“We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.“ 

It’s good to finally hear an honest liberal out there.  Does it surprise anyone that The ends of the global warming movement are the SAME ends liberals had before the global warming crisis was invented?  Am I the only one who notices this?

Is it not also ironic that global warming proponents are now shifting gears, covering their tracks, by warning against global climate “change”?  This way, if the numbers don’t show the warming they predicted… it won’t matter to their cause.  If the planet starts cooling… the same people will still be espousing the same solutions — big government regulation.

AMERICA  ~ part 2 

Here is part 2 of my installment on Jean Baudrillard’s book, “America“.  In this portion, Baudrillard really starts ‘drawing the boundaries’, if you will; clearly defining the fundamental elements of society – elements by which we distinguish ourselves from Europe and the rest of the world.   I find great importance in his explanation;  primarily because it reaffirms the fact that we are unique… it carries with it a certain form of identity–an identity we so easily miss without the perspective of a foreigner.  

The confrontation between America and Europe reveals not so much a rapprochment as a distortion, an unbridgeable rift.  There isn’t just a gap between us, but a whole chasm of modernity.  You are born modern, you do not become so.  And we have never become so…

Every country bears a sort of historical predestination, which almost definitively determines its characteristics.  For us, it is the bourgeois model of 1789 – and the interminable decadence of that model – that shapes our landscape.  There is nothing we can do about it:  everything here revolves around the nineteenth-century bourgeois dream.

As an initial matter, I find Baudrillard’s fatalistic point of view fascinating; the differences we have with Europe are not simply skin deep but amount to an insurmountable hurdle.   His phrase, ”a chasm of modernity”, is particularily important in this regard; it implies an inescapable difference in values — values that appear impossible to change.   When he writes, It is almost as if he wishes he could have been born modern; but realizes it would be an futile attempt to become so.  

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently started subscribing to the Stanford University’s itunes podcast and I just finished listening to a speech by Alan Dershowitz discussing the Mideast turmoil. My impression is that his perspective is an incredibly balanced one — one that I feel (and which he clearly points out) is missing in the larger mideast peace debate.

If I can sum up the viewpoint in one word, it would be pragobjectimatic.

I challenge any of my readers who have their ax to grind against Israel to listen with an open mind.  I think you will be surprised with his positions. 

I just read a really great article on WSJ.com about how bad a shape we are actually in economically.  When you look at the mortgage “crisis” in terms of the economy as a whole, it doesn’t even make a ‘blip’ on the radar.

What Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently estimated as a $100 billion loss on subprime loans would represent only 0.1% of the $100 trillion in combined assets of all U.S. households and U.S. non-farm, non-financial corporations. Even if losses ballooned to $300 billion, it would represent less than 0.3% of total U.S. assets.

Are we to believe that our the financial machine that is the U.S. economy can be tanked by the loss of .3% of total U.S. assets?  This is madness!  This is just irresponsible on the part of our politicians and press to hold the ‘R’ word over our heads day-in and day-out… and for what purpose?  Could it possibly be that all this horrible economic news is somehow related to the upcoming election?  Could it possibly be that the media have an agenda?  This is not just some conspiracy theory here, the numbers don’t lie; and if you are going to start spreading doom-and-gloom based on .3% (not 3%, POINT THREE PERCENT) of the U.S. economy, one cannot help but to question the motives behind such news.

The author goes on to point out that if our economy really could be tanked by a downturn in .3% of our total assets… then our problems are much bigger then any stimulus package could ever fix.  

Read the rest of this entry »

I found this article on Americanthinker.com and wanted to share a few potions of it.

So, assuming you are a theist, what do you say to the atheist who asks, “You don’t (chuckle) actually believe in God, do you (snicker)?”…

No matter what evidence you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it. To him, it is not the case that your evidence for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior evidence against God. No, in the atheist’s mind your evidence does not even count as evidence…  

the atheist refuses to expand his mental universe by also believing in the transcendent things that the theist believes in: God, souls, angels and demons, for example. The atheist restricts himself to a sort of tunnel vision.

And this is where atheism becomes vulnerable. The atheist does not disbelieve in God because he has neutrally examined all the evidence, and drawn the proper conclusion that there is no God. On the contrary, the atheist radically misconstrues the plentiful evidence for God, and he does this because of his false worldview, which tells him that only the physical really exists. Before he has examined the evidence, the atheist thinks he knows that nothing non-physical actually exists, and this assumption governs how he responds to the evidence.

There is only one effective way to respond to the supercilious atheist’s question: Speak his language, the language of evidence and reasoning, of logic and proof… Say something like the following:

“I believe in God because that’s what the evidence shows. But before you try to debunk my evidence, we have to ask, what are your criteria for deciding whether a God exists, and how do you know that these criteria are correct? 

So when the atheist asserts that there is no evidence that any miracle has occurred, ask him: “What sort of evidence for a miracle would you regard as being valid? And how do you know ahead of time that any miracle not validated by this type of evidence must not have occurred?”
 

This is only a short portion of the entire article; the author goes on to take you through almost an entire debate … focusing on the weaknesses of the typical atheist position.  It is really a useful article for BOTH sides… atheist and theist alike.

I came across this Calvin & Hobbes strip and realized that this embodies my general blog comment philosophy. It’s definitely true, a short, curt statement can lead to hours of intense debate. If this has caused any unnecessary angst to anyone, I apologize.

