Peace, Land, and Bread

Why did the Russians Revolt? Lots of people have written a lot on the subject and I am not going to talk much about it with that level of scholarship or focus. But the Campaign slogan of Lenin has a lot to do with it. They wanted an end to the wars, and the ability to take control of their economic destiny and food. When people are unable to achieve their most basic needs through the political order they are willing to take more radical political action, even take to violent political action to achieve those goals.

Its one of my pet theories that when this is true (mass perception or mass reality) a society is in a lot of trouble,

I think of this when I read an article over at the Atlantic today

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo.--One day when John Sherry was 10 years old, his parents picked him up from school and drove to a Ford dealership. They walked into a large showroom with Mustangs parked out front. He watched his parents, neither of them college graduates, ink the paperwork to buy a new, dark-green Taurus. Greg and Beth Sherry let their son sign his name at the bottom of one of the pages, just for fun.

John, who's now 29, says it was the first time he realized that purchasing a car was a bigger deal than buying groceries or a shirt. "I thought, 'Someday, I'm going to be doing that.' " But now, he says, his lips tight and flat, "I don't see myself buying a new car"--ever. "That seems out of my grasp."

John is part of the Majority of Americans with no college degree that our political and economic system are permanently exluding from the economy. Now I won't buy a new car unless I get a substantial amount of money, because I find the purchase of a new car to be wasteful. John as he was demoralized by being a part of his parents process views it as part of becoming a man and a fully actualized citizen thats being denied to him by the constitution of our society.

Greg Sherry, who works for a railroad, is 58 and is chugging toward retirement with an $80,000-a-year salary, a full pension, and a promise of health coverage for life. John scrapes by on $11 an hour, with few health benefits. "I feel like I'm working really hard," he says, "but I'm not getting ahead."

This isn't the lifestyle that John's parents wished upon their younger child. But it reflects the state of upward--or downward--mobility in the American economy today.

You see a generation working harder outside of the home but failing to get ahead like their parents expected them to.

And when the generation of John (and my ) Parents leave the work force in larger and larger numbers should people like John and I get jobs that pay as well as theirs: We will be stuck paying the bill for a retirement that our Parents and Grandparents generation ran up on a credit card.

We also have a health care system where the Insurance Industry and government are selling a bill of goods that are impoverishing even those Americans who never see a doctor.

When people talk about large scale political violence in the United States I tell them we are a long way from there. But the saga of John and people like him are how we might get there

The Arab Winter

The events we have seen in Egypt and a swatch of other countries that is popularly called the Arab Spring is viewed as a disappointment by those who embrace the Liberal Democratic (or Neoliberal democratic) perspective across the world. My friend Mohamed Zeeshan, such a person from India, on his blog commented about the fate of the Arab Spring:

There are reasons why the Arab Spring didn't quite work out as well as it should have. The foremost reason is the goal of the Spring itself. In the Information Age where people from all parts of the world are connected with each other merely by the click of a button, ideas spread fast. Democracy was one such idea that traveled to places it had never been to. What makes democracy so attractive to the millennium youth is the fact that it is the only political system under which one has the power to script his own destiny, no matter who his father is or how much gold he possesses. It delivers power to the people and denies unilateral control to the hands of any individual, thereby making society a more level playfield and creating a whole world of untold opportunities. Well, that's in the ideal.

I Respect Mohamed as a young aspiring scholar but his youthful observance mistook the Arab Spring for something new, and mistook it as a sea change in the broader Dar Al Islam for a positive political change. He is hardly alone in this but the Arab Spring is not a spring but is in fact a fall, and we are coming onto the dawn of an Arab Winter.

One begins to see it as a winter when we began to follow the Breadcrumbs of the conflict between those who seek a broad coalition democracy (which ends up becoming pluralistic and free) and those countries like Iran and the Patron of many of these countries Russia which has pioneered small coalition democracies (where outcomes are democratically achieved but they are achieved by focusing on a smaller subset of the population)

You can look back at Ahmadinejad and his two elections: The monitors show no irregularities but you have areas where 90 percent of the population turns out for one candidate. This irregularities show a potamkin sort of democracy. We look at the Hamas electoral victory in 2006, the Iraqi Elections where Pro-Iran and Pro-Islamist candidates became players in the system, We look at Putin's Presidential Terms ending so he moves all the powers to the Prime Minister's office and when the laws are changed he moves all the powers back to the Presidency. We look at the actions of Hugo Chavez as well as his knock offs in Latin America who are following the same trend.

These Autocrats learned what Democracy really means:

The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristocratie) "rule of an elite".

The greeks refer to who rules, and not who governs. As governance and rule are very different things as some of the latest issues with the IRS in the united States shows us. The civil society and those features of it that touch the state are how we are governed. The Code Inspector besets the businessman and homeowner with the Governance of the State. The City Councilman rarely meddles in how the building code is set up unless their are extreme issues (Such as Hurricanes or Tornados). This rule in turn is developed into governance. Or the Rule of Law vs the Law of Rules.

In the middle east a civil society is mostly non existent. So those at the top of the political order are not constrained by the needs of shop keepers to keep their business orderly. And what elements of a civil society DO exist are those that are advocating the excesses of the Arab Spring from the power of the state now.

The Arab Spring didn't fail: It did what the people pushing for it on the ground (who are not the Middle Eastern and other Neo-Liberals) wanted. It gave them the state where they had the political power to achieve their dreams

The Russian Standoff in Damascus

In this chess game The Russians are playing Chicken.

If it does nothing else, the recent Syria summit arranged by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry formally marked the re-emergence of Russia as a power in the Middle East, after a hiatus of more than 20 years. Yet Moscow’s objectives today are vastly different. Russia is out to raise the stakes for U.S. military intervention, which it sees as destabilizing for the world order; to minimize the impact of Islamist radicalism and extremism born out of the Arab Spring; and to try to find political solutions to a host of issues, from the civil war in Syria to Iran’s nuclear issue to post-American Afghanistan.

Dear Tablet Magazine: Your ideas are terrible and you should stop forming them into words.

The Russians have not played as large a roll int he middle east as they have during the cold war in the last 20 years, which is true, because Russians over the last 20 years have had bigger fish to fry. They have had their attempt to use oil and gas diplomacy to try to push their will on the good folks of the EU.

But where they see the play in Syria as a play of power, it is a play that comes from Weakness.

During the George W Bush Years The Moscow-Bejing Axis (called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) began to form an alternative to the Washington Consensus on Foreign policy. The Washington Consensus didn't just form because the US was the cock of the walk after World War II (But that helped) it formed because a lot of the global interests of the NATO Powers and later the Asian Developed powers were very similar. Only during the 80s did we see Authoritarian Capitalist regimes crop up did we begin to see some friction against the Hypothesis.

