Wednesday, February 22

what is authority if the state can lawlessly murder?

Just a quick note: demonstrating against the occupation of Iraq with "End the War Now" misses the point where the subtle suggestion could be, "Bring an End To Invasion."

      Friday, July 15

relief from

The questions may change [or with mainstream media, stay just the same said slightly differently]--but by god, Our answers will stay the same.

      Thursday, July 14

Underwriting Inhumanity Exported as Democracy

Let me reiterate a point already iterated: if the point of depature in understanding the circulatory implications of A=A is dually exclusive it is transparently easier to unilaterally believe that President Bush is rightous in delivering the salvation of democracy to the rest of the world, and its been a particularily smash hit in Iraq. I mean, if Jesus died for my sins--who will for Saddam's?


In time you will come to love the bomb, there is no need to worry.

When people cite that originating acqusience of intent for the conspired bombings in London are incontrovertably vitiated by the blantant brutality and deception of the War on-er I mean--In Iraq (against that, you know, global scourge of terror) they are not excusing the fact four men decided to bomb the railway system. They are trying to unravel the non-linear path-dependent history that stimulates and enables individuals to perpetuate the en masse abrogation of human rights. While the CIA announced that the repressive occupation in Iraq fosters that which instigates individuals into believing in the profit of lawless murder, the occupation itself is simaltaneousily lucrative for some, commendable for others, and to the people directly afflicted--who are not in positions of air-conditioned authority--the tangible reason why people they see everyday are dissapearing everyday.

The reason why the "worst war in history" is always the most recently decided upon one is because you've had every other war to know why not to start another one.


      Wednesday, July 13

whenever, where ever

President Allende remembers quite a different ending to the day september 11th, thirty three years ago.


The Destructive Rebound of Seeding Backlash

It "is no trivial dinstinction" to comparatively recognize that the United States is the world's foremost distributor of armaments and munitions; and every month there is further turn over in the destructive potential of military poweress with the momentum of technological production fueled by annual installments of tens of hundreds of millions of dollars naïvely demanded for defense spending.

President Bush, with his wrecklessly misleading rhetoric, is making good use of those billions of dollars of defense spending by "spread[ing] [his] ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their [those unofficial terrorists] ideology of hate." Yet Bush with these sophomoric binaries, beyond congealing already pressured tension, does not even consider the circulatory implications that already and concurrently the United States questionably prearms Isreal with billions of dollars of technologically advanced military fortification. When will US citizens, paying for this, ask their congress members and president how much cost comes with so much money?

When there is a definative lack of necessary inquiry into the origins that foster the down-to-earth conditions that enfranchise terrorist recourse (or other consummate violations of human rights), such as living daily in a world of localised subsistence* or under the often assured savagery* of extensive military occupation**, there will be no real progress in uprooting what incites would-be terrorists*** to acquiesce with the use of lawless violence however justified.

*See Jared Diamond's chapter on Rwanda in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" (which I plan on digitizing and uploading later).
*Were you expecting the first ever collateraly clean military campaign?
**Not necessarily so but should not be surprising either (see above).
***Unavoidably this includes tyranical "diplomats" such as General Pinochet who is, just now, finally being justifiably convicted.


      Tuesday, July 12

Karl Rove's Unintended Nonspecific Storytelling


While the utterance of a name hasn't yet been confirmed, Rove's attorney did announce Karl Rove had been talking about Plume's actions as a CIA operative with journalists behind her back. If we dismiss the astounding occurence of her name's true identity appearing four days later in an exposé of her life's work as an undercover CIA opertive, then it is possible to assume Rove was merely swapping exciting cloak and dagger stories with his associate journalist Matt Cooper.

I mean for whatever other reason would Rove have to be talking with a journalist about the actions of an active CIA operative who is the wife of the man who--incidentally--had been expertly critical of this administration's use of faulty evidence for promoting its global war on terror in Iraq*?