AMERICA  ~ part 1

Being this is my first post in the `America` series, I must say I’m somewhat without a clear format to follow.  I must say, Baudrillard’s words speak for themselves… what little I may add is certainly secondary… so I suppose the best approach is to let Baudrillard speak first and then I’ll comment below.

At issue in this particular post is Baudrillard’s more general insight on America’s financial system… it’s capitalist system… its insistence on complete fluidity of capital, it’s dependence on credit, investment, and security.  I particularly like his “parishioner/priest” analogy.

It is true that ownership of money burns your fingers, like power.  We need people to take this risk for us and we should be eternally grateful to them.  This is why I hesitate to deposit money in a bank.  I am afraid I shall never dare to take it out again.  

When you go to confession and entrust your sins to the safe-keeping of the priest, do you ever come back for them?  And the yet the atmosphere in a bank is that of the confessional (there is no more kafkaesque situation):  admit that you have money , confess that this is not normal.  And it is true:  having money is an awkward situation, from which the bank is only too happy to deliver you:  ’Your money interests us‘ == the bank holds you to ransom, its greed knows no bounds.  Its immodest gase reveals your private parts to you, and you are forced to hand your money over to appease it.  

One day I tried to close my account, taking all the money out in cash.  The teller would not let me go with such a sum on me:  it was obscene, dangerous, immoral.  Would I not at least take travelers’ cheques?  ’No, the whole lot in case’.  I was mad.  In America, you are stark raving mad if, instead of believing in money an its marvelous fluidity, you want to carry it round on you in banknotes.  Money is dirty;  that you must admit.

Its interesting that he parallels ownership of money with a sin we must be absolved of — rather successfully using the priest and confessional example.  What is more interesting is that this feeling is a universal one as near as I can tell.  I wouldn’t dare think of carrying over $100 cash on me at a given time–never mind the fact that I’ve never had my wallet stolen nor have any fears that it might soon be lost.  I have been conditioned to believe that the bank is the only reasonable place wherein my cash belongs – conditioned into believing that missing out on that 3% interest rate on a grand is the first mis-step in a life doomed to poverty.  After all, if I don’t put that next check right into the bank… I might (gasp!) SPEND it!  Save, Save, Save!  and by no means, don’t trust yourself with that responsibility!  The temptation will be too great to bear if you can feel those bills with your own two fingers; you MUST banish it from your presence… only by forgetting it exists can you be responsible with it.  (but such is the way I was raised).

In some ways it is truly a backwards culture we live in; only by forgetting and removing something from our top-of-mind awareness can we effectively ‘use’ it.

How much more bizarre is it then, that Americans live off credit cards… charging this and that… and frequently incurring debt greater then their cash savings (and paying 20%+ in interest).

What is even more interesting to me — and not directly addressed by Baudrillard — is the systematic devaluation of cash as a means of exchange.  As technology makes things more convenient, we are always turning to non-cash alternatives to procure goods and services (and pay them off for that matter).  If I had my way, I wouldn’t pay with cash at all;  the magical numbers residing on some bank server somewhere gratiously allowing me a modest balance seems more preferable to me –even in its abstractness — then a wadfull of cash ever would.

Is this some universal preference?  or am I just the one crazy person!

I spent most of last weekend reading a book titled “America” by the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard.  Baudrillard, who recently passed away, was perhaps France’s most influental “modern” philosopher (in terms of his writing, he would be classified as a ‘post-modern’ philosopher.)  In some ways, I am on a Baudrillard `kick`… America is the third book of his I have read, all have been excellent.

Although not a particularly recent book, “America” it is still a very insightful look into American culture and opinion as a general matter.  Baudrillard’s genius is the ability to ascertain causes–to determine why things exist in their current form.  Much of the book spends time exploring the reasons WHY the US is different then Europe –Culturally and Politically — often with a surprisingly positive conclusions.

Over the next month, I will be exploring a number of different topics addressed by Baudrillard–sparing you the time required to read the book in its entirety, but allowing you to think about the important issues he raises. 

If you are looking for stimulating reading without weeks of commitment, I highly suggest picking this book up at your local amazon.com retailer.

I typically stay away from posts that edge on politically incorrect.  My basic reasoning?  I should be able to make the same point with equal forcefulness without needing the (potentially) inflaming statement.  

However, Not every blogger follows this approach.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/01/21/bitter.cold/index.html

A fascinating article from The Economist. Scientists are, evidentially, genetically engineering varieties of grapes to improve their wine-making qualities:

Why should sauvignon blanc be stuck with boring old gooseberry and cabernet sauvignon with cassis? Genomics could beget some novel wine flavours and combinations to ensure the wine really does go with the food: pinot noir with cranberries, pork, and sage and onion stuffing, perhaps.

And why stop there? It would surely be wise to boost the levels of wine’s beneficial ingredients and add a few more for good measure. Consistent amounts of resveratrol, quercetin and ellagic acid will help improve cardiovascular health and may even confirm what the French have known all along—that drinking red wine is good for you.

A gene for producing acetylsalicylic acid, better known as aspirin, would help to prevent heart attacks and blood clots. You could get your doctor to supply your daily half-bottle by prescription. The aspirin’s analgesic effect would head off hangovers before they even started. Caffeine could be added to keep drinkers awake during boring dinner parties. And it may even be possible to insert a gene to produce sildenafil citrate, the active ingredient in Viagra. For many men that would help to prevent the ultimate wine-induced humiliation.

God’s speed, all you scientists and genetic engineers. God’s speed.