This play came out in one of my best moments on twitter: Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter said that Susan Rice was going to get the UN Security Council to come down hard on Syria. I guffawed and bet her that would not happen (and I was right). Allowing Syria to deal with an internal issue was within the Conservative Westphalian wheelhouse of the SCO.

But China and Russia underestimated the Paradox of the Security Council. When the Communist Interests were united against western interests in a regional conflict it didn't stop the conflict: It just kept the major players out of the conflict until things begun to get out of hand (Bosnia and Vietnam are great examples, Korea happened because of the chaos involving China). The Western Powers have a domestic political interest that is influenced by the world they see on their cable news and on their Internets ( which is a series of tubes). This Pressure even in times of Austerity brings rise to the Western Consensus. Russia is not talking with John Kerry because they are a power in the Syria mess: They are at the table with John Kerry because this situation is getting out of control.

Russia and China are both Status Quo powers. They ally with those countries that promote their internal political status quos and allow them to move the ball a few yards forward. Unfortunately for Russia and China some times you end up on 3rd and 9 and your opposition forms a prevent defense. The only way for Russia and China to move the ball forward is either war, or to give up this drive and let Assad get what he deserves.

But the problem is if Assad gets what he deserves, what will happen in Iran if their regime gets whats coming to it? Its the same Paradox the US is in with Israel and Taiwan. If we let those countries fall it changes the expectations across the board with our allies. so we both get backed into a corner: and that's how wars start.

And if the Islamist "Rebels" win in Syria after winning in the Palestinian Territories, Tunisia, Egypt, and other places: Will these same elements within Russia become animated and think they can have their own Arab Spring?

Bayit Yehudi are putting on their big boy pants

One thing about living in a 2 party state we lose the parties that come out of the chaos of a multi-party system and either fade out or fall into the ashpile of history.

Bayit Yehudi however has decided to get into the mix on a major issue the big three parties in Israel have been working on: Breaking the back of Ultra Orthodox Power.

(As a Convert to the Right Wing of Liberal Jewish thought this is a personal big deal to be. Should I come to Israel this sort of action makes Bayit Yehudi more appealing to me)

If Naftali Bennett has his way, for the first time in Israel’s history, the Jewish state will begin funding all rabbis—including those from non-Orthodox streams of Judaism. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, which is headed by Bennett, announced today that it will be instituting reforms to abolish the position of state-appointed communal rabbis, replacing the current system with one in which rabbis are appointed by their communities, and then funded by the government. This revamping of the rabbinate would effectively take these positions out of the control of the ultra-Orthodox dominated Chief Rabbinate and place them into the hands of Israel’s citizens, who would be free to choose whichever rabbi they wish. As the Ministry’s brief on the reforms put it, the rabbis would receive state funding “independent of which Jewish denomination the relevant community belongs to.”

A Secular-Religious Right Wing Israeli Party (as opposed to a Secular Right Wing party or a Religious Right wing Party).

Finally the Israeli political system has something more appealing to me.

Maybe Next Year I can vote for them in Jerusalem

When Speech is silenced

I thought it was bad and an abuse of our first amendment. It appears however this sort of moral cowardice is not unheard of

At least one newsman was alarmed, however. And on the day of the 1933 elections, he gained a brief audience with the future Fuhrer. That man was Cornelius “Neil” Vanderbilt IV, great-great-grandson of the railroad tycoon. Fed up with the malaise of his privileged peers, Vanderbilt had moved to journalism from his position as a driver during the First World War. His name gave him access to Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, whose impending Reich became the subject of Vanderbilt’s documentary film, called Hitler’s Reign of Terror, released on April 30, 1934, a short portion of which you can see above.

The New Yorker obtained the clip from Brandeis University professor Thomas Doherty, who rediscovered the film in a Belgian archive while researching a recent book. Vanderbilt’s documentary might well be the first American anti-Nazi film, but its contemporary reception speaks volumes about how criticism of the new Nazi regime was suppressed in the mid-thirties; the film was censored across the U.S., denied a license, and banned.

People say things like "Never Again" but we miss out on one of the great evils of civilization. Civilization makes us averse to violence. We abandon Hobbes right to "War" in exchange for more peaceful and productive avenues. But when we hide from evil some times evil comes to rise, and we must take action against it.

Before a patterned curtain, the newsman asks the correspondent what he thinks of Hitler, and Vanderbilt replies: “Unquestionably he is a man of real ability, of force. But the way I sized him up after interviewing him is that he is a strange combination of Huey Long, Billy Sunday, and Al Capone.” He goes on, “I had never heard a man so able to sway people. He said Germany refused to forget her two million war dead. In the hour and a half that Hitler talked to that packed audience that night, he was as effective as a barker in a sideshow travelling with a circus. The German people had suffered so long that they were ready to accept the promises of anyone who held out some hope for the future.”

Hill’s newsman wonders, “Is it your belief that Europe is getting ready for another world war? Has she forgotten the horrors of the last World War? Is she trying to force another such war on humanity?”

Vanderbilt answers with a touch of sorrow, noting the clear desire for revenge.

“It all seems a ghastly, incredible nightmare,” Hill says.

Vanderbilt, in his boarding school pronunciation, “Yes, I agree with you.”

I wonder if we are facing the same sort of storm clouds waiting for as Hitler called himself "the man of the hour, not because he has been appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg but because no one else could have been appointed Chancellor instead."

Chuck Hagel: Part of the sterling competency of the Obama Administration

SINGAPORE — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel took China to task Saturday for alleged cyberespionage, drawing a sharp response from a Chinese general who questioned whether the United States’ growing military presence in Asia is anything more than a challenge to Beijing’s rise.

Delivering the keynote speech at the annual security summit here known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, Hagel said the United States is “clear-eyed about the challenges in cyber” and echoed past assertions by the Obama administration that multiplying cyberattacks on U.S. government and industry portals “appear to be tied to the Chinese government and military.”

In this brilliant bit of speechification Chuck Hagel was made to look the boob by the Chinese speaker at the conference.

If we want to cooperate with other parties instead of poking China for their Cyber-war program (which will make china work with you) try a different approach.

"There will be legitimate uses of Cyber-warfare on the fields of battle, and in the fields of espionage. But allegations that we have countries compromising power, water, and other resource grids that in times when no shot is being fired in anger could lead to the deaths of civilians. This should not be tolerated. So as Secretary of Defense and speaking on behalf of the President I want to sound out a call for an International Protocol to the Geneva Convention on Cyber-warfare."

This is a positive statement, a statement where you could challenge China to stand up and be a great civilizational power. This is the sort of diplomacy men such as Chuck Hagel and "The Huntsman" should have been doing. But even with the pivot of the Obama administration's foreign policy to east asia we still see a lack of fundamental diplomatic competency

The IRS Front on the War on the First Amendment

The "Few" Bad Employees in the Cincinnati office...

well of course the Cincinnati office runs operatives all over the United States. How many of them were involved with the targeting of IRS groups?

