal worker or a poet – and the pursuit of possibility is very much at the heart of Gilbert's mission to empower us to enter into creative endeavor the way one enters into a monastic order: "as a devotional practice, as an act of love, and as a lifelong commitment to the search for grace and transcendence."
    A generation earlier, Julia Cameron termed the spark of this creative transcendence "spiritual electricity," and a generation before that Rollo May explored the fears keeping us from attaining it. Gilbert, who has contemplated the complexities of creativity for a long time and with electrifying insight, calls its supreme manifestation "Big Magic":
    This, I believe, is the central question upon which all creative living hinges: Do you have the courage to bring forth the treasures that are hidden within you?
    [...]
    Surely something wonderful is sheltered inside you. I say this with all confidence, because I happen to believe we are all walking repositories of buried treasure. I believe this is one of the oldest and most generous tricks the universe plays on us human beings, both for its own amusement and for ours: The universe buries strange jewels deep within us all, and then stands back to see if we can find them.
    The hunt to uncover those jewels – that’s creative living.
    The courage to go on that hunt in the first place – that’s what separates a mundane existence from a more enchanted one.
    The often surprising results of that hunt – that’s what I call Big Magic.
    Illustration by Maurice Sendak for The Big Green Book by Robert Graves

    That notion of summoning the courage to bring forth one's hidden treasures is one Gilbert borrowed from Jack Gilbert – a brilliant poet to whom she is related not by genealogy but by creative kinship, graced with the astonishing coincidence of their last names and a university teaching position they both occupied a generation apart. She reflects on the poet's unusual creative ethos:
    “We must risk delight,” he wrote. “We must have the stubbornness to accept our gladness in the ruthless furnace of this world.”
    [...]
    He seemed to live in a state of uninterrupted marvel, and he encouraged [his students] to do the same. He didn’t so much teach them how to write poetry, they said, but why: because of delight. Because of stubborn gladness. He told them that they must live their most creative lives as a means of fighting back against the ruthless furnace of this world.
    Most of all, though, he asked his students to be brave. Without bravery, he instructed, they would never be able to realize the vaulting scope of their own capacities. Without bravery, they would never know the world as richly as it longs to be known. Without bravery, their lives would remain small – far smaller than they probably wanted their lives to be.
    But this notion of bravery seeds a common confusion, which Gilbert takes care to dispel:
    We all know that when courage dies, creativity dies with it. We all know that fear is a desolate boneyard where our dreams go to desiccate in the hot sun. This is common knowledge; sometimes we just don’t know what to do about it.
    [...]
    Creativity is a path for the brave, yes, but it is not a path for the fearless, and it’s important to recognize the distinction.
    [...]
    If your goal in life is to become fearless, then I believe you’re already on the wrong path, because the only truly fearless people I’ve ever met were straight-up sociopaths and a few exceptionally reckless three-year-olds – and those aren’t good role models for anyone.
    Illustration by Lisbeth Zwerger for a special edition of 'Alice in Wonderland'

    Bravery, Gilbert suggests, is the product of a certain kind of obstinacy in the face of fear – and that obstinacy, rather than one's occupation, is what defines the creative life:
    While the paths and outcomes of creative living will vary wildly from person to person, I can guarantee you this: A creative life is an amplified life. It’s a bigger life, a happier life, an expanded life, and a hell of a lot more interesting life. Living in this manner – continually and stubbornly bringing forth the jewels that are hidden within you – is a fine art, in and of itself.
    To be sure, Gilbert – whose writing lives in the Venn diagram of Brené BrownDani ShapiroCheryl Strayed, and David Whyte – is a far cry from the self-help canon of authoritarian advice dictated by a detached expert. What makes her book so immensely helpful is precisely its lived and living nature. She writes:
    The only reason I can speak so authoritatively about fear is that I know it so intimately. I know every inch of fear, from head to toe. I’ve been a frightened person my entire life. I was born terrified. I’m not exaggerating; you can ask anyone in my family, and they’ll confirm that, yes, I was an exceptionally freaked-out child. My earliest memories are of fear, as are pretty much all the memories that come after my earliest memories.
    Growing up, I was afraid not only of all the commonly recognized and legitimate childhood dangers (the dark, strangers, the deep end of the swimming pool), but I was also afraid of an extensive list of completely benign things (snow, perfectly nice babysitters, cars, playgrounds, stairs,Sesame Street, the telephone, board games, the grocery store, sharp blades of grass, any new situation whatsoever, anything that dared to move, etc., etc., etc.).
    I was a sensitive and easily traumatized creature who would fall into fits of weeping at any disturbance in her force field. My father, exasperated, used to call me Pitiful Pearl. We went to the Delaware shore one summer when I was eight years old, and the ocean upset me so much that I tried to get my parents to stop all the people on the beach from going into the surf.
    Illustration by Wendy MacNaughton from Meanwhile

