Ahmadinajad announced to the world today that the Iran Nuke Controversy is "closed."
Thanks God for that. We can all rest assured. No more worry about Iranian Nukes. Thanks for clearing everything up, Mahmoud!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Federalist Papers - A Study
I have begun working in my historical studies upon a Round through the years 1787-88, in the city of New York, where the Federalist Papers were first published in a series of articles that appeared in the city's newspaper.
The pen name attributed to the articles was Publius. Under the name of Publius, a series of 85 articles represented the argument given by the men who sought to unite into a powerful federal government the hitherto independent "confederate" States.
In these past three days, I have read and reflected upon the first 3 federalist papers.
The first paper, written by the hand of Alexander Hamilton, served as an introduction to the whole work. There is a strong appeal to Reason. If only the calm, unbiased, critical observer will weigh point and counter-point, his mind will inevitably be led by the gravity of Reason to the Conclusion that Union is preferable to Dissolution. So goes the Hamilton appeal, which is hampered down by an overabundance of verbiage.
The second two papers were written by John Jay and I found them to be wholly more agreeable to my appetite than Hamilton. I found Jay to be a much more perfect example of the 18th century style of prose. He delivers in his first two articles probably the most important principle upon which the whole argument of Union is founded: security.
The reason for forming the union is pure and simple. Union is strength.
Jay praises highly the men who gathered at the convention in philadelphia to compose the constitution, "men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men."
That the constitution is not being imposed upon the States, but only recommended, appeals to the intelligence of the reader.
"This plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive."
Probably the most compelling argument of all, the one calculated to greatest effect, is the specious appeal to Providence.
"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."
"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."
We can see that the government of the United States, in its genesis, was formed as a kind of super-council of Anglo-Saxon tribal elders. It formed the nucleus of an extended Anglo-Saxon tribal body sharing similar ancestors, language, and religion.
In Massachusetts, a particular sect of fanatical Christian zealots had sought to build a New Jerusalem. This fervor, this belief in being a chosen people, an instrument in the hand of God, has been among the most powerful motives to the militant mindset that has made the history of the United States a bloody one.
In Virginia, there was another kind of "divine right" than we find in the puritan Pilgrims. This powerful class of men was descended from adventurers who built personal agriculture empires through the use of slave labor. Much suffering is buried in the history of the African natives that were held in perpetual slavery by their Indo-European masters during the same time those masters founded their own rebellion upon the principle that "all men are created equal".
Were the Washingtonians so much different than the Assyrians, the Babylonians or any other empire in history, which sought through social power to bind servants to their will? The history of every empire or kingdom is rooted in the deep and dark tribal past of humanity where the difference between winning and losing in conquest is the difference between mastery and slavery.
So it is indeed apparent that this was no pure democracy that was being instituted, but a republic bound together by a fraternity of masters distinguished by a common language, common religion and common ancestors. The slaves were excluded from government because only the chosen are fit to rule, and the covenant of every chosen people is its bloodline.
The first and most sacred purpose of this government is as a monopoly on the power to make war and peace. The genius of the anglo-saxon mind flattered itself that it had reached the loftiest intellectual heights, that it could solve the problem of human government through science and reason. But the darker, more real motives lie not in the lofty abstractions of science and philosophy, but spring from the loins of biological nature, where there is always a lust for the good life that drives political formations. How much further along was the nobility of the Founding Fathers than the Norman conquerors who seized Mother England seven centuries before? How far beneath the surface of the gentleman's civilized demeanor and humanitarian pretensions did the primal barbarian still live and have its being?
Because the Union is what makes us Great.
"I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
Clearly it was the desire of the politicians, in creating the union, to give birth to a great power, to be on equal footing with powers like France, Spain and Great Britain. Jay closes the Federalist No. 3 with an appeal to the pride attached to being a great power.
"In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?"
The pen name attributed to the articles was Publius. Under the name of Publius, a series of 85 articles represented the argument given by the men who sought to unite into a powerful federal government the hitherto independent "confederate" States.
In these past three days, I have read and reflected upon the first 3 federalist papers.
The first paper, written by the hand of Alexander Hamilton, served as an introduction to the whole work. There is a strong appeal to Reason. If only the calm, unbiased, critical observer will weigh point and counter-point, his mind will inevitably be led by the gravity of Reason to the Conclusion that Union is preferable to Dissolution. So goes the Hamilton appeal, which is hampered down by an overabundance of verbiage.
The second two papers were written by John Jay and I found them to be wholly more agreeable to my appetite than Hamilton. I found Jay to be a much more perfect example of the 18th century style of prose. He delivers in his first two articles probably the most important principle upon which the whole argument of Union is founded: security.
The reason for forming the union is pure and simple. Union is strength.
Jay praises highly the men who gathered at the convention in philadelphia to compose the constitution, "men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men."
That the constitution is not being imposed upon the States, but only recommended, appeals to the intelligence of the reader.
"This plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive."
Probably the most compelling argument of all, the one calculated to greatest effect, is the specious appeal to Providence.
"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."
"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."