Though, reckoning with Rove's past success in obsigning secrecy it seems as if he's escaping conviction by stock piling his time and stonewalling the investigation through his attorney's peculiarly silhoutted answers. Though too, it still just seems to me unreasonably irresponsible for Rove, so close to the President and privy to such channels of access, to be conversing with the press on such topics as sensitive as these. Not to also to neglect that he's doing so in the midst of a war on terror when this administration has demanded of congress a regulative loosening of garunteed civil liberities in the "necessary effort" to tighten the boundries of national security. Then again, I also can't help but wonder how easily this operative's true name might be unearthed for those interested knowing she's the wife of an internationaly reknown nuclear forensics expert.

And it's not like this administration's myriad-wise practice of stonewalling doesn't have an unnerving precedent: they are even unwilling to disclose the number of heart attacks Vice President Dick Cheney has had to be hospitalized for**.

This is unraveling at a time when recently reactionary congress members have been attempting to dismantle public broadcasting by their collective vetoing of grants necessary for the infrastructure that enables local stations to broadcast. The denial of these invested funds would also stymie the production of what studies have actively shown to be programs the people of the United States like having on the air. Besides the peremptory closure of children's educational programming, these measures also targeted news services like Bill Moyer's NOW^# as unilaterally liberal. Bill Moyers explains:
"The really revealing moment came a couple of weeks ago when Kenneth Tomlinson gave an interview to The Washington Post, and he said he was watching "Now" himself one night, and he just couldn't take what we were reporting from a little town in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. My camera crew, one of the great journalists of our time, a network journalist named Peter Bull, had gone with the team and spent time in this little town looking at what was happening economically in this town as a result of downsizing, outsourcing, loss of jobs, people losing $20 an hour jobs for $9 or $6 an hour jobs.

It was a really good reporting about the losers in the class war. And Kenneth Tomlinson, a right-wing Republican, couldn't take that because it was contrary to the party line. The party line is: Globalization, NAFTA, CAFTA, all of this is really good for people, and if we just have the patience, we'll see that. Well, we were reporting from the front lines of what's happening on globalization to American workers, and he became furious. And it was that moment, he said, he decided I was a liberal advocate journalist, and that's when he really turned up the heat on "Now." Why? Because we were reporting what was contrary to the official view of reality. It's not my opinions he opposes. It's journalism that is beholden to nothing but getting as close as possible to the verifiable truth.^&"

Perhaps it is premature but I think with the evidence thus so admitted by Cooper's "double super secret background" we can postively conclude that "Karl Rove is a snitch.^¿"

*From the post two posts below, "what Karl Rove did was to leak his wife's name in order to, I think, openly indicate that future of any person speaking out against this administration and their actions would face similar retialiation."
**Again I must point to Dean's
Worse Than Watergate, chapter two "Cheney's Health Secrets."
^#A guest on July's 12th Democracy Now pointed out that Bill Moyers has been currently retired.
^& See the transcripts.
^¿This mornings overheard improvisational observation.


      Monday, July 11

The Interpretative Intellegence of Gender Equity

this actually from my comments on a thread over @ Alas a blog

So there is the obvious point that science, hitherto, has been encoded by the language of men: and it cannot be denied women have been systematically denied the right to education. Harvard/Yale only made enrollment a possibility for women after ~1960. This is changing–Marie Curie, for instance, is actually awarded two nobel prizes (one in physics and seperatly one in chemistry as the single recipient). More recently, Vera Rubin’s analysis of cosmological phenemona incontrovertably grounded the notion of dark energy, and she also pinpointed the first pulsar (this work, she did, was actually abducted by her superior who went to be awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery); she should be awarded one. Another exemplary female in theoretical physics is Lisa Randall, who is ”the most cited theoretical physicist of the past five years, having garnered 10,000 citations for her work.”

Any arguement that there is a substantive divergence in the aptitude or cognitive faculity between the biological sexes is immature. The mind/brain system of the human being, to borrow an aphorism from linguistics, “permits infinite use of finite means.” To then go on and suggest this “infinite generative capacity” could be capped by merely divergence of biological sex into the female phenotype* is then, at the least, misogynist.

That the freedom of creativity and intelligence, endowed in this way without limit, exists, empowers anyone.


