Middley Ages

_____ _ _ _     _ _  _

Persons living in the age of Empire, or afterwards, in the age of Middley (“Middle Ages”) or the age of the Monarchies or the Early Modern, or the age of the Republic, or the age of the “Democracy,” if you believe that (ha ha ha), necessarily relate to this HUGE structure. They need to relate to the behemoth.

If you are an Aztec Indian, or an Inca, or whatever it is, you certainly know “who” is behind you. In fact you know who is in front, who is on the side, and who is weighing you down with a crushing weight on your cabezcum. This is your empire or your kingdom or your oppressor or savior or your Christ or whatever you want to call it, and you sacrifice yourself to “him.”

The only persons who every get out of this trap are the anarchists—and they only get out philosophically, musician John Cage has once expressed.

from a book, by Simone de Beauvoir (1948) ; Also The Citadel Press, NY: 1964

(p. 154, "The Ethics of Ambiguity" by S. de Beauvoir) 

...Hegel, in his Phenomenology, has emphasized this inextricable confusion between objectivity and subjectivity. A man gives himself to a Cause only by making it his Cause; as he fulfills himself within it, it is also through him that it is expressed, and the will to power is not distinguished in such a case from generosity; when an individual or a party chooses to triumph, whatever the cost may be, it is their own triumph which they take for an end. If the fusion of the Commissar and the Yogi were realized, there would be a self-criticism in the man of action which would expose to him the ambiguity of his will, thus arresting the imperious drive of his subjectivity and, by the same token, contesting the unconditioned value of the goal. But the fact is that the politician follows the line of least resistance; it is easy to fall asleep over the unhappiness of others and to count it for very little; it is easier to throw a hundred men, ninety-seven of whom are innocent, into prison, than to discover the three culprits who are hidden among them; it is easier to kill a man than to keep a close watch on him; all politics makes use of the police, which officially flaunts its radical contempt for the individual and which loves violence for its own sake. The thing that goes by the name of political necessity is in part the laziness and brutality of the police. That is why it is incumbent upon ethics not to follow the line of least resistance; an act which is not destined, but rather quite freely consented to; it must make itself effective so that what was at first facility may become difficult. For want of internal criticism, this is the role that an opposition must take upon itself. There are two types of opposition. The first is a rejection of the very ends set up by a regime: it is the opposition of anti-fascism to fascism, of fascism to socialism. In the second type, the oppositionist accepts the objective goal but criticizes the subjective movement which aims at it; he may not even wish for a change of power, but he deems it necessary to bring into play a contestation which will make the subjective appear as such. Thereby he exacts a perpetual contestation of the means by the end and of the end by the means. He must be careful himself not to ruin, by the means  which he, the end he is aiming at, and above all not to poss into the service of the oppositionists of the first type.

Right-ist and Leftish (Part 2)

Here is our previous query. This reproduction comes direct from the past, via a method known as "cut and paste." It is from "part the first." Which was so brilliant that I had going to reproduce it here. I need time to breathe. OK, I'm OK now. I will write it out again (well, the computer helped):  
Is there any such a thing as mistreatment? Has anyone ever been mistreated --- for no reason? Has anyone who was just completely innocent, just standing there, ever actually been mistreated?  (Isn't that a brilliant question? You can also find it right here:
http://jacksgreatblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/right-ist-and-leftish.html)

     So, what I figgered out (all on my own, no thanks to John Carleton) is this.
 To say someone was MIS treated, as if for NO REASON, is to say that things happen for no reason. Or to say that karma is not involved. On the other hand --- I always work dialectically --- the Buddhist sages say that "karma"---not to be confused with "harm ya" ---is definitely something that WE can intervene in. This is confirmed by that Theradavin website, the one I linked to in pt. the first. So, the answer would be that no OTHER person ever mistreated us. Our suffering did not come from outside. The mistreatment comes from our minds. And our karma.