We can see that the government of the United States, in its genesis, was formed as a kind of super-council of Anglo-Saxon tribal elders. It formed the nucleus of an extended Anglo-Saxon tribal body sharing similar ancestors, language, and religion.
In Massachusetts, a particular sect of fanatical Christian zealots had sought to build a New Jerusalem. This fervor, this belief in being a chosen people, an instrument in the hand of God, has been among the most powerful motives to the militant mindset that has made the history of the United States a bloody one.
In Virginia, there was another kind of "divine right" than we find in the puritan Pilgrims. This powerful class of men was descended from adventurers who built personal agriculture empires through the use of slave labor. Much suffering is buried in the history of the African natives that were held in perpetual slavery by their Indo-European masters during the same time those masters founded their own rebellion upon the principle that "all men are created equal".
Were the Washingtonians so much different than the Assyrians, the Babylonians or any other empire in history, which sought through social power to bind servants to their will? The history of every empire or kingdom is rooted in the deep and dark tribal past of humanity where the difference between winning and losing in conquest is the difference between mastery and slavery.
So it is indeed apparent that this was no pure democracy that was being instituted, but a republic bound together by a fraternity of masters distinguished by a common language, common religion and common ancestors. The slaves were excluded from government because only the chosen are fit to rule, and the covenant of every chosen people is its bloodline.
The first and most sacred purpose of this government is as a monopoly on the power to make war and peace. The genius of the anglo-saxon mind flattered itself that it had reached the loftiest intellectual heights, that it could solve the problem of human government through science and reason. But the darker, more real motives lie not in the lofty abstractions of science and philosophy, but spring from the loins of biological nature, where there is always a lust for the good life that drives political formations. How much further along was the nobility of the Founding Fathers than the Norman conquerors who seized Mother England seven centuries before? How far beneath the surface of the gentleman's civilized demeanor and humanitarian pretensions did the primal barbarian still live and have its being?
Because the Union is what makes us Great.
"I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
Clearly it was the desire of the politicians, in creating the union, to give birth to a great power, to be on equal footing with powers like France, Spain and Great Britain. Jay closes the Federalist No. 3 with an appeal to the pride attached to being a great power.
"In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?"
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Great 21st Century Problem of Christian Fundamentalism
It is not unusual for me to discover the most insightful interviews and articles at the Asia Times Online. I paste below an excerpt of an interview of James Carroll by Tom Engelhardt. The entire interview is well worth the read.
"TE: People sometimes ask me about Iraq: "Well, what would you do?" It's a question that drives me crazy. I always think: Well, why didn't you ask me back when it mattered? Why didn't you ask me when I could have said, "Don't go in"? So I'm hesitant to ask you, but if you had the power to begin to organize people in some fashion, what first steps would you take to mend this world?
JC: Let me just say that we've been talking only America here, in part because I think people are attuned to the threat from what's called "Islamic fundamentalism". My own conviction is that a crucial 21st-century problem is going to be Christian fundamentalism. Its global growth is an unnoticed story in the United States. Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are now absolutely on fire with zealous belief in the saving power of Jesus, in the most intolerant of ways. A religious ideology that affirms the salvific power of violence is taking hold. It denigrates people who are not part of the saved community, permitting discrimination, and ultimately violence. Hundreds of millions of people are embracing this kind of Christianity.
So what am I doing? I'm a Christian. I'm raising this alarm from within the community. That's why I believe, as a Roman Catholic, that my own tradition must be rescued from its current temptation to fundamentalism. There are a billion Catholics in the world. For all its problems, Roman Catholicism has reckoned with the Enlightenment, has accepted the scientific world view, has no argument with evolution, has learned to read the Bible in metaphoric ways, as opposed to literal ones. Today we have a fundamentalist pope, but he rules from the margin. It's hugely important that the Catholic tradition not go fundamentalist.
You ask me what I would do. I think, for one thing, that believing people, whether Jews, Muslims or Christians, need to affirm the importance of pluralism, respect for the other, and modesty about religious claims. I could be a Jew sitting in Jerusalem and offer exactly the same argument about the Jewish zealots making claims on land in the name of God. So Jewish zealotry, Muslim zealotry, Christian zealotry, all three empowered lately, all three armed to the teeth. That's what's really terrifying - and, in the world of weapons of mass destruction, it's not that hard to get armed to the teeth.
So here's a message addressed to the participants in the Tomdispatch community who may have a religious interest: embrace it. Fight for it. Fight for a post-Enlightenment, post-modern, intelligent approach to religion. Don't surrender religion to the wackos.
If the wackos take over religion, they're going to take over state power, and the world won't survive the 21st century. And the United States of America has been at the center of this. When George W Bush launched his war in the name of God ... even more, when this nation took the September 11 assaults as a religious war, Muslims attacking us good, virtuous - we didn't call ourselves Christians, but we were an inch away from it - that's when we began to make our part of this mistake.
TE: And we should have taken it as ...?
JC: A savage crime. Think of al-Qaeda as the Mafia. When the Mafia blows up a distillery and kills 18 people in the neighborhood as part of a turf war, or goes after a hardware dealer who doesn't pay protection money and paralyzes the neighborhood with fear, or when the Mafia takes over a whole region of a nation, as it did in Italy for most of the 20th century, fight back; but fight back against the criminal network with a massive act of law enforcement the way the Italian government did.