    I can't help but see in this tragicomic anecdote a magnificent metaphor for the psychology of trolling. The impulse to attack others who have dared to put themselves and their art into the world springs from the same fear-seed. What is trolling, after all, if not a concentrated effort to stop others from going into the surf – not because trolls try to protect the rest of the world from the perils of bad art but because they seek to protect themselves from the fear that if they dare plunge into the surf, their own art might wash up ashore lifeless.

    Kierkegaard knew this when he contemplated the psychology of trollingtwo centuries ago, and Neil Gaiman knew it when he delivered hisspectacular speech on courage and the creative life. All of us know this on some primordial level when we contemplate the metaphorical surf, for every time we decide to swim we must also allow for the possibility of sinking, which seems decidedly less mortifying if there weren't other people swimming while we sink.
    Gilbert considers the somewhat mysterious, somewhat perfectly sensical stimulus that eventually sent her on a life-path of plunging into the surf:
    Over the years, I’ve often wondered what finally made me stop playing the role of Pitiful Pearl, almost overnight. Surely there were many factors involved in that evolution (the tough-mom factor, the growing-up factor), but mostly I think it was just this: I finally realized that my fear was boring.
    [...]
    Around the age of fifteen, I somehow figured out that my fear had no variety to it, no depth, no substance, no texture. texture. I noticed that my fear never changed, never delighted, never offered a surprise twist or an unexpected ending. My fear was a song with only one note – only one word, actually – and that word was “STOP!” My fear never had anything more interesting or subtle to offer than that one emphatic word, repeated at full volume on an endless loop: “STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP!”
    [...]
    I also realized that my fear was boring because it was identical to everyone else’s fear. I figured out that everyone’s song of fear has exactly that same tedious lyric: “STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP!” True, the volume may vary from person to person, but the song itself never changes, because all of us humans were equipped with the same basic fear package when we were being knitted in our mothers’ wombs.
    Far from a uniquely human faculty, this fear is there for a reason – an evolutionary mechanism that aided us in our survival, much like it has aided every living creature that made it to this point of evolutionary history. Gilbert writes:
    If you pass your hand over a petri dish containing a tadpole, the tadpole will flinch beneath your shadow. That tadpole cannot write poetry, and it cannot sing, and it will never know love or jealousy or triumph, and it has a brain the size of a punctuation mark, but it damn sure knows how to be afraid of the unknown.
    Illustration by Ralph Steadman for a special edition of 'Alice in Wonderland'

    And yet the human gift, Gilbert reminds us, is the willingness to march forward – in terror and transcendence, and often alone – even though we too flinch beneath the shadow of the unknown:
    Creativity is sacred, and it is not sacred.
    What we make matters enormously, and it doesn’t matter at all.
    We toil alone, and we are accompanied by spirits.
    We are terrified, and we are brave.
    Art is a crushing chore and a wonderful privilege.
    Only when we are at our most playful can divinity finally get serious with us.
    In the remainder of the wholly electrifying Big Magic, Gilbert goes on to explore the building blocks of the bravery that makes that wonderful privilege available to each of us. Complement it with Dani Shapiro onwhy creativity requires leaping into the unknown, Cheryl Strayed's no-nonsense advice on faith and humility, Brené Brown on creative resilience, and Anaïs Nin on why emotional excess is essential for creative endeavor.






    Physicist David Bohm and Buddhist Monk Matthieu Ricard: How We Shape What We Call Reality

    $
    0
    0
    Santa Claus Is More Real Than You Are

    Alan: Human beings are "subjects" who interact with "objects."

    Or at least what we called "objects" until Heisenberg determined that "objects" are both wave-and-particle, and furthermore that their observability is intrinsically linked to the particular method-of-observation used by a human subject.

    Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

    It is also true that -- in the absence of all subjective perception -- no object, not even The Universe itself, has any human meaning since meaning -- at least human meaning -- is unique to subjects and beyond the scope of objects.

    Some "objects" are other "subjects," a crucial conundrum that is not my focus in this introduction. 

    Trailblazing Physicist David Bohm and Buddhist Monk Matthieu Ricard on How We Shape What We Call Reality

    We never see the world exactly as it is – our entire experience of it is filtered through the screen of our longings and our fears, onto which project the interpretation we call reality. The nature of that flickering projection has captivated the human imagination at least since Plato's famous Allegory of the Cave. Philip K. Dick was both right and wrong when, in contemplating how to build a universe, he wrote that "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." Reality, after all, is constructed through our very beliefs – not because we have a magical-thinking way of willing events and phenomena into manifesting, but because cognitive science has shown us that the way we direct our attention shapes our perception of what we call "reality."

    That's what molecular biologist turned Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricardand Buddhist-raised astrophysicist Trinh Thuan explore in The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet (public library) – an infinitely mind-bending conversation at the intersection of science and philosophy. The contemporary counterpart to Einstein's conversation with Tagore, it takes apart our most elemental assumptions about time, space, the origin of the universe and, above all, the nature of reality.
    In considering the constructed nature of reality, Ricard quotes from a 1977 Berkeley lecture by David Bohm (December 20, 1917–October 27, 1992), in which the trailblazing theoretical physicist offered an exquisite formulation of the interplay between our beliefs and what we experience as reality:
    Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends on what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.
    Ricard adds:
    No matter how complex our instruments may be, no matter how sophisticated and subtle our theories and calculations, it's still our consciousness that finally interprets our observations. And it does so according to its knowledge and conception of the event under consideration. It's impossible to separate the way consciousness works from the conclusions it makes about an observation. The various aspects that we make out in a phenomenon are determined not only by how we observe, but also by the concepts that we project onto the phenomenon in question.
    Complement this fragment of the wholly fantastic The Quantum and the Lotus with Alan Watts on what reality really means and Simone Weil on science and our spiritual values, then revisit Ricard's conversation with his father, the great French philosopher Jean-François Revel, about the nature of the self.


    Alan: What we choose to believe 
    - and what we must believe to forfend psycho-spiritual unraveling - 
    are different things. 



    Bertrand Russell's Magnificent Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

    $
    0
    0

    Alan: I have always admired Bertrand Russell but never warmed to his coolness. 

    In recent years, I find myself warming to his analysis of power, propaganda and submission - precisely for its coolness.

    The Four Desires Driving All Human Behavior: Bertrand Russell's Magnificent Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

    Bertrand Russell (May 18, 1872–February 2, 1970) endures as one of humanity's most lucid and luminous minds – an oracle of timeless wisdom on everything from what "the good life" really means to why "fruitful monotony" is essential for happiness to love, sex, and our moral superstitions. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for "his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought." On December 11 of that year, 78-year-old Russell took the podium in Stockholm to receive the grand accolade.
    Later included in Nobel Writers on Writing (public library) – which also gave us Pearl S. Buck, the youngest woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature, on art, writing, and the nature of creativity – his acceptance speech is one of the finest packets of human thought ever delivered from a stage.

    Russell begins by considering the central motive driving human behavior:
    All human activity is prompted by desire. There is a wholly fallacious theory advanced by some earnest moralists to the effect that it is possible to resist desire in the interests of duty and moral principle. I say this is fallacious, not because no man ever acts from a sense of duty, but because duty has no hold on him unless he desires to be dutiful. If you wish to know what men will do, you must know not only, or principally, their material circumstances, but rather the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.
    [...]
    Man differs from other animals in one very important respect, and that is that he has some desires which are, so to speak, infinite, which can never be fully gratified, and which would keep him restless even in Paradise. The boa constrictor, when he has had an adequate meal, goes to sleep, and does not wake until he needs another meal. Human beings, for the most part, are not like this.
    Illustration by Alice and Martin Provensen from Homer for Young Readers, 1965

    Russell points to four such infinite desires – acquisitivenessrivalry,vanity, and love of power – and examines them in order:
    Acquisitiveness – the wish to possess as much as possible of goods, or the title to goods – is a motive which, I suppose, has its origin in a combination of fear with the desire for necessaries. I once befriended two little girls from Estonia, who had narrowly escaped death from starvation in a famine. They lived in my family, and of course had plenty to eat. But they spent all their leisure visiting neighbouring farms and stealing potatoes, which they hoarded. Rockefeller, who in his infancy had experienced great poverty, spent his adult life in a similar manner.
    [...]
    However much you may acquire, you will always wish to acquire more; satiety is a dream which will always elude you.
    History is written by the winners.