The only way science will be able to elucidate the epiphenomenal processing of the human mind is to unravel the gears that wind our genetic predisposition; not to mention the in toto congruence of the brain itself is not well understood. But until the nueromechanical agents responsible for the coherent intelligence of the human being, that are subsequently coupled with all phemonological expirience**, come into explanatory adequecy it is not only immature, but premature (if not out-right misogynist), to suggest the minds of women are unable compute on par with men.

*I don’t mean to suggest that there are only two possibilites of biological sex.
**Without going into the debate of nurture/nature, I should point out the pyschosomatic feedback that is on-the-fly and a persistent aspect of our mind/brain system. Cortisol, the chemical foremost responsible for anxiety and stress, is generated by the mind in response to its perception of danger. Ie, if you see a bear and percieve its presence as a threat your mind will artificially stimulate the production of cortisol. Yet, extrapolated to the general permitivity of reality, this suggests that the incoming perceptual data is able to tweak the biological condition of the mind/brain. Hence, a restriction of access to information (or a living condition similarily abject of situational richness) would similarily deprive the mind/brain of its cognitive aptitude.


      Saturday, July 9

astigmatic morality: How one spreads an "Ideology of Hope"

Apparently something lesser known is that this morning [of the bombings in London] Bush, bicycling, collided with a police officer--Bush suffered some scraps and bruises, but the officer has a sprained ankle.

So I'm sure you've heard of the conspired bombings in London. Oh come on, it's not that bad--only ~60 people dead? The 9/11 attacks were far worse: those toppling towers took down over 3000 people! I mean, everyone is objecting to Amnesty's condemnation of Guantanamo Bay as similar to the gulags of Stalin's state: they're crunching the numbers (apparently the underlying ethical principle can be ommited if enough people die, where that marker is I don't know), and it's something like millions died in gulags where there are nearly 70,000 detained by the Bush's War on Terror: the ratio of difference is to the same degree of magnitude. So what's the big fuss about what went down in London?

This dimissal of what happened (the conspired bombing) as a mere trifle was actually a caricature in order to highlight the ethical inconsistency of those who disagree with Amnesty International's condemnation, who otherwise are opposed to the violation of human rights. It is this same astigmatic moral normalisation that enhances the belief that what Bush, and his ideological demand of military supremacy, is doing is legitmate.

In fact the success of PR-obsfucation of the exigent and murderous consequences of the unilateral and premeditated war on--err, I mean--in Iraq (apparently against the global threat of terror) ipso facto is given by the audicity of Bush being able to say--without being immediatly impeached--in speech earlier today in direct response to these bombings, that he "[with] the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, [are against] those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks." This comes from the head of the same administration who not less than two weeks ago conceded to admit that individuals being incarcerated incommunicado at Guantanamo Bay were, in fact, being tortured^#.

Didn't a notable congressman already say, "disconnected from reality"?

In a similar vein another question that may be posed in the recent refusal of Judith Miller to release the name of Karl Rove for leaking to the world the true name of an active CIA operative. Perhaps it's not Karl Rove, but how surprised would anyone be to find out it was him? But the question I would like to pose is whether or not Miller is protecting Rove or protecting herself from Rove. Having read "Worse Than Watergate*," and knowing the unconscionable extent to which Rove, and the administration, are willing to immure any individuals who would dissent or challenge the presumbly reputable ideological phalanx of Bush's administration, it should come to no suprise she won't divulge his name.

Given that the brain of Bush, whose ineliminably deceitful War On Terror/Iraq, is in such a focused state of binary contrasts that he will advocate "spread[ing] an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their [those unofficial terrorists] ideology of hate." How do you do this? By preemptively and unilaterally invading a country? After first massaging their defenses with unannounced bombing campaign? And then torturing any number of suspects who qualify certain stereotypes? Who isn't leary of such egregious and apodictic hypocrisy?

Perhaps it should be too mentioned that the contract for the recent expansion of Gauntanamo Bay went to Halliburton.

To defend Miller's fullfillment of confidentiality**, in this particular case, is to imply Karl Rove is the actual whistleblower. In the binding history of this case, it is actually her husband who is the whistleblower. What Karl Rove did was to leak his wife's name in order to, I think, openly indicate that future of any person speaking out against this administration and their actions would face similar retialiation.

