He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing

He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
- Frank Herbert

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.
- Paul-Muad'dib to the Guild navigators, at his confrontation with the Emperor Shaddam IV.

While I have enjoyed many of Frank Herbert's novels, I must admit Dune is my favorite. There are so many quotable phrases in Dune and the sequels that Herbert challenges the insight and wit of such authors as Robert A. Heinlein.

One of the plot elements I found most compelling was the plan by Paul Atreides, or Paul-Maud'dib, to destroy all the spice "Melange" on the planet Arrakis. Basically this would cause the complete collapse of the galactic empire by making it impossible to travel between world faster than the speed of light. Certainly only an act of desperation or profound ideology could compel someone to do such a thing, but having the capability of actually carrying out such an action makes for a very good bargaining point in a negotiation or confrontation.

As we are a week away from August 2, 2011, when the debt ceiling on the United States government expires, I cannot help but draw parallels to Dune. I cannot help but wonder if one or more persons in the republican party, or right wing establishment is intimately familiar with Herbert's insights exemplified in Dune. At stake is the US and possibly the world economy, and the right is using this threat to destroy it in order to gain control of it, and much more...

They seem to have reached a point where the right is not willing to accept any compromise with the left, or even the center for that matter. In fact, judging by the claims of many on the right they in fact want to see a collapse of the economy. So what is their reasoning, how can this make sense?

Over the last few decades the wealthy have become dramatically more wealthy than the middle class and poor. It can be argued that they are so wealthy in fact that they would not be seriously inconvenienced by the collapse of the world economy. After such a catastrophe they would basically be in a position to renegotiate society itself on their terms, as the majority of people would then be so desperate to settle for any meager claim to survival they could - even to relinquish democracy and freedom itself.

For some it may seem inconceivable that any such despicable conspiracy could be true, but crisis profiteering and shock doctrine are very conceivable. It is not hard to postulate that this is indeed the primary goal of the right, to abolish democracy for the simple fact that in a democracy the majority rules, and that is too big a liability to a minority of wealthy and powerful.

If the right succeeds in abolishing democracy in the United States and elsewhere, what would this brave new world look like? I suspect it would look like many of the dystopian novels I have read over the years, but mostly I think it would turn out like Rollerball by William Harrison.

On the surface it seems as though the right has a winning strategy - they win if the left capitulates to all their demands and they still win if the world economy tanks. In effect it would seem that the right has Barack Obama in a check-mate situation. The problem is that the president may just decide to stop playing chess (my metaphor for politics) and just man up and use the 14th amendment to the constitution "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." to force the treasury to do the right thing in spite of congress. If he really had some balls he would also declare the republican party an enemy of the state and have the justice department prosecute accordingly.

Competition

. . .

In the long term, however, we need to address a set of economic challenges that, frankly, the housing bubble largely papered over for almost a decade. We now live in a world that’s more connected and more competitive than ever before. When each of you tries to bring new jobs and industries to your state, you’re not just competing with each other, but you’re competing with China, you’re competing with India, you’re competing with Brazil, you’re competing with countries all around the world.

. . .

But even as we preserve the freedom and diversity that is at the heart of federalism, let’s remember that we are one nation. We are one people. Our economy is national. Our fates are intertwined. Today, we’re not competing with each other; we’re competing with other countries that are hungry to win new jobs, hungry to win new industries.

Barack Obama - Feb. 28, 2011: Address at National Governors Association Meeting

I for one think Barack Obama is a pretty smart guy - I think he really understands what's going on. So why in this speech did he twice have to say "we're not in competition with each other"?

There is a competition going on in American that not everyone understands yet. If not an all out war, then a very serious game, with dire consequences to winners and losers.

Years ago I used to have friends over on a Saturday or Sunday, and we would play a game all day long. These were games like Risk, Diplomacy, Supremacy, Comic Encounter, Monopoly, etc. The point was these were all strategy games and typically the goal of the game was total domination of your competition. One thing that was very true about all these games was that at some point or another someone, or someones would make their move, they would move from the background of everyone else playing the game and overtly be trying to dominate the game. Everyone else could see it too, because the rest of us would all band together to fight the one becoming dominant, alliances would dramatically reform, tactics would all change, but by then it was usually too late because people would not become overtly dominant unless they knew they had the win, and experiences showed this to usually be true. Few games ever ended in a stale-mate.

If you live in the world of mainstream media you would never be aware of what is going on because all you would see is games like Jeopardy, Survivor, The Price is Right, and other equally inane games of novelty. In truth I mean the mainstream news media like 60 Minutes, and Anderson 360, CNN, and all that other fluffy stuff that pretends to be serious or have some analysis. Or you might prefer Faux News if what you really just need is someone to tell you what to believe. However, if you spend any time watching PBS shows like Frontline, or networks like MSNBC, you might actually be exposed to some analysis and critical thinking.

There is a very serious game going on now, and most people just think it is politics - but they would be wrong. Politics is just a setting for the game, and not the real game. Nor is politics the only setting for the game, as there are other settings such as religion, ideology, commerce, class (or caste), etc. What are the stakes? Well, basically democracy and human rights.

If we look at some of the recent plays in the game we could look at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's recent attempt to strip public employee unions of their bargaining rights, it is not hard to see that his original claims that there was a budget crisis in the state are patently false. First of all, he manufactured the crisis by giving enormous tax breaks to businesses thus creating a revenue shortfall for the state. Then, even when the public employee unions agreed to all his conditions, except losing bargaining rights, he outrightly refused to accept or negotiate. Finally, in prank phone call he basically admitted to the truth of the situation. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was probably the first person to articulate the real story, and has been able to analyse many similar stories.