    In 1938, Henry Miller also articulated this fundamental driver in his brilliant meditation on how money became a human fixation. Decades later, modern psychologists would term this notion "the hedonic treadmill." But for Russell, this elemental driver is eclipsed by an even stronger one – our propensity for rivalry:
    The world would be a happier place than it is if acquisitiveness were always stronger than rivalry. But in fact, a great many men will cheerfully face impoverishment if they can thereby secure complete ruin for their rivals. Hence the present level of taxation.
    Rivalry, he argues, is in turn upstaged by human narcissism. In a sentiment doubly poignant in the context of today's social media, he observes:
    Vanity is a motive of immense potency. Anyone who has much to do with children knows how they are constantly performing some antic, and saying "Look at me.""Look at me" is one of the most fundamental desires of the human heart. It can take innumerable forms, from buffoonery to the pursuit of posthumous fame.
    [...]
    It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the influence of vanity throughout the range of human life, from the child of three to the potentate at whose frown the world trembles.
    Illustration by Maurice Sendak for Nutcracker by E.T.A. Hoffmann

    But the most potent of the four impulses, Russell argues, is the love of power:
    Love of power is closely akin to vanity, but it is not by any means the same thing. What vanity needs for its satisfaction is glory, and it is easy to have glory without power... Many people prefer glory to power, but on the whole these people have less effect upon the course of events than those who prefer power to glory... Power, like vanity, is insatiable. Nothing short of omnipotence could satisfy it completely. And as it is especially the vice of energetic men, the causal efficacy of love of power is out of all proportion to its frequency. It is, indeed, by far the strongest motive in the lives of important men.
    [...]
    Love of power is greatly increased by the experience of power, and this applies to petty power as well as to that of potentates.
    Anyone who has ever agonized in the hands of a petty bureaucrat – something Hannah Arendt unforgettably censured as a special kind of violence – can attest to the veracity of this sentiment. Russell adds:
    In any autocratic regime, the holders of power become increasingly tyrannical with experience of the delights that power can afford. Since power over human beings is shown in making them do what they would rather not do, the man who is actuated by love of power is more apt to inflict pain than to permit pleasure.
    Illustration by Alice and Martin Provensen from Homer for Young Readers, 1965