It took the Italian government 50 years to break the Mafia's hold over Sicily, and they still have to keep fighting. But they never declared war on Sicily. They never went in and bombed Sicily. They gave their judges and police inspectors and detectives body armor and they went after the Mafia hitmen with highly armed SWAT [special weapons and tactics] teams. I'm not talking about pacifism here. But keep religious ideology out of this. And keep the language of war out, too.
You know, only in going to war do humans feel the need to appeal to God. There's no "God with us" on the belt buckles of cops. God gets invoked in war, because it's a much more extreme state of the human condition. War always brings you very quickly to the point of "us or them".
When somebody comes at you with a savage act of violence, go back at them with your best, most heavily armed cops. Don't go to war against them. It's a very basic idea. It can't be emphasized enough. We're going to have another terrorist attack in this country. It's crucially important that, however horrendous, it be treated as a crime - not an act of war."
"TE: People sometimes ask me about Iraq: "Well, what would you do?" It's a question that drives me crazy. I always think: Well, why didn't you ask me back when it mattered? Why didn't you ask me when I could have said, "Don't go in"? So I'm hesitant to ask you, but if you had the power to begin to organize people in some fashion, what first steps would you take to mend this world?
JC: Let me just say that we've been talking only America here, in part because I think people are attuned to the threat from what's called "Islamic fundamentalism". My own conviction is that a crucial 21st-century problem is going to be Christian fundamentalism. Its global growth is an unnoticed story in the United States. Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are now absolutely on fire with zealous belief in the saving power of Jesus, in the most intolerant of ways. A religious ideology that affirms the salvific power of violence is taking hold. It denigrates people who are not part of the saved community, permitting discrimination, and ultimately violence. Hundreds of millions of people are embracing this kind of Christianity.
So what am I doing? I'm a Christian. I'm raising this alarm from within the community. That's why I believe, as a Roman Catholic, that my own tradition must be rescued from its current temptation to fundamentalism. There are a billion Catholics in the world. For all its problems, Roman Catholicism has reckoned with the Enlightenment, has accepted the scientific world view, has no argument with evolution, has learned to read the Bible in metaphoric ways, as opposed to literal ones. Today we have a fundamentalist pope, but he rules from the margin. It's hugely important that the Catholic tradition not go fundamentalist.
You ask me what I would do. I think, for one thing, that believing people, whether Jews, Muslims or Christians, need to affirm the importance of pluralism, respect for the other, and modesty about religious claims. I could be a Jew sitting in Jerusalem and offer exactly the same argument about the Jewish zealots making claims on land in the name of God. So Jewish zealotry, Muslim zealotry, Christian zealotry, all three empowered lately, all three armed to the teeth. That's what's really terrifying - and, in the world of weapons of mass destruction, it's not that hard to get armed to the teeth.
So here's a message addressed to the participants in the Tomdispatch community who may have a religious interest: embrace it. Fight for it. Fight for a post-Enlightenment, post-modern, intelligent approach to religion. Don't surrender religion to the wackos.
If the wackos take over religion, they're going to take over state power, and the world won't survive the 21st century. And the United States of America has been at the center of this. When George W Bush launched his war in the name of God ... even more, when this nation took the September 11 assaults as a religious war, Muslims attacking us good, virtuous - we didn't call ourselves Christians, but we were an inch away from it - that's when we began to make our part of this mistake.
TE: And we should have taken it as ...?
JC: A savage crime. Think of al-Qaeda as the Mafia. When the Mafia blows up a distillery and kills 18 people in the neighborhood as part of a turf war, or goes after a hardware dealer who doesn't pay protection money and paralyzes the neighborhood with fear, or when the Mafia takes over a whole region of a nation, as it did in Italy for most of the 20th century, fight back; but fight back against the criminal network with a massive act of law enforcement the way the Italian government did.
It took the Italian government 50 years to break the Mafia's hold over Sicily, and they still have to keep fighting. But they never declared war on Sicily. They never went in and bombed Sicily. They gave their judges and police inspectors and detectives body armor and they went after the Mafia hitmen with highly armed SWAT [special weapons and tactics] teams. I'm not talking about pacifism here. But keep religious ideology out of this. And keep the language of war out, too.
You know, only in going to war do humans feel the need to appeal to God. There's no "God with us" on the belt buckles of cops. God gets invoked in war, because it's a much more extreme state of the human condition. War always brings you very quickly to the point of "us or them".
When somebody comes at you with a savage act of violence, go back at them with your best, most heavily armed cops. Don't go to war against them. It's a very basic idea. It can't be emphasized enough. We're going to have another terrorist attack in this country. It's crucially important that, however horrendous, it be treated as a crime - not an act of war."
Ahmadinajad Wants to use 9-11 as Photo Op
A request by Iran's president to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site next week has been turned down by police and blasted by U.S. diplomats as an attempt to turn ground zero into a "photo op."
God forbid should some dirty politician....
God forbid should some dirty politician....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)