90 Employees

90 Employees that had at least 1 supervisor, 3 managers, the director of the Cincinnati office, and Lois Learner all participating in some level in the targeting of Tea Party, Religious Conservative, and Pro-Israeli groups for political purposes. Now while its possible these groups were targeted for non political purposes the memorandum focusing on specific groups by ideology shows there was a non financial reason for the targeting.

So we have a US Attorney saying you can be prosecuted for your face book posts and IRS agents attacking you if you seek to use your first amendment rights in the political realm

Also the IRS has a warning system if cases take to long to be resolved which means reports went all the way up the chain of command (past Lois Learner) so on the desk of the director of Internal Revenue was a report of all the cases going late in the Cincinnati office.

This corruption is far more wide spread then these 90 people

The War on the First Amendment Continues

So our President and his administration continues their assault on our constitution and on the relationship between the state and the citizen.

Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.

Sponsor of the event is the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee — a 15-member board formed two years ago when the General Assembly was considering passing legislation that would restrict those who worship Sharia Law, which is followed by Muslims.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

This is how policies change. Small little interpretations are spoken by US Attorneys and people in a place of political power, and they become part of the background discussion of the living constitution. As speech takes on a new form speech is not respected as the right of all free men (who are the sovereigns of the country) but a right doled out by the state that identifies it as the new sovereign. Eventually these ideas form a doctrine that everyone accepts.

But just as with the famous broccoli doctrine question we are faced with a parallel on the most fundamental of all constitutional rights. If what some weirdo in his pajama's can post on the internet so long as it does not promote -criminal- conduct, what speech can the state not stop online or offline?

Their was a line drawn in the sand (called the Brandenburg test)

The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)

The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "[i]f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation." The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after "Brandenburg", the test is de facto overruled. The "Brandenburg" test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.

If a post on facebook that is rude, crude, inappropriate, and wrong: Does it meet this clear standard of law to cross the line into violence. Short of the sort of conduct that people only commit in isolated and hidden parts of the internet there is no speech on the internet that meets this standard of law.

Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”

Killian said he and Moore had discussed the issue.

“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?” he said. “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”

Except their are innumerable posts of that sort of nature by Muslims on Facebook and other places on the internet. And when confronted with such conduct in the past we have British law enforcement officers saying that they can't monitor every crazy post by a Muslim Imam on the internet.

So instead of monitoring the law abiding, we should monitor the law breaking

Star wars prequels a rebuttal of a rebuttal

The fact people still try to defend the prequels is the most disappointing thing since ...well I could rip off plinket but that would be silly 

A friend of mine opened up some George Lucas Apologism Exhibit A ; 

Exhibit B   Exhibit C

So I want to address some of these points and why they are just awful

This is a trilogy of movies that opens with a kid who just wants to help, and ends with him reduced to a literal shell of the man he could have been. It shows a republic — no, THE Republic — losing sight of what it stood for in the first place and becoming an empire — no, THE Empire. It’s the story of keepers of peace who give themselves over to war. It shines new light on places we’ve been, and takes us to places we’ve never seen before.

And it dovetails narratively with an iconic film trilogy that was made thirty years ago with surprisingly little complaint.

Look I have used Joseph Campbell as much as the next guy to start off with Iconic Monomyths. But when I new that I was B-Sing the professor (and I usually did that with the professor who would buy that sort of a game plan)

The Prequels as Monomyth:

We see Paralleled the rise of Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance. At the end of the first trilogy Luke and the plucky rebels (with the help of the cute teddy bears) defeated the empire, healed their family, and restored the rightness of the universe. He also healed the Jedi order by using his feelings for good (instead of evil).

So the same sort of game plan is involved in the Prequel Trilogy : The prequals are about the fall of the tragic hero (and we know that tragic hero was one Anakin Skywalker). So what does a Fall of the Tragic Hero Saga look like when done correctly? Wikipedia tells the tale

Oedipus was born to King Laius and Queen Jocasta. In the most well-known version of the myth, Laius wished to thwart a prophecy saying that his child would grow up to murder his father. Thus, he fastened the infant's feet together with a large pin and left him to die on a mountainside. The baby was found on Kithairon by shepherds and raised by King Polybus and Queen Merope in the city of Corinth. Oedipus learned from the oracle at Delphi of the prophecy, but believing he was fated to murder Polybus and marry Merope he left Corinth. Heading to Thebes, Oedipus met an older man in a chariot coming the other way on a narrow road. The two quarreled over who should give way, which resulted in Oedipus killing the stranger and continuing on to Thebes. He found that the king of the city (Laius) had been recently killed and that the city was at the mercy of the Sphinx. Oedipus answered the monster's riddle correctly, defeating it and winning the throne of the dead king and the hand in marriage of the king's widow, his mother, Jocasta.

Oedipus and Jocasta had two sons (Eteocles and Polynices) and two daughters (Antigone and Ismene). In his search to determine who killed Laius (and thus end a plague on Thebes), Oedipus discovered it was he who had killed the late king: his father. Jocasta also soon realized that she had married her own son and Laius's murderer, and she hung herself. Oedipus seized a pin from her dress and blinded himself with it. Oedipus was driven into exile, accompanied by Antigone and Ismene. After years of wandering, he arrived in Athens, where he found refuge in a grove of trees called Colonus. By this time, warring factions in Thebes wished him to return to that city, believing that his body would bring it luck. However, Oedipus died at Colonus, and the presence of his grave there was said to bring good fortune to Athens.

We see the hint of danger (a prophecy gone wrong) we see a hero rise, slay a king (which was the old hero) defeat the great monster become a BDH, become the king, marry the queen, and have kids

But the twist isn't a twist. We watch Oedepius become a bigger hero only to see him fall and fall hard.

We wanted Oedipus to rise high and we wanted him brought low. At the end when he plucks out his eyes (LOL, Spoilers)

Using Wikipedia again (because its easy to use)

Catharsis (from the Greek κάθαρσις katharsis meaning "purification" or "cleansing") refers to the purification and purgation of emotions—especially pity and fear—through art[1] or to any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal and restoration.[2][3] It is a metaphor originally used by Aristotle in the Poetics to describe the effects of tragedy on the spectator.[4][5]

So the fall of Anakin Skywalker needs to promote a sense of pity and fear (or an extreme of emotion) and we need to feel a sense of being purged from it. In seeing this change in Anakin we need to be changed through his experience

The fall of the Republic and Rise of the empire flows along a similar line at the saga of atlantis

"For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them."

...

"...when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power."

While George did not have the ability, in the story, to show the empire at its height. We could see the grandeur of the Republic. Not to throw CGI at the screen but to show its greatness, and how that greatness was falling into disorder. And then Palpatine is the inevitable fall caused by the worst of human nature.