    But Russell, a thinker of exceptional sensitivity to nuance and to the dualities of which life is woven, cautions against dismissing the love of power as a wholesale negative driver – from the impulse to dominate the unknown, he points out, spring such desirables as the pursuit of knowledge and all scientific progress. He considers its fruitful manifestations:
    It would be a complete mistake to decry love of power altogether as a motive. Whether you will be led by this motive to actions which are useful, or to actions which are pernicious, depends upon the social system, and upon your capacities. If your capacities are theoretical or technical, you will contribute to knowledge or technique, and, as a rule, your activity will be useful. If you are a politician you may be actuated by love of power, but as a rule this motive will join itself on to the desire to see some state of affairs realized which, for some reason, you prefer to the status quo.
    Russell then turns to a set of secondary motives. Echoing his enduring ideas on the interplay of boredom and excitement in human life, he begins with the notion of love of excitement:
    Human beings show their superiority to the brutes by their capacity for boredom, though I have sometimes thought, in examining the apes at the zoo, that they, perhaps, have the rudiments of this tiresome emotion. However that may be, experience shows that escape from boredom is one of the really powerful desires of almost all human beings. 
    He argues that this intoxicating love of excitement is only amplified by the sedentary nature of modern life, which has fractured the natural bond between body and mind. A century after Thoreau made hisexquisite case against the sedentary lifestyle, Russell writes:
    Our mental make-up is suited to a life of very severe physical labor. I used, when I was younger, to take my holidays walking. I would cover twenty-five miles a day, and when the evening came I had no need of anything to keep me from boredom, since the delight of sitting amply sufficed. But modern life cannot be conducted on these physically strenuous principles. A great deal of work is sedentary, and most manual work exercises only a few specialized muscles. When crowds assemble in Trafalgar Square to cheer to the echo an announcement that the government has decided to have them killed, they would not do so if they had all walked twenty-five miles that day. This cure for bellicosity is, however, impracticable, and if the human race is to survive – a thing which is, perhaps, undesirable – other means must be found for securing an innocent outlet for the unused physical energy that produces love of excitement... I have never heard of a war that proceeded from dance halls.
    [...]
    Civilized life has grown altogether too tame, and, if it is to be stable, it must provide harmless outlets for the impulses which our remote ancestors satisfied in hunting... I think every big town should contain artificial waterfalls that people could descend in very fragile canoes, and they should contain bathing pools full of mechanical sharks. Any person found advocating a preventive war should be condemned to two hours a day with these ingenious monsters. More seriously, pains should be taken to provide constructive outlets for the love of excitement. Nothing in the world is more exciting than a moment of sudden discovery or invention, and many more people are capable of experiencing such moments than is sometimes thought.
    Complement Nobel Writers on Writing with more excellent Nobel Prize acceptance speeches – William Faulkner on the artist as a booster of the human heart, Ernest Hemingway on writing and solitude, Alice Munro on the secret to telling a great story, and Saul Bellow on how literature ennobles the human spirit – then revisit Russell on immortality and why science is the key to democracy.







    Russell should have said "instruction" rather than "education."

    Instruction And Education Aim At Antipodes


    Article 5

    $
    0
    0
    Steep hills surround the village of Kuskoy, high in the mountains above Turkey's Black Sea coast. Some villagers here can still understand the old "bird language," a form of whistled Turkish used to communicate across these deep valleys.
    Steep hills surround the village of Kuskoy, high in the mountains above Turkey's Black Sea coast. Some villagers here can still understand the old "bird language," a form of whistled Turkish used to communicate across these deep valleys.