If he is allowed to evade the criminal implications of his explicitly sociopathic tacits, who would be willing speak out against this administration?

*see the way Senator McCain of Arizona was handled by Rove in the competition during the presidential nominee selection in John Dean's short book, Worse Than Watergate.
**Having been pyschologically threatened with imprisonment I am not sure if I feel it was right to imprison her. I should also point out she never wrote the article exposing the CIA operative's name.
^#Although not said here, those who've died--and those who still are living in that likely possibility of such hostile conditions--in Iraq as resulting directly from the continued occupation should not be ignored.

GIRAFFES OBSERVED IN SUSTAINED FLIGHT

GIRAFFES OBSERVED IN SUSTAINED FLIGHT
22 July, 2005

Little did scientists realize the importance of the neck's of the giraffes during what most would conclude impossible, their majestic and incredibly long-lived flights. "The columnar neck is crucial in how the giraffes are able to maintain their aerodynamic lift," said one astounded scientist from JPL, "it is baffling as to how the scientific community neglected this aspect."

Previous research emphasized the swirling of the tail as the probable mechanism enabling these giraffes to sustain flight. Like a torpedo whirring forward, scientists studying oversized mammalian flight pointed to this as the giraffes' means of staying propelled.

It turns out that the tail and neck are actually used in conjuction. "A periodic tilting of the neck and much faster and constant rotating of the tail keep the overall form of the giraffe airborne," the same nasa spokesman said, "just like spinning of a gyroscope." The giraffes are apparently able to vertically manuver with a sweeping motion of the neck, like a hang-glider pushing up or down on their rebar. "What we don't know is why these giraffes started flying, and why they continue to do so."

well if you want to by going to the particular nuances of a dictionary

So historical materialism [dialectic materialism] is so frequently cited as expressed by Marx I'd like to point out that he technically used the seemingly equivilent words: differentia specifica. Having done some calculus and understanding differentiation, I think his words resonate with profoundly more analytical specificity. Anyways, a democratic country should never elect a President who doesn't read the newspaper.

More to the point, do you think president Bush could really say with an honest composure that he really actually doesn't like war? Or succinctly put-- Bush likes war (hear him say otherwise). He's proud of it, and I think he takes pride in that he got away with doing it. At the same time there is the projection of this anti-human behavior as representing what America best eptomizes and distributes, democracy and its sidekick freedom. But I don't need to say more where Bob Dylan has already expressed my superlative consternation:

"Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain"

Even worse in domestic magnitude is that his administration is spearheading the ulterior motive of the reactionary republican right to disarticulate democracy in the United States and all the sociopolitical circuits that keep it running. Not to mention the step-by-step subduction of the economic future of this country by conscious policy selection favoring those very institutions and individuals that have already so undermined what is possible.

All with the concurrent irony that his blood grows more thick with oil by the day.

Isn't intended manslaughter just actually murder?

Corpses don't find themselves buried under dams. It's as if Edgar thought he could have a good ole time drinkin' and gunning a bulldozer around the constructive site one night, when in a freakish accident of choice he ploughed over (for the extra 45 points) these three men who unfortunatly decided to take a long walk through the Missippi air on the same night. That's ^manslaughter--this is concsiousily willful and intended murder: it needs to be recognized as such.

It's not such Edgar who murdered these men, it's an entire posse he whipped into racisct frenzy; they need to be prosecuted too. We can't let the bigots of this world believe they can do these miserable acts against other human beings without loosing the right to the sovereignty of their own lives.
It's not enough to have a president whose damaging incomptence will mire the future generations of this country (among others), espicially when his overriding oil-tycooning rollback the oppurtunities we have now to take action in history.

^Voluntary, I know. But the critical aspect is the extensive intension involved. Manslaughter here is viable under the condition of "acting under a sudden and intense passion," but underlying his tense flash of racist hatred is the persistent, day-to-today confidence in a racial existence and superiority. This needs to end.


the testy perturbation

This is the period at the end.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?