What ties these two together? The Jedi Order. The Jedi Order is viewed as almost mythic by the people in the Original Trilogy, and Luke's defeat of the dark side is about embracing attachment, and rejecting the Jedi's views on emotional attachment.

So: The Republic fell because its guardians of order became so detached from the people that they were viewed almost as mythical figures, and Anakin Skywalker fell because he was unable to be a detached Jedi

This is a simple and Mythic Story. This simple story even allows much of the "Story" lucas created to have a richness. The Civil War draws from the fact that the Jedi have been detached from the politics of the Republic. Which allows a simple trade dispute to spiral out of control into a Civil War.

The Republic to keep itself from being destroyed clones a Mandalorian, one of the greatest enemies of the republic, to save it. This is the tragic moment in the fall of the republic. That was when the soul of the republic became possessed of the Dark Side.

To go along with something my friend said in his moment of being wrong on the internet.

George Lucas broke new cinematic ground in each of them, told a complex literary story

What made the Prequels less mythic then the Original trilogies is they were complex, they were cluttered, and did not allow the mind to fill out the universe.

Its why we see Romeo and Juliet retold again and again (and Romeo and Juliet was itself a retelling of an older story).

The Complexity takes away from the story lucas wants to tell. We cannot focus on the Fall of Anakin Skywalker, we cannot focus on the collapse of the republic, we cannot focus on the Jedi as an institution that is so detached from the galaxy that it is unable to see the rise of the sith, and unable to see the Dark Lord of the Sith destroying the Jedi Order and taking control of the Republic. Because we have to see the secret origin of Bobba Fett and R2d2 and c3po, and darth sideous we cannot focus on the larger parts of the story. Because we have to have a storyline about the Gungans and the Naboo being out of balance and coming into balance to restore their planet (which doesn't go anywhere) we can't focus on the heart and soul of the story. We have three throw away villians (Dooku, Maul, and Grievous) we can't focus on the heart and soul of the movie.

I am not going to go into the numerous problems with the story. The problems with the story come down to the fact George Lucas doesn't know the story he is supposed to be telling. Instead of focusing on creating a new monomyth he is focused on telling "Star Wars: The authoritative origin story." Thats why the Prequel Trilogies are such disappointing stories. They don't really go anywhere but check off a list of fan service and tell the story that George is Interested in telling (but is not interesting at all).

George wants to show a republic declining into Tyranny and such themes were present in the original Star Wars focusing on the 60s and 70s. But the problem is just as the Jedi should be detached and disconnected from the world, George Lucas is disconnected. He focuses on Tax policies and militarism but he does so without attaching any humanity to the struggle. And without the humanity in the story no one has a reason to care. The same struggles existed in the original trilogy but were humanized by the characters you cared about.

Beyond the fact that the story is disjointed, and isn't creating the monomyth that Lucas wants to establish, the story fails because it doesn't have characters anyone would care about beyond those you care about due to a nostalgia for the old movies.

Thats where the complexity of Lucas fails, and with it the movies: A bad story which goes in the wrong direction, thats cluttered up with unnecessary material designed for no other purpose then fan service, with uninteresting characters.

Personal goal

My new goal is to blog once a day minimum

The Foreign Policy threat of Cobra EPISODE I

The Foreign Policy threat of Cobra EPISODE I

When we discuss the nature and threats the United States Military faces we are often bogged down by the “Reality” of the US Military and Foreign policy dimensions and they can sometimes distract from talking about the implications of some of our choices. So for this thought experiment I am choosing COBRA

Why do I pick COBRA? In its run a small town in Missouri, major corporations, its been its own country, overthrown governments, did fake UFO’s, associated with a ninja clan, had an army of robots... it is truly a criminal organization determined to rule the world. So the threat of COBRA represents the Black Swan Foreign Policy threat that can be any threat the US Military needs to be handling.

So I want to lay out a few threats of COBRA to explain some of the things I think people miss out on.

North Korea:
The Crimson Guard Commandos and Extensive Enterprises (through Japanese, Korean, and Chinese Joint Venture subsidiaries) have begun some rudimentary businesses within existing North Korean Business zones. The reality is of course these businesses are part of a front to develop a binary chemical weapon that Cobra plans through its front organization Robca reality to place in homes throughout the United States to terrorize the populace. The first binary agent supply will roll off the assembly line in North Korea soon.

Once it gets off the assembly line in North Korea the US Military isn’t going to be able to stop it and millions of Americans may die as the binary chemical agent renders large sections of American suburbs uninhabitable

The North Korean Government doesn’t know anything. The people in the Chinese Government when they asked The North Koreans about it were given a signal from the North Koreans that the US Could do whatever it wanted to the factory and they wouldn’t complain to much.

So how does the Department of Defense handle it? Do they send in a Joe team? Sending in a Joe team requires a certain kind of intelligence capacity. A cobra defector (if your lucky) which means you need Human Intelligence to either recruit him or find him. A Cobra traitor: which would again require Human Intelligence to do. Try to analyze things going on with Satellite and other data and a nerd in a CIA cubicle?

Each of these prefered solutions require certain investments in the intelligence community. That means you have to hire spooks and/or nerds. If its nerds they need the right nerd tech.

We find out where COBRA’s facility is. So we are put on the clock.

Do we send in a JOE Team? Well the further out you are the more likely the JOE team is to be successful. But if you want the JOE team to be your go to response that means you need to again put certain levels of investment in Intelligence above and beyond that needed to find them. But lets take a more practical solution (Send in Snake Eyes and have him get any intel before we blow it up )

Do you want to send in a Drone? Well if your going to do that there needs to be a drone base in either Japan or South Korea (or possibly a long distance drone ). If you move the drone into South Korea or Japan that means you will likely have problems with the Chinese and North Koreans . Likewise if you have a fighter or Fighter Bomber in the neighborhood you have similar problems. But if its based in the US that puts a time constraint. (And if you want to move a carrier into the neighborhood that puts in time constraints and constraints with dealing with the other powers in the region). The further away you move these bombers/fighter bombers/ or Drones the less surprise and secrecy we have.

The type of Military that can reply to the threat of COBRA will need specific sorts of Diplomatic/Political/and Resource investments. But lets say we don’t try to stop COBRA with our military but instead trust the department of homeland security.

How many extra agents will you need at every point of entry in the US? If you want to rely on Homeland security to stop COBRA your going to have to deploy a much larger amount of manpower (and even larger amount of equipment). So you have to make a choice then: Do I front load the higher cost (with DoD) or do I back load (with Homeland Security)

In the next episode we will discuss COBRA’s Plot to overthrow the government of Venezuela.

Tragedy, Bad Times, and What it all means Part 1

Intro Post

     So I briefly touched on what tragedy is and I mentioned that I find this situation tragic. I want to go into why its tragic and how the tragedy needs to be resolved.

According to the  I would like to throw out some numbers.

In 2000, 1,242 children in the United States died from intentional firearm-related injuries. Homicides of children are most often murders of teens by other teens.