    In A Turkish Village, A Conversation With Whistles, Not Words

    In a remote mountain village high above Turkey's Black Sea coast, there are villagers who still communicate across valleys by whistling. Not just whistling as in a non-verbal, "Hey, you!" But actually using what they call their "bird language," Turkish words expressed as a series of piercing whistles.
    The village is Kuskoy, and it's inhabited by farmers who raise tea, corn, beets and other crops, and also keep livestock. The landscape is unusual by Turkish standards, and the residents are also considered a bit eccentric by other Turks.
    Everyone we met in Kuskoy was warm, welcoming and very generous. But when our meeting with Nazmiye Cakir, 60, was interrupted by an eruption of gunfire from across the valley, our hosts smiled reassuringly and paused, as if waiting for more. Sure enough, a few seconds later came an even louder volley – a response from our side of the mountain.
    Once that bit of nonverbal communication died down, Cakir explained how she learned to whistle Turkish. She says her grandparents often took care of her when she was young, and they passed it on.
    "You might need to ask one of your neighbors, 'Can you help me harvest the corn tomorrow?' Or something like that," she says. "Or, if there's a funeral, the family would whistle the news throughout the valley."
    Halil Cindik, head of the Kuskoy Bird Language Association, demonstrates his technique for whistling Turkish words and phrases. The piercing tones can be heard a mile or more away, depending on conditions. Cindik says an annual festival is helping to keep the whistled language alive, but the spread of cellphones is causing villagers to abandon it.
    Halil Cindik, head of the Kuskoy Bird Language Association, demonstrates his technique for whistling Turkish words and phrases. The piercing tones can be heard a mile or more away, depending on conditions. Cindik says an annual festival is helping to keep the whistled language alive, but the spread of cellphones is causing villagers to abandon it.
    Peter Kenyon/NPR
    Don't Whistle Your 'Love Talk'
    A cheerful, talkative woman, Cakir also explains what you can't talk about when you're whistling.
    "The only thing you never whistle is your love talk," she says, laughing. "Because you'll get caught!"
    After Cakir demonstrates her whistling chops with some complex phrases, two other villagers devise a test to show that this isn't some kind of prearranged code, but an actual language.
    One villager is given a phone number from Istanbul that neither man has seen before. He whistles it to the second man, Halil Cindik, the head of the Kuskoy Bird Language Association. Cindik dials the number that's been whistled to him, and it's right.
    There are other whistled languages in the world, one in the Canary Islands for instance. But the Kuskoy bird language excited the interest of a Turkish-German bio-psychologist, Onur Gunturkun.
    "I was absolutely, utterly fascinated when I first heard about it," he says. "And I directly saw the relevance of this language for science."
    Gunturkun has been working on brain asymmetry research, which holds among other things, that spoken language is mainly processed by the left hemisphere of the brain, and music by the right. There is some overlap – when it comes to recognizing tones of voice, for instance - but basically they're seen as separate.
    So how does the brain process a language in which syllables are rendered as whistled tones instead of spoken words?
    Nazmiye Cakir, a 60-year-old "bird whistler," learned the whistled language from her grandparents, and still uses it. "The one thing you don't whistle about is your love talk," she says with a laugh, "because you'll get caught!"
    Gokce Saracoglu/for NPR
    Conducting A Field Test
    Gunturkun went to Kuskoy to do a field test.
    It involved testing villagers using headphones and recorded Turkish, both spoken syllables and their whistled equivalents.
    With the spoken syllables, the villagers responded much as other subjects have in similar tests: if you play two different syllables, one in the left ear and one in the right, people tend to hear only the one played to the right ear, which is controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain.
    But Gunturkun found that when he played whistled syllables, the villagers tended to hear both of them, suggesting that they were using both hemispheres of their brain to a much greater extent.
    "So in the end, there was a balanced contribution of both hemispheres," says Gunturkun. "So indeed, depending on the way we speak, the hemispheres have a different share of work in language processing."
    It's not clear if Gunturkun's work will lead to real-life applications, but he wonders if a whistled language might be helpful to, say, a stroke victim with left hemisphere damage who has difficulty processing spoken language.
    The spread of cellphones has reduced the need for whistling, but villagers stage a festival each summer to try to keep it alive.
    And as some rather sheepishly admit, it still comes in handy - to warn their gun-toting neighbors when the police are on patrol.

    TED Radio Hour: The Source Of Creativity

    $
    0
    0
    This week we explore what creativity is and how it works.

    Alan: Whenever opportunity presents, I recommend Sir Ken Robinson.

    I also note that my first ever involvement with a rock-and-roll band (which began two years ago) has left me with clear conviction - in fact, self-evident conviction - that artistic creativity is linchpin to psychological well-being.

    In the absence of creativity, people are unusually prone to live surrogate lives through "authority figures" who routinely take advantage of their gullibility.

    Alternatively, the act of creativity bestows authority on oneself.

    Although such "self-investiture" is dangerous, I believe it is generally better than the alternative, especially if one values and practices intellectual rigor and openness.


    The Source Of Creativity

    We want to be creative but channeling our creative impulses is no small feat. Is creativity something we are born with or can we learn it? In this hour, TED speakers examine the mystery of creativity.

    Gender: Should The Catholic Church Remain A Dominantly Male Refuge? Frog Hospital Dialogue

    $
    0
    0


    Dear Fred,

    Thanks for your email.

    Glad to hear of the community garden. 

    Good work!

    Concerning separation-by-sex...

    Almost always, men and women self-segregate even when they attend "promiscuous" events. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=promiscuous

    Consider.

    "The sexes" often eat together on big holidays; then, when dinner is done, the men "watch football/baseball/basketball/hockey" while women congregate in the kitchen to "discuss relationships" and to clean up --- the latter a self-chosen activity predicated on the disproportionate amount of attention needed to keep female "plumbing" tidy. 

    If you practice something, you get good at it. 

    And once you're good at it, exhibiting one's skill produces a gratifying display of competence.

    By my lights, many Catholic clerics -- men and women -- should self-segregate by self-chosen "orders" just as they always done. 

    Women "get themselves to a nunnery" and men "join monastery-man-caves."

    Although I see room for other forms of gender segregation in clerical Catholicism (e.g., parish priests who chose celibacy as distinct from those who don't) the church itself -- "the assembly" -- is no place for segregation.

    As James Joyce observed: Catholicism means "Here comes everybody."