     So, it's still pretty complicated. I think I'm getting warm but I do not feel I am on top of it yet. I still need help, so the query is still out there, there is the same call for Comments. If not, I'll keep working on it myself.  worldcitizenjs@gmail.com   -thank you

Why'd He Shoot? pt. 2

Just in, some real gems from the BBC. I have packaged them for you in these {""} marks:

"The Pentagon said in a media briefing that the killings, in the early hours of Sunday, were "tragic" but insisted it was an isolated incident."
Oh. Where'd the New York newspaper's "long seething public outrage" go? The NY paper did not say it was "isolated." I guess NY and London must redact ideology differently. Hey, I think that the blokes in England are being nice to us!

"Officials have offered no explanation for the incident, but reports suggest the soldier might have been drunk..." I understand the Russians had that problem in Afghanistan, too.

I'll bet you just can't wait for more from the BBC:
"A Pentagon spokesman, George Little, described the killings as tragic and deplorable. They come on the heels of two other episodes which have undermined the military's reputation in Afghanistan - photos showing US Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters, and the burning of Korans at the Bagram air base. Mr Little said it would be wrong to see the three incidents as part of any broader trend."
No broader trend. Funny how that reminds me of the words "isolated incident." I could be biased, however, since I have been know to read alternative newspapers like the "east village other." Which may be biasing me. Funny, too, how the NYT tries to tell the truth sometimes. But it is in a sort of a vanishing ink way and then afterwards you think maybe you have hallucinated it. It gets in but then it tends to "disappear" into some black hole right after you were pretty sure you did read something interesting. I already wrote about this once. I did not see anywhere on this BBC webpage any mention of what the N.Y.T. actually did mention, which is that there has been a longstanding gripe against London's buddies the U. S. military.

Maybe the NYT reporter was drunk.
Either that --- or white people lie.
No other way to say it mates.
Here's the words that come after "the soldier might have been drunk:" maybe drunk OR "...had suffered a nervous breakdown." Oh, I see, maties, it was the nerves. We have that phrase too, though. "Nervous Breakdown." He certainly may have had a nervous breakdown. So , methinks, That Answers That.
Well. That may well be. He may have had some drinks that night, or a bad case of the "nerverszzz," as we call it here, stateside.

Finally, remember that president Obama said this particular man was a particular man and not typical, or a typical man. He was, Obama, said, not representative. He was non-representatory of all of our excellent men and women. That was just the perfect time for Obama to emphasize, in sight of the world, that our soldiers are so excellent. I cannot get over the inappropriateness of that. It would bring up visions of shiny brass buttons and stuff like that. There are 16 people who will never hear Obama's important and presidential statement about how that guy was non-representative. Is it possible that he thinks of himself as reciting a statement that Afghans cannot read, or no one would ever translate it into Dari or Persian for them? I am getting a "nerves" attack myself, I think, from all  this stuff.

     And I am losing it. In fact I'm getting all emotional. Not a good sign. Not good at all.

Why'd he shoot? (Full Story Needed)

_____
The full headline, in smaller script than is usual for newspapers, as I saw it peering into the newsbox this morning on the street:     

"  U. S. official call for calm, warn of potential reprisals, after soldier allegedly kills civilians in Afghanistan; Karzai demands account.  "

So far I have looked a few places for comments. Not surprisingly, I have not seen any published comments from a persons who thinks like an ordinary person. The people of this "democracy" get as usual no word from a regular sort of person, who, nevertheless, incredibly, may see what is happening here a lot more clearly than say CNN or NYT. Maybe I should scratch around a little more to get an idea. I'll check and see if anybody gets what is quite obvious to me------- and what certainly a few of us must get.
______
So, what's the result? First, I read the main story about it in the NYT on-line. The reporter from the Times writes: "long seething public outrage has been growing explosive..."  This is an observation of something "other," or far off, reported in deference to neutrality, observation. Neutrality, of course, is the main pose of  U. S. journalism, but what about understanding what is going in their own back yards? That "Long seething public outrage has been growing explosive here,..." [followed by a recounting of only the recent incidents, which makes it sound ungrammatical, since two recents events, the book burning event and the desecration of Afghan corpses event bring to mind not "long" seething public outrage but only recent outrage] is like a neutral observation of somebody else, some other, or someone else's country, an exogenous territory, but why not understand yourself before you understand or comment on someone else, out "there"?
    If U. S. persons have no understanding of themselves---if the newspaper writers cannot report on the nature of their own society, ...what then?