Youth homicides represent the greatest proportion of all firearm deaths. Each day in the U.S., firearms kill an average of 10 children and teens, even though the number of teens killed by firearms in the U.S. has dropped by 35% in the past four years. In 1999, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey reported that almost one-fifth of the 10th and 12th graders indicated that they had carried a firearm within the previous 30 days for self-defense or to settle disputes.

According to the CDC, 25,423 murders by gunfire took place in the United States in 2006 through 2007 — the years of the most recent available statistics.

Among these deaths, the rate of firearm homicides was higher in inner cities than in other parts of cities and higher than the murder rate of the country as a whole, Dahlberg said. People living in 50 of the largest cities, in fact, accounted for 67% of all firearm homicides.

In addition, children and teens aged 10 to 19 in these areas — more than 85% of them male — accounted for 73% of all firearm homicides, Dahlberg noted.

 

 

So most firearms deaths of children in the US from intentional sources are connected to youth crimes. But when older (18 and 19 year old teens) is removed from the equation about as many children die from firearms realted violence as die from surgical misadventures. You have about a couple of hundred deaths of children that happen outside the inner cities from firearms homicides, less then 2 a day (average). In a population of 10s of millions of children. This is why things like school shootings are such a tragedy because it is: A reversal of fortune.

But lets take a look at these tragic shootings (College and lower levels of school) In the 2000s: The United States had 11 school shootings of the sort we just experienced. In the 90s we had 14. in the 80s we had 17. In the 70s we had 5. In the 60s we had 11. In the 50s we had 19. In the 1940s we had 10. In the 1930s we had 9. In the 1920s we had 3. In the 1910s we had 2 and in the 1900s we had 7. Now in the 2010s we've had 6 . These sorts of events are tragic because they are so uncommon. But in the world of the 24 hour media and the world of social media you have a sense of seriousness focused on these events which prevents us from experiencing them in a proper tragic method. A common message I saw among friends who were parents was "I want to hug my kids." This reaction is the proper Cathartic experience from tragedy.

But when we look at this tragedy we also lose aspect to the other aspect of the tragedy. We go to Hegel's definition of tragedy Tragedy presents ethical conflicts, between state and family, intention and action, responsibility and necessity. Conflict may exist even where ethical principles are not the primary interest, because the tragic character may experience internal conflict, as Hamlet or Othello. Tragedy lies in the denial of absolute right on either side, or affirmation of equal right, and its spiritual value consists in presenting justice as reconciliation:

We look at school shooters like Cho at virginia tech: Due to mental illness he developed a profound sense that the humanity in others held no value to him. Lets also take a look at another shooter:

On February 29, 2012, Tim Grendell, the juvenile court judge presiding over Lane's case, allowed the release of the suspect's juvenile records to the press. According to his records, T.J. Lane was arrested twice in December, 2009. The first time, Lane restrained his uncle, while his cousin hit him. The other case involved Lane hitting another boy in the face.^[42] To the second charge, Lane pled to a count of disorderly conduct.^[43]
Although family court records concerning T.J. Lane had not been released, as of March 12, 2012, the press did expose criminal records of Lane's father, Thomas M. Lane, Jr. The records showed that in 2002 the elder Lane was incarcerated for one year for attempted murder. In an ordeal lasting nine hours, he physically and verbally assaulted a woman while three children were present. In addition, "he has arrests on a wide range of offenses including drug abuse and possession, violation of probation, public intoxication and disorderly conduct".^[42]

A child who grew up in a home where violence was common became a young man to whom violence was not only common but became an answer. The tragedy is of course that these violent experiences do not happen in a vacuum. People see these children and families. Teachers and administrators encounter warning signs: and they ask the question "What am I legally required to do" and they do not move to the more important question "What am I morally and ethically required to do?" The tragedy of these shootings is they have increased in number as the community has declined in the 20th and 21st century. But if you go back further into the 19th century you see these shootings still occurred and occurred during times of social upheaval:  1880s (6), 1870s (2), 1860s (3), and1850s (1).

As we have changed and faced the challenges of becoming a modern country and as there were challenges of economic/social/political inequalities we see an increase of these mass shootings. Because the conflicts of these inequalities are ones that invalidate others.

"The Man is keeping me down"
"Queers are trying to change our marriages"
"the 1% is stealing from the 99%"
"Illegal aliens are stealing our jobs"
ETC

We invalidate the humanity of other people in general, and we ignore the humanity of people more specifically that we see falling through the gaps in our society. Some of them are beyond our ability to help but we are unable to help them all. We need a society where we are not individuals existing in a cynical relationship with our social/political/ and cultural institutions. People can live in material poverty without being violent: But if they live in material poverty with a cultivated spiritual poverty (that the world is out to get me and violence is the answer) we will see these sorts of violent incidents continue as people who feel they have no way to change their place in the order of things snap and become violent.

Gun control isn't the answer (as these crimes increased during the increases of gun control in the united states) people control is the answer. We need to be a society of neighbors and communities again so the communities can help diffuse this sense of indignity and rage.

link 1 

link 2 

Link 3 

Link 4 

Tragedy, Bad Times, and What it all means Part 0: Introduction

Out of respect for the wishes of others and because I have been out there being a productive adult I have not talked about the latest spree killing in these here united states. But before I get into the meat of this matter I want to talk about what we say it all is and what that really means. Its a Tragedy. But where does Tragedy and just bad times become divided in the mind and in the heart. So lets start with Aristotle's view on tragedy

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its katharsis of such emotions. . . . Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality—namely, Plot, Characters, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Melody.” (translation by S. H. Butcher;

Tragedy depicts the downfall of a noble hero or heroine, usually through some combination of hubris, fate, and the will of the gods. The tragic hero's powerful wish to achieve some goal inevitably encounters limits, usually those of human frailty (flaws in reason, hubris, society), the gods (through oracles, prophets, fate), or nature. Aristotle says that the tragic hero should have a flaw and/or make some mistake (hamartia). The hero need not die at the end, but he/she must undergo a change in fortune. In addition, the tragic hero may achieve some revelation or recognition (anagnorisis--"knowing again" or "knowing back" or "knowing throughout" ) about human fate, destiny, and the will of the gods. Aristotle quite nicely terms this sort of recognition "a change from ignorance to awareness of a bond of love or hate." 

Key to Aristotle's definition (that applied to a play) is Katharsis:

The end of the tragedy is a katharsis (purgation, cleansing) of the tragic emotions of pity and fear. Katharsis is another Aristotelian term that has generated considerable debate. The word means “purging,” and Aristotle seems to be employing a medical metaphor—tragedy arouses the emotions of pity and fear in order to purge away their excess, to reduce these passions to a healthy, balanced proportion. Aristotle also talks of the “pleasure” that is proper to tragedy, apparently meaning the aesthetic pleasure one gets from contemplating the pity and fear that are aroused through an intricately constructed work of art

His definition of tragedy was not just limited to plays because he was trying to codify the formal systems of the world he lived in. But because the play was a thing that allowed you to experience the pity and fear and gain release and knowledge from the experience.Key also is the reversal of fortunes. That seemed to require the hand of the god's (or hubris and pride of men).

