April 04, 2012

______

The idea of making sense is one of the most bizarre ideas ever.

Stuff does make sense

Stuff does make sense because stuff does have to

Human beings do not have a role, so, the concept of making sense does not make any.

How would you "make" stuff make sense?

 
First you would need to become senseless, and then you would correct yourself.

Self-Promotion

In trying to get readers for myself, for this  blog, I am thinking t'would be best ta provide other texts for you the reading public.
                                          A Text For You My Dear Readers

    Narcissism, a trait considered obnoxious in most circumstances, actually pays off big-time in the short-term context of a job interview, according to a new study to be published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Narcissists scored much higher in simulated job interviews than non-narcissists, researchers found. They pointed to narcissists' innate tendency to promote themselves, in part by engaging and speaking at length, which implied confidence and expertise even when they were held to account by expert interviewers.
"This is one setting where it's OK to say nice things about yourself and there are no ramifications. In fact, it's expected," 

It's from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402144738.htm

Culture and Capitalism, via Jackie Zehner

republished from a letter or blogpost published on <epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com>:
http://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com/2012/03/three-crowd.html

I also heard business leaders fight passionately for their people who were amazing positive culture carriers and less strong commercially. These same leaders fought against promoting the commercial animal/jerks and often won. That made me happy. For both categories of people, there was frequently a fight and the more powerful leaders’ candidate often won. Not surprisingly, partners who were great culture carriers generally had people working for them who were as well and vice versa. What made the firm GREAT for so long is that one held the other in check. You need people who are very commercial but they cannot dominate or you risk the outcome that Mr. Smith described.

It is from someone, Zehner, who worked at Goldman Sachs, and left GS in 2002.


This confirms my theories about culture and capitalism.

10,000 Days for Seven Persons, Iran

"...yesterday, the seven leaders of Iran’s Baha’i community marked a – the anniversary of their cumulative total of incarceration of 10,000 days in Iranian prison for their beliefs. We condemn Iran’s ongoing persecution and arrests of Baha’i community members, and we continue to be deeply concerned by the harassment and intimidation of all religious minorities in Iran, including its significant Sunni and Sufi populations..."

today's briefing from the Sec. of State's Office:

This is what happens in a fundamentalist state. Of course we must define what we mean by fundamentalist but there are some regularities and this means that there is a certain kind of regime or attempted regime: all of which have consistent characteristics, and this is what I mean by using the word "fundamentalist," it seems. Furthermore, fundamentalism usually means a strict interpretation of religion.
     But al-Assad's regime is not fundamentalistic, then, since it is not based in some kind of strict interpretation of a religious tradition. Yet, I am not totally sure where the difference would lie, if there is one. National Socialism in Germany was not religious. But it was extremely totalitarian, and I think we should recognize those similarities. There is Iran and Burma, too. All these countries are, including of course Germany under National Socialism - so, were - established regimes. They seem to have similarities. Some examples: a few privileged persons in control, classification of citizens into formally-designated groups such as party members and non-party members, collecting enemies internally, and killing or torturing them...
     In each case there are specific rules that organize things and create categories. Such rules are category-creating rules. They are rules that create categories; and such rules end up with creating a "good" group versus a "bad" group of human persons, of members of the species homo sapies. Or, sapiens, spelled less informally.

Our Subaltern Reality

                                                    IN the morning

In the morning just after awakening it is perfectly possible that 

I notice that large portions of our lives are subaltern,

completely off any linguistic map 

and of course I am using language to say this 
but that’s exactly why it is so tenuous of a project 
and only occurs just after awakening.

     There are, obviously, alternative versions of reality. In the morning we are transitioning from one state to another state: from the hallucinations of sleep (politely called the dreams) into a state that is of a more mundane sort. And handy, predictable, and boring. But this new state is that of existence

where social codes carefully followed can land one a job in the “private sector” and this proves ones daily butter or bread or something like that. 

         ...but for just one moment 
in the morning you can see for 
a few minutes the other side...
And on that side there may be many areas you could digress to but do not

April Fools, Pt. 2

Sec. of State Hil speaks.

                                              Secretary Clinton (Apr. 1): 

"We will be providing greater humanitarian relief to people in need, and we will support the opposition as it works toward an inclusive democratic transition that preserves the integrity and institutions of the Syrian state." 

Regarding the part after the word "that," I don't think it's very smart thing. 


Our secretary of state talks about the Syrian "state." There are certain persons who are standing around Assad. I have torn the picture out, from the NYT. They are kind of incoherent; so, they try pictures. Good for them. That's creativity. I like creativity. The NYT of course is also the newspaper we were talking about yesterday, the previous post. Here he was pictured making a "rare public appearance." There's another picture, of the family, on Wikipedi. Here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-assad.jpg   ....  I do not see how the Clinton statement makes sense. How you would get rid of Assad only to make a new state out of those who carry out his orders for him and kill. I know it makes good State Dept. double-speak. That is what it is. I do not think there is any real idea to it. To my thinking the State is the people in that picture who are protecting Assad standing around the stage in plain clothes, not dressed as are the others, in colorful flag wraps. "The" Syrian State? This is a complete phony bullshit "state" run by smiling(an alternative word could be: grim-)-faced killers. It doesn't seem to make sense what Hil said. I know she has a hard row to hoe but she shouldn't just say anything, because this is double-speak and it just sounds good. It doesn't make a hoot of sense. The idea, formally stated, would be that there are "institutions" in Syria... It sounds reasonable, but I would suggest the problem is their motivation. They are trying to come up with something to say, to look smart. It just doesn't make sense on the deeper, more intuitive level. "Institutions" are staffed by humans ---- people. What is an institution/state without the persons in it? And these persons are murderer-scum.