    Bring 'em on!

    Let the tumult mix!

    ***

    In related vein...

    I've recommended Ivan Illich's "Gender" before.

    I think you will love this exploration of sex roles but even if "Gender" does not lead to "romance" you will be fascinated by Illich's incisive investigation of the subject. ("Gender" is the only book Illich's circle of friends urged him NOT to publish.)

    "Gender" is not available online but David Apple (who provides a fine hyperlinked bibliography athttp://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/) has posted a number of Illich's gender views in an interview titled "The Sad Loss of Gender."http://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/1990_loss_of_gender.html 

    "Gender," Ivan Illich

    Gender And Division Of Labor

    Ivan Illich Compendium

    "The People's Priest," An Ivan Illich "Obituary" From "The American Conservative"


    Or, since the United States is already morphing into matriarchy, we could just go ahead and "make it official."

    Then the nuns who were deprived of their seats in New York City would relinquish them to the priests out of noblesse oblige

    If Catholic Parishes Don't Change, "Lapsed" Catholics Will Not Find The Home Francis Describes 

    Pax tecum

    Alan

    On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:

    I'm sorry that the women at the cathedral were re-seated for the pope's visit.
    But for me the Catholic church is a male refuge. I work at the community garden on the grounds of Holy Cross church. The garden is formally secular, and many non-Catholics come there as volunteers, but being on church property, the vibe is ever-present.
    I serve on the board of the garden. The board is five men. without formally declaring ourselves to be all-male we have quietly managed to keep it that way, except for Hugh, who once made a pathetic appeal for diversity -- meaning women, I suppose. Hugh was hooted down. I pointed out that we had diversity already, having two Catholics, two Jews, and an atheist on the board as it is presently constituted. And the two Catholics are of greatly divergent views on matters of faith.

    Having all-male leadership in the community garden makes me feel especially welcome when I go there to do chores or just to relax. It is our place.
    I hope the good sisters who got re-seated have their own special place as well.

    L'havdil is the Jewish concept of beneficial distinction and separation


    --
    Fred Owens
    cell: 360-739-0214

    My gardening blog is  Fred Owens
    My writing blog is Frog Hospital




    I Don't Think We're In Kansas Anymore

    Jesus Walks Back His Comments On The Poor

    $
    0
    0

    Why Liberals Should Support Banning Late-Term Abortions

    $
    0
    0
    Abortion Is Sinful

    Alan: 35 years ago I enjoyed a late night Berkeley walk with Ken Kesey. 
    His exact words were: "Abortion is the Achilles' Heel of The Left."

    Why liberals should support banning late-term abortions
    Amidst all the papal hubbub, you may not have heard that an important piece of legislation died in the Senate this week. It's bound to be resurrected in the coming weeks and months. But for now Senate Democrats have succeeded in blocking the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban all abortions after 20 weeks (with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother).
    This was a big mistake for both American liberalism and the Democratic Party — one that they will soon come to regret.

    The reasons are both political and moral.

    Flush from their sweeping victory in the fight for same-sex marriage, many liberals may be inclined to think things are going their way on every issue in the culture war. But that simply isn't true about abortion. Yes, exactly half of the country calls itself "pro-choice," but when pollsters ask people their views broken down by trimester, the results look far more conflicted. While 61 percent think abortion should be legal during the first trimester (up to 12 weeks), that number drops all the way down to 27 percent during the second trimester (13-27 weeks), and it collapses to 14 percent (with a whopping 80 percent of Americans thinking the procedure should be illegal) during the third trimester (27-40 weeks).

    Those are stunning numbers, suggesting profound ambivalence about the morality of terminating a pregnancy. And the numbers are only going to get worse, as ultrasound technology improves and medical advances slowly move the age of viability closer to conception. Mark my words: Sooner or later, and probably sooner, Democrats are going to pay a price for defending an unreasonably maximal position on abortion. Much better to fall back to a defensible position now than lose a battle more decisively down the road.

    This is especially so when the Pain-Capable Act would merely bring the United States into conformity with the way abortion is treated throughout most of the world — including in that notorious backwater of oppression for women, Europe. The fact is that just six other nations in the world — and just one member of the EU (The Netherlands) — permit abortion-on-demand after 20 weeks. Aside from The Netherlands and Canada, the U.S. stands shoulder-to-shoulder with China, North Korea, Singapore, and Vietnam on this issue.