As we get to more modern philosophers we get deeper into Tragedy and how that ties into what we are experiencing and sharing through the poor people in Connecticut

August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Comparison between the Phaedre of Racine and that of Euripides (1807). The unity of ancient tragedy consists not in a single action, but a single idea, the heroism of the impossible struggle of man against fate. In Renaissance tragedy this may become a meditation on destiny, as in Hamlet. In A Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, volume 1, 1809, Schlegel stated 'the spirit of ancient art and poetry is plastic, and that of the moderns is picturesque', a contrast also adopted by Coleridge (Lectures on Shakespeare 1849). The dichotomy is between the Greek arts as demonstrating sculptural beauty, 'a refined and ennobled sensuality', enjoyment of the present and celebration of the human will; while northern European art expresses the desire for the sublime, the infinite, and the annihilation of the self. A Romantic approach is also evident in Schlegel's view of the function of the chorus as 'a personified reflection on the action ... the incorporation into the representation itself of the sentiments of the poet ... In a word, the ideal spectator' (Course 69-70).
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of Fine Art (c1820). Tragedy presents ethical conflicts, between state and family, intention and action, responsibility and necessity. Conflict may exist even where ethical principles are not the primary interest, because the tragic character may experience internal conflict, as Hamlet or Othello. Tragedy lies in the denial of absolute right on either side, or affirmation of equal right, and its spiritual value consists in presenting justice as reconciliation: order is achieved through disorder, in an aesthetic version of the dialectical principle. Hegel does not consider fate or evil as important factors in the tragic conflict.

Our German Friends take it further: The source of tragedy in addition to huberis we see the conflict of our many roles in society and our role as an Individual. And we have tragedy being the very struggle against the impossible in life (and failing to fully be heroic).

     So I want to go into the tragedy of these events

1. What makes this event tragic is the failures of people to act in a place of duty as they would wish to act.
2. Without a deeper examination of these failures these events lead us to a deeper pain
3. The people who commit the vile actions are themselves tragic because the cause to such violence is far more then a choice but is a path. And a path they rarely choose fully.
4. It is the making of these events unknowable (when their can be knowledge gained) that makes these events tragic.

I am going to after some sleep and some free time expand on this further. But the tragedy is not the murder, the murder is the catharsis. Parents and people are having an emotional reaction that is giving them a release and a sense of connection. "What if this were my child?" This is a natural part of the order of such things. But while tragedy connects us to horror and feelings of horror, we must understand the limits of feelings (as much as we understand the limits of thought).

But I also want to take a step further:
Children are murdered and that is terrible but Children are murdered and brutalized every day. Do we pray for all of them?Some children are neglected and left to rot, do we pray for all of them?

We see illustrated in the movie Bruce Almighty the absurdity of such a vision of prayer. So   We can visualize and hope for the best for those who suffer but unless we open ourselves to them all we are doing is using them to experience their horror through their own lives. We can pray to god like he is some kind of prayer concierge, or we could take a deeper step (which the movie bruce almighty shows) being there for people.

Because you see not being there for people is why this tragedy and others like it always seem to happen. And being there for people is part of the answer to stop it. An Answer thats bigger then governments or men but is small enough for communities

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

L'Affair Du Susan Rice

So for those who have read my prior blogs you will know I like to play myself out and put a method of analysis of the political nonsense of today by inserting me in as a persona worthy of acting in the nonsense.

This latest political nonsense is no different. So the following comes from the mouth of Senator Larry Bernard (R-Florida). And Really Senator Bernard should have beaten Bill Nelson anyway

Ambassador Rice; Thank you for coming. I want to start this off first by stating the fact I think the foreign policy you and the president have designed from the campaign to present is just terrible. That said the voters made a choice and they decided to keep having you and the President rise to the level of your maximum incompetence. I am not opposed to your being secretary of state but I need some answers to questions. You can lie to me, as a lie is a valid answer. But I need you to make the lie seem plausible.

So Ambassador Rice my first question is thus: You helped spin as a member of Clinton's national security team an Orwellian change in policy language to cover your President's behind. And you came forward to present a bunch of nonsense to cover the President's behind again with Benghazi. How can I trust that your going to take your job seriously as administering American Foreign Policy and not covering for the President? 

The White House presented a theory about a video tape. Libya is a country dominated by clan and tribal conflicts, terrorist training camps, former regime thugs, and mercenaries. When you were presented the information about the protests being the source of the conflict how did you square that with your above knowledge and your knowledge as an Africanist?

Libya a country where civil society has been destroyed, and the government have been destroyed by its nature is a security risk. The State Department did not agree with that assessment. Given that we already discussed the terrorism and other forms of political violence endemic in Libya can you explain why the State Department made the wrong choice? And much more importantly can you explain why the State Department under your leadership wouldn't make that sort of Mistake?

The political tensions in the Magreb and rest of North Africa had been brewing since before President Obama came to the White House. Why didn't the White House make an effort to encourage Gaddafi to begin to make reforms to deflate some of the pressures his Government was under? I would ask the same thing about the Mubarak regime. While I am not opposed to helping foment some of the dissident pressures as we did, but why didn't we try to transition these allies into a position where they could with stability make these reforms happen?

As UN Ambassador you pushed for a resolution on the current crisis in Syria. You did this and talked about how the Chinese and Russian Governments would support the US Resolution in the Security Council. So why did you think the Russian and Chinese governments would act so out of character with their historic security council votes? And why given it was so unlikely did you try to put so much PR into a losing proposition?

Do you regret the failure in our Central African Policies that you pushed in the Clinton Administration that we have continued for some 20 years now? How would you try to use the power of US Policy to try to try to help those countries come to a better end?

 With the rise of oil in Africa, and the decline of oil in the Middle East how are you prepared to push  and encourage US firms to take advantage of this change in the energy markets to enhance our security? How will we build those relationships that will secure US Energy security for years to come?

Thank you for your time Ms Ambassador.

Race and the 2012 Race

I forgot there was one last meme from the 2012 election that was driven by people being wrong on the Internet. The GOP is in trouble because African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics vote Democrat in large numbers. This has always been the way that it is but is now worse cause we have more Blacks, Browns, and Yellows in 'Murica.

The problem is not that Republicans hate Black, Brown, and Yellow people. The problem is much more significant and crosses both sides of the divide on race. And I get to speak on this topic from a more informed position because of my own life changes.