The worse he is, the worse his "institutions" are.

This is easy enough to get at, or dig into via internet. I find out a little more, not on institutions (which are invisible, I suspect), but on male and female persons. "She [sister of al-Assad] is married to Assef Shawqat, the deputy chief of staff of the Syrian Armed Forces and former head of the Syrian Military Intelligence." That would be "Bushra," the al-Assad Dad's (one generation older) daughter. "At university Bushra befriended Bouthaina Shaaban who is now member of the Syrian Cabinet." So there is an example of what is really involved, if we speak of a Syrian "institution," and who runs it. I get the idea of how Syria found its heads of its institutions. What I think is that in Syria, every institution has a bastard at its head. And this is what we have to face if we want to intervene. And we should face it.


Something else now. Here is another example of the NYT form of speech, to add to what was in Part 1:


the opposition to Assad, they say, is attempting to "bolster" opposition through "...means that seemed to stretch the definition of humanitarian assistance and blur the line between so-called lethal and nonlethal support."  So, this is what is important to them, and this is what we were talking about before.


Part of the language is the word Seemed. "Seemed" refers to what? -or, who? To nobody. If it "seemed" a certain way then the word "seem" leaves open the possibility that this is just appearance thereby opening up the possibility of another way that would be more actual, more real.

April 01, 2012 (April Fools Day Part 1)

____
     The N.Y. Times is a leading big deal newspaper, and they are weighing in this morning on Syria. The reporting there says the U.S. has joined others (a.k.a. the Arab League) and these others together w/ the U.S. will be supporting the people, or the "opposition" or whatever it is, in Syria. Did I mention this is taking place in Syria? Yes I believe I did. So, there is this support, understood as support for the opposition in Syria, whatever that is. Government NOT in oth'r words.
     The countries in the "Friends" group are united against al-Assad. I think so.
     But the N.Y.T. is not sure, or they are dithering, this being the impression I get from my reading of NYT.

     Support the opposition? OMGoodness. A decision.
     Maybe you should? Maybe you shouldn't? So, pick already! There is a problem here or something.
     They simply have no idea, but they arbitrarily pick; they need to pick a side or something. Maybe their nose. So. Pick a side.
     These people are sub-normals, let's face it. We are talking about arbitrary, clueless behavior. We have no opinion. They have no opinion. What we are talking about here is a kind of choice, a vacant choice. A clueless, meandering kind. You just pick one side or the other----out of the thin air, my friend, out of thin air.
     In such context, we are not surprised to see: "so-called lethal and non-lethal support." It probably sounds like probably something like the difference between military and humanitarian... This is what we are dithering about here: this is the issue.
     Well, when I support someone I always try to support them non-lethally. And, lemme see, we are definitely not supporting Assad, the killer. The, Um-----dictator. You know? That one? So then, the "friends" group, including just about everyone it seems, is supporting "the other side." The U.S., remember, has been supplying all manner of arms to all manner of folks, for years and years and years. We have supplied arms to the rebels in Afghanistan, for example. That was not so difficult! Neither was the decision to supply arms to Saddam Hussein, in the mid-80s. We must stop supplying arms! We've got to stop doing this!!!

     I think if you just have patience, the thing kind of makes sense all on its own. We are supporting some Syrians, the fight of some Syrians, in what is truly their struggle to simply not die, at the hands of a man who is sole power in his country, and who bombs villages. Our "opposition" are persons who simply do not want to be killed. Is that not what al-Assad is trying to do? Kill them?
     The Syrians demonstrate, that's what they did, from what I read in the press, including the esteemed Times. The Syrians demonstrate, and they say they do not like their president anymore, and they get rocket attacks -- get beaten or killed for that. And somebody now thinks like this: it may be important to distinguish between supporting the Syrians non-lethally or lethally. It may also be important in opposing their dying to issue orders and directives regarding whether they shoot back?

     Give me a break. N.Y.T.  ...you slay me. The first few inches of column space seems to caution the readers -- basically that is the whole world? --  on just this very distinction: "the definition of humanitarian assistance." And it is about whether the U.S. government should "stretch" it. That's the topic, it seems so. (see N.Y.T. col 9 April 01, 2012 -the paper edition, which I gazed at briefly, at a Café)
     The U.S. needs to look over its options carefully; and carefully we need to make a decision on some possibilities that may exist out there. And we should remember what the Russians and Chinese are up to in this matter. This is fairly clear. I'm not saying to do anything rash, or to drop bombs on persons randomly. I am saying that if you look, and look carefully, there should be something there, some opportunity or something you can find at some point that can be done. There's got to be some option somewhere for policy.