Here's a little more apocrapha. Obama says:
“This incident is tragic and shocking, and does not represent the exceptional character of our military and the respect that the United States has for the people of Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.


As to my grammatical quibblings I checked again and noticed that the article mentions in the next sentence yet another recent event involving the U.S. killing what are called "civilians." Let's have a look:
"
Long seething public outrage has been growing explosive here, spurred by the apparently inadvertent Koran burning by American personnel last month and an earlier video showing American Marines urinating on dead militants. Adding to the problem, the massacre occurred two days after an episode in Kapisa Province, in eastern Afghanistan, in which NATO helicopters apparently hunting Taliban insurgents instead fired on civilians, killing four and wounding three others, Afghan officials said ..."


My objections seem to me to hold. Given that a newspaper provides explanations, there is no explanation of "long" seething public outrage, just of more recent outrages. Is the reporter telling the full story? The reporter fulfills his or her duty to provide the news by flatly stating that there are "long seething" feelings of public outrage but there is no explanation of what the "public outrage" or the outrage or ill feelings or whatever they are are about --- in any specifically "long" sense. How long has the U. S. been in Af? Ten years? Does "long" mean all ten?

The Times They Are A Changin'

"And suddenly, I looked at the bull. He had this innocence that all animals have in their eyes, and he looked at me with this pleading. It was like a cry for justice, deep down inside of me. I describe it as being like a prayer - because if one confesses, it is hoped, that one is forgiven. I felt like the worst shit on earth."
"This photo shows the collapse of Torrero Alvaro Munera, as he realized in the middle of the [originaltypo] his last fight... the injustice to the animal. From that day forward he became an opponent of bullfights"

 http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s320x320/430976_10151370703505584_591435583_23292484_1627367337_n.jpg

 http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151370703505584&set=o.126389617450422&type=1&ref=nf 

According to some, bullfighting is wonderful catharsis. I think the idea here is that it reflects brutal reality back on the spectator, who gets it, views it, and gets a profound effect of some kind. Well guess what. 

     That shit ain't workin' no more. 

     If even the bull knows that the times they are a changin' maybe it is time for the       

               politicians to get it too.

 

                  No more wars!

The State of the Congress and of the Constitution

 Here is what major blog "Politico" says about (the U.S.) Congress:

"They don’t make national policy anymore."
and -- "They can’t earmark money for communities" (back home).


A few lines further down there is a quote from one Dan Boren, a representative in said legislative body: “If you go through all the things you have to do to get elected and you feel at the end of the day, you’re not pushing the ball forward, it’s time to go do something else,”

Finally, here is Conn. Senator Leiberman on how one gets to Congress, and why you would want to in the first place. Leiberman asks: “Why would you spend all the time raising money, run for office and go through the nastiness that’s part of a general modern political campaign to come here and be involved in gridlock? They come here to get something done.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73759.html#ixzz1oesaCYW7

Both are making the same point.

As I remember it, from high school, the U.S. government, according to the Constitution, is supposed to have three branches. It seems like the Congress is a weakening branch, though, and I am not so dang sure about that ol' Soopreem Court of ours, which is supposedly the third branch.

What does this say about the state of the U.S. and the world?

The three-branch thing was supposed to protect against anyone getting too much power. So, no one part of government gets a power that cannot be checked by another branch, in some shape or form.