But first we must take a look at race and politics through the lenses of oppression and identity. If your Black you are oppressed. Even if you are Oprah you are still feeling oppressed. If you don't feel oppression at the core of your blackness, then your more likely to be voting republican. Because key to being Black as an identity is being oppressed, you look for government to be the mediator and source of relief for your oppression.

The story for Hispanics is also largely the same. Because key to their cultural identity is being oppressed by the white man. But Hispanics also form a bridge to the second culture/identity problem the GOP has. Hispanics are also a distinct cultural group (in a way African-Americans are not) and they want to maintain their cultural distinctiveness and uniqueness.

In this regard to cultural distinctiveness we find Asians and Jews as well. They don't want to go the same route of such immigrants as: Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc. ethnic groups that outside of major cities are indistinguishable from the grand old American ethnic mutt white people. These groups view the GOP as the vehicle of the inevitable borg like force of homogeneity. Resistance is futile, and you will be assimilated.

So when you are a Jew, an Asian, or a Hispanic you have this urge to represent your different nature. And you find yourself confronted at every turn in your life by a world that doesn't always fully accommodate your difference. The Democratic party sells itself as the party that is all about being different. "I'm an individual just like everyone else." But it is a shallow sense of diversity. But that shallow diversity creates a buy in. "I am Jewish so I must be a Democrat, and therefore I must support the issues the Democratic party supports." And you find yourself a plethora of justifications which says your culture means you must agree with the Democratic Party and its issues.

This issue is why in the 80s and 90s we saw Union members (a distinct and oppressed cultural group) supporting the Democratic party on environmental issues that actually threatened their jobs. Its because they embraced a sense of what being a union member means that requires them to buy in to the Democratic party.

And when the Republican Party says "Us to guys" its like Carlton Banks on the fresh prince of bell-air. Dorky, unauthentic, and lame. You aren't going to convince people to go against these cultural biases because in some cases (especially for Jews and Blacks) these biases have been going on for multiple generations. You need to find a way to break the hegemony of thought that says "I am Hispanic, therefore I am Democrat." And you need to find a way to break the hegemony of thought that has Americans viewing their society as oppressive to them. That is the problem and not trying to make Black People understand we don't hate them.

How the Republican Party needs to change

And now for the last of my people were wrong on the internet posts I saw that I delayed because of NaNoWriMo:

A lot of people were talking about how the Republicans need to more more to the Democrat positions on Taxes and Immigration.

In a word: Malarky.

The problem with Big Government isn't that government is Big , but that government is inefficient and corrupt. And that big government corrupts others.

I was watching a video on how companies hire law firms to set up consultants to "Prove" no American could get a job so they can import foreigners. The truth of this situation (as quite profoundly explained) is EVEN IF they find a qualified person they can always find a reason to excuse him that's permissible under the law. So we have a law to keep qualified Americans from losing jobs to qualified foreigners: but in practice the law is practiced in such a manner that companies go to hire qualified foreigners and invest so much money into the process that they won't hire the qualified Americans even if they find them. This is Big Business working with Big Business to create a crony capitalist solution.

What Republicans need to do (if they want to be successful) is propose a Immigration that is

1. Simple to understand
2. takes a reasonable time for potential future Americans to go through
3. Fulfills our National Interest (in getting in people who will help build our country)
4. Gets us the type of people our economy needs.

giving a specific benefit to win the electoral support (except OH WAIT IT DOESN'T) of a ethnic voting block only gets us back to the problem of the corrupting nature of big government.

More then Freedom if the Republican Party wants to defeat the ideas and ideology of Obamanism they need to do that by campaigning as the party of REFORM.

Or, how the Republican party was born in the first place, how the republican party dominated the 19th century, and most importantly of all key to its successes in the 20th century.

The Reforms must be in our day and age focused on empowering individuals to make their lives, their families, their communities, and their country better.

We need to level the federal system. We need the federal system to be one that does what it needs to do and does it as simply and cheaply as possible, It needs to do that in such a way that people know their expectations from the state and they don't need an army of experts to navigate the federal system.

Sadly the Republican Party isn't going to go back to what has always been its one of its core competencies.

A late election post mortem

Because I was busy with NaNoWriMo I didn't post my thoughts about the loss of Mitt Romney (in some respects he did worse then John McCain and that really is saying something).

I want to start out with the following thoughts

1. The truth of the matter is our elections are far more local then we give them credit for. Mitt Romney wasn't running 1 national campaign he was running 50 state campaigns. The Obama team got this in a way that Romney's team never did. If Romney performed as well in Ohio as his national demographics would have indicated we would likely be talking about President Elect Mitt Romney today.
2. Team Obama pioneered better technology to create better information and put it in the hands of the decision makers. Team Romney was still using national Republican technology thats largely unchanged since election 04/06 (it may even go back to 00).  This means Obama was able to be more efficient with his targeting and outreach efforts (and thats a part of why he won)
3. Team Romney's ad strategy of playing rope-a-dope ALMOST worked. And if not for hurricane sandy it may have worked. But the problem with ALMOST winning is thats the same as losing. The damage Romney and Ryan took while they were waiting for the money numbers to be there way gave him to much to over come.
4. 3 or 4 million Republicans stayed home. Part of what Karl Rove did so well for President George W Bush was finding people who should vote republican and get them to vote republican. If those 3-4 million voters showed up on election day and voted for Mitt Romney he would be President elect Mitt Romney. John McCain also had a lot of republicans on the bench and in 2000 George W Bush even had some republican and republican lean voters on the bench (See Florida 2000). The fact this was overlooked was negligence on the hands of the people who ran the Romney Campaign. The fact its been a problem for the GOP in the 21st century (with 02,04, and 10 being exceptions to the rule) 
5. The election of 2006 is haunting us to this day. The weak primary field in 2008 and 2012 are in large  part because of the bloodbath in 2006. The Gop has also not improved the fundamental mechanics of how parties win elections since 2006. The only reason 2016 will be a little better for us is we have a more mature field that got on the bench in 2010.

These are some of the things that I blame the people Romney hired to run his team for, and I blame the people who have run the GOP nationally for. What I blame Romney for is a different set of matters

1. The Business of America isn't Business: The truth of the matter is American voters don't care that much about small and big businesses getting their operating capital and wonkish matters like that. What they want to hear is "In  4 years when I come back to you seeking re-election your children will move out of your house and be moving on with their lives." What Americans wanted wasn't to get business back on track but rather America to be normal again. This was a major miss on behalf of Romney and his messaging.
2. Paul Ryan did a lot to reinvigorate the campaign and did a lot to change the tone of the debate: But Romney didn't close the deal. He didn't close the deal by saying "Yes I am going to put the American government on a diet so we will be healthy again." He picked Paul Ryan but the message that Paul Ryan represented largely faded away. So we couldn't trust Romney to be serious
3. Romney is a loser: And I don't mean this as a knock on his character. He lost every election he ran in but one. He didn't run for Re-Election in 06 because he knew it was going to be a ugly election for Republicans (an Ugly election he was spearheading for the national Governor's association). When he tried to run the GOP's efforts in the State House on Beacon hill he lost seats. Romney lost the 08 election to a very weak John McCain candidacy. The problem is quite profound: Other then the 2002 election where the Democratic candidate was very bad Mitt Romney has had his behind handed to him in every election he's taken a leadership role in. He doesn't have what it takes to close the deal.