    But wait, cry the pro-choice activists: Abortion is a fundamental right! We don't base rights on domestic opinion polls, let alone on what other countries do. Rights are absolute. They're supposed to protect people against the tyranny of the majority.

    That's exactly right. There's only one problem: As just about everyone who isn't a pro-choice activist understands, abortion pits the rights-claims of two human beings against each other — the liberty of the pregnant woman and the life of the baby she's carrying. Normally one person's right to life would override another person's right to express her liberty by killing that person. But there are of course two complicating factors in the case of abortion that make it a uniquely difficult moral challenge to adjudicate. For one thing, one of the human beings resides within the other human being's body. For another, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of dispute.

    We know that a baby has intrinsic dignity and rights at the moment of birth. But when it acquires its dignity and rights is unclear, no doubt because the answer is ultimately mysterious. Some say at conception. Others say at implantation. Still others use an inevitably somewhat arbitrary line of demarcation further on in gestation. Viability (the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, currently somewhere between 23-27 weeks) is one such line. The point at which the fetus becomes capable of feeling pain is another.

    Which brings us back to the Pain-Capable Act.

    It's revealing that politicians who oppose the bill tend to deny the medical evidence that the 20-week-old fetus can feel pain. What they don't deny is the underlying premise: that if the fetus does endure excruciating suffering in the act of being killed, it should be protected by law. These politicians no doubt tacitly accept this premise because they have to answer to constituents who might not take kindly to expressions of outright moral indifference to suffering.

    That's a real sign of vulnerability for the absolute pro-choice position, which is no doubt one reason why more and more advocates of that position have been staking out increasingly extreme views that do deny the premise — proclaiming the termination of a pregnancy at any stage to be a matter not just of moral indifference but actually a positive good for which no woman should ever feel the least bit of guilt or even ambivalence.

    That an activist would operate this way — strong-arming senators to champion views that harmonize with a mere 14 percent of the country — isn't surprising. Planned Parenthood, Emily's List, and their opinion-journalist allies are acting precisely like the NRA and its champions on the right, warning receptive politicians ominously, "Give an inch and the enemy will take more than a mile next time! No compromise allowed!" And so we get no restrictions on late-term abortion, just as we get no serious federal gun control.

    What we do get is two more issues transformed into either-or, all-or-nothing wars of attrition — two more issues around which conciliation proves impossible.

    In the case of the Pain-Capable Act, this is especially unfortunate. Leading up to this week's cloture vote there was talk of bundling it with another bill providing mandatory paid family leave to make it easier for financially strapped parents to take time off from work to care for a newborn.

    I strongly supported both bills. There probably aren't many members of the House or Senate who could say that, just as there probably aren't many who would vote, as I would, both to ban abortion after 20 weeks and to institute a federal pro-contraception program modeled on a recent and very successful experiment in Colorado.

    But that's not the point. This is how democratic compromise is supposed to work: not ideological opponents toiling away on a single bill that pleases only the tiny handful of genuine centrists on Capitol Hill, but each side giving the other a good part of what it wants in return for support that makes it possible to get both agendas passed.

    Instead, this week both sides got nothing, and the activists were the only ones with anything to cheer about.

    That's par for the course in Washington these days. But at least on the issue of abortion, liberals shouldn't kid themselves about their ability to keep it up. Their position is untenable, and time isn't on their side. Those who want to ensure that women keep complete reproductive freedom through the first 20 weeks of pregnancy need to back down on the second 20 weeks. Morality no less than politics demands it.


    Damon Linker



    I Used To Be A Big Fan Of Miracles...

    $
    0
    0
    Alan: Although I have soured on the "divine lottery" of Big Miracles and their supposed "proof of God's existence," never look a gift horse in the mouth.

    However, I continue to believe in the routine miraculousness of "seeking the kingdom of God and his justice first" as prelude to "all these things being added unto you." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+6%3A33&version=DRA

    The dependability of this "low-level" miraculousness is astonishing.

    In my experience that those who persist in "doing the right thing" are continually blessed by miraculous manifestation.

    Spit, Mud, Miracle



    Viewing all 30150 articles
    Browse latest View live