None of the issues that lost the GOP the election are issues about our being out of touch with the electorate. We had a mediocre candidate with a history of under-performing and the Republican party is fundamentally weakened in the ways parties win elections and has been for 6 years now.

We need to build up our O-Line before we draft another Quarterback to lead our team to a title. We don't need a new team.

Why everyone is wrong about Benghazi

I am about ready to restart my NaNoWriMo project (to shoot for 60-75k) but before I do I want to talk a little bit about Benghazi:

The problem is not that President Obama let our Ambassador and his security team die. The true problem is much deeper.

In Libya the state was a totalitarian regime united behind one man. take a look at his regime propaganda

His regime was based on an authoritarian cult of personality which united a country that was largely clan and tribal driven. Furthermore he projected influence outside his country and enforced it within his country with the help of mercenaries. Since the country was held together by his force of personality (and oil money to bribe minions)just like in Iraq there was going to be political violence and instability.

The first scandal about Benghazi isn't that our personnel were killed, but rather that we were not prepared for a situation almost EXACTLY like what we had to deal with in Iraq.

We nuked what was holding the country together, so why were we not prepared for the security crisis?

This is central to the narrative of incompetence of the President that Governor Romney missed out on.

This incompetence is further exemplified by who we assigned security to

"Blue Mountain was virtually unknown to the circles that studied private security contractors working for the United States, before the events in Benghazi," said Charles Tiefer, a commissioner at the Commission on Wartime Contracting, which studied U.S. contracting in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Several British government sources said that they were unfamiliar with Blue Mountain, which is based in Wales. They said British authorities used a different contractor for security protection in Libya.

Fred Burton, vice president of intelligence at the Stratfor consulting firm and a former U.S. diplomatic security agent, said he did not know Blue Mountain, but it likely got State Department work because it was already working in Libya.

"They may have been the path of least resistance," he said.

Blue Mountain was able to work in Libya because it forged a business alliance with a local security firm, as required by Libyan regulations.

The Security firm is deemed to be connected to a local militia further typifying the lack of security

And to go further

BENGHAZI, Libya — Even before the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, diplomats from other nations and Libyan security officials had questioned the wisdom of a U.S. decision to rely primarily on members of a local militia to protect its compound here.

Many of these militia's were poorly vetted and deemed to have connections to Al-Qaeda

And the hole goes much deeper as Benghazi may have served as a site for "enhanced interrogation" if this allegation is true that makes the lack of adequate security even more problematic.

The death of J Chris Stevens in tragic but what makes it tragic is that even taking out a September 11th anniversary attack and a planned response to the US by Al-Qaeda the factors that lead up to his death were obvious. So the question is not "Why did the President not respond to the attack on Ambassador Stevens?" the more important and vital question is this "Why did the Obama administration fail so totally in the face of such a predictable threat?"

And how far up the chain does this failure go

The Libertarian Party Dishonor Family

Why are people Libertarian? The answers are many fold but I would like to cover some of the more common ones

* They Want to Legalize It
* The Democratic Party hates it when people make money, so I am a Libertarian
* The Republican Party hates Gays, Science, and my general social agenda so I am a Libertarian
* I belong to the Cult of Ron Paul (Ron Paul /b/)
* I belong to the cult of ayn rand
* I belong to the cult of Murray Rothbard
* I think their should be a third party and this is the least weird one
* I disagree with social norms and mores and want to use the Libertarian party to advance my agenda.

When you talk to Libertarians you don't hear them have passion about how the Libertarian Party's agenda will make the country better. You don't hear them talk about how if we do some to most of the libertarian party's agenda their will be a fundamental change for the better in most peoples lives.

Thats because people are running away from things in the Libertarian party of using it to advance their own social agenda.

So if you want to save the Libertarian party, you have to believe in it (and not just use it)

Libertarians Need Women

So my friend Kevin Boyd commented on another post which are part of a series of electrons devoted to the topic.

I have played back and forth with Kevin about this topic on FB but I want to focus on where I think he and others have went wrong:

So I am going to spend the majority of this article explaining what oppression is and what oppression is not. In order to determine if a situation is oppressive, one must ask four questions: What specific group is harmed overall? What specific group benefits and what group constructs and maintains these situations? Finally, is it a part of a structure which tends to confine, reduce, and immobilize some group?

The focus is on the topic of Oppression.

The state can repress, but the state's repression can be checked by civil society (Churches, Political Parties, Unions, and other organizations) but the only entity to check oppression by the people and groups of society is the state.

If the state oppresses the change is simple: We modify the law or remove the mal actors from the state.

So lets take an issue of oppression against women that the Obama administration takes pride in championing. The Lilly Ledbetter Law. We can look at the EU. In the European Union laws and civil society have long been checking against "Oppression" in women's pay. Whats the problem? Women are not paid less money because they are oppressed. They are paid less money because of life choices they make. Even in europe where they receive a full years pay for maternity leave and state policy tries to mitigate these choices: you still end up with the same inequalities.

The Republicans don't bother arguing to women that they aren't paid less, because no woman would believe it. So how do you stand up and defend women from "Oppression" in wages without having the state meddling in the wage and pay policy of a given company? You can't do it. So you end up in seeking to instigate policies that mitigate oppression end up going against Libertarian Principles.

Private firms will still "Oppress" women because the oppression is a fantasy. And private groups telling other private groups to stop with all their oppression unless the oppression is supported by some level of state sanction doesn't work (Look at the attempts to stop the oppression of chic filet just recently)

Lets take another issue

The primary issue which you should avoid like it’s Jimmy Carter is abortion. I’m pro-choice, but I make it clear that not all libertarians feel this way and only discuss it personally, if asked. Same goes for pro-lifers -- a real or perceived restriction of women’s rights can lose some people’s support irreparably, especially (you guessed it) them aforementioned girls.

What does Pro-Choice mean if Insurance companies don't cover abortion. Then you are being "oppressive" the feminist will say. So once again if you embrace using the power of policy (which is what political movements DO) you end up having the state act in a fundamentally unlibertarian way. and a Pro-Life Libertarian finds himself in a similar state. The problem is of course not in standing up for the oppressed but that the ideology and ideas of the Libertarian movement are unable to deal with the pragmatic realities of policy.

Libertarians don't turn off women folk because we aren't selling them the right package. Libertarians turn off women folk because Libertarian politics as they are currently constituted in such a way that they don't connect to the reality of women's lives (or anyones lives). And since I blogged once on this topic I will go into further detail in another post.