So what is really happening? In her book the Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein offers a revealing insight into one strategy of the game. Basically the strategy is to identify or create a crisis, and then use that crisis to promote otherwise unpopular policies as being necessary to resolve the crisis. On the surface this strategy is usually identified as "negative campaigning" or outright "fear mongering," but the strategy goes much deeper than that. To put is simply, if you throw a stick of dynamite into a lake you create a crisis for the fish - you may not kill them, but you can easily harvest them while they are stunned.

So what is overtly happening to show someone is trying to win domination? If you look at right wing politics it is not hard to see that things have been cranked up a notch. The "vitriolic" dialog, mostly from the right, has been so obvious as to gain national attention, especially in light of Gabrielle Giffords' recent tragedy. But there are two distinct aspect to the right wing movement - one is commerce and the other is religion.

In terms of commerce, the amount of money spent by corporate interests in lobbying politicians seems to be growing unbounded, and 80% or more of that funding is for right wing politics. The recent decision by the US Supreme Court to relax restrictions on contributions by corporations to political campaigns shows how effective this lobbying is (and perhaps how effective inside deals are). Basically the Supreme Court was lobbied into making it easier for lobbyists to lobby, and for commerce interests to invest even great sums of money into political campaigns.

In terms of religion, the amount of new legislation that is being passed, or attempted to being passed, on religious ideology, but dressed up as job creating or cost cutting - well, it's quite impressive. Really, why does budget relieve legislation need amendments to restrict abortions or gay marriage?

Why are these two aspects of society so closely tied? Well on the one hand you have commercial interests, where the small minority of ultra rich increasingly need to "sell" unpopular policy to that majority people. On the other hand, you have the religious zealots who have thousands of years of experience of selling complete fabrications of truth to the masses. And the religious extremists need someone with power and influence to sell their unpopular ideas. Anyone with an IQ over 70 should be able to see that line of reasoning.

I will take a brief aside to say, that religion and faith (or spirituality) are not the same, and I do not want to debate faith or spirituality. I merely want to make it clear that "religion" is a tool of both the faithful and the corrupt. Religion is an especially useful tool for the corrupt because they hide their corruption under a cloak of morality.

So, back to what Obama has figured out. What is the game? Simply this...

We live in a finite world, with finite resources, and an unchecked expansion of population. Those right wing think tanks don't get paid to sit around all day and debate political philosophy. They are talented and skilled mathematicians, economists, lawyers, etc. - and they are paid to explain the truth and reality of the world to their employers, and how their employers can best exploit that truth and reality.

Obama (et al) can clearly see that the right has shown their strategy of dominance via their tactics and logistics. He knows that the right has turned inward to undermine democracy. The purpose of Scott Walkers budget relief bill was not to save the state money, but to crush the unions, who are basically the Democrats' main source of campaign funding. The Republicans know they can no longer rule by reason, they can only rule by undermining the ability for their main competition (the majority of voters) to compete on democratic grounds.

Basically Obama's message was to the right - it simply means "let us not turn upon ourselves and compete rich vs middle class and poor, but let us be competitive in the world arena."

Unfortunately this message is really on deaf ears, because the ultra rich in the US have already decided they cannot compete on the world stage, and the only place left to steal resources from is the middle class and the poor in their own country.

Maybe one of the reasons I can see the game so clearly is that I have played it many times before, and it really does not seem complicated or strange. Many times I have won the game too, and all I can say is that when you are playing a game, there is nothing at all that is too unethical, or too immoral, because after all, it is just a game.

Political Premature Ejaculation

Tigger Happy

Scott Walker played his cards on the table and it was obvious he had a really bad hard-on for crushing the democrats. I think his sexual frustration really laid it in totally fucking them as they obviously have been haunting his soul for years. I don't really know if it was the millions of dollar that David Koch was promising Walker, or if he was just getting off on being the next Ronald Regan, who really knows?

I really don't know where this rightest blood lust is going these days, but it is pretty scary.

There seems to be an all out war against the classes in the US these days. Maybe it is just that total capitalism only works when there are no limits on growth, and all the right wing think tanks have realized there are limits. I guess they finally figured out that the only thing left to prey on now is the lower classes. After all - it is pretty clear that the US cannot compete on the global stage anymore with China and India taking the stage.

Just don't forget all those right wing think-tanks are not filled with stupid people. They are elite thinkers paid to analyze the truth. It is just a truth that the right wing is not sharing with everyone.

Politics on Trial

Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I don't believe there is any royal road to attain such accommodation concretely. ~Judge Learned Hand, in P. Hamburger, The Great Judge, 1946

I started out to write a blog article on politics a few weeks ago, but when I started to research politics it turned out I had no idea what politics was - consequently I did not feel qualified to comment. I basically spent the whole afternoon learning about the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, etc. Did you know that classic liberalism is basically what the right (often call conservatives) believe. Labels can be misleading. Generally we lump all politics into a single line left-wing and right-wing, but in reality there are many more dimensions to politics, and most of us deliberately blind ourselves to those other dimensions.

I am fascinated by American politics, perhaps because the stakes are so high the drama is more intense - clearly there is more entertainment value than Canadian politics. I am however concerned by how much American politics spills over and influences Canadian politics.

"[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.

But to the topic at hand - Politics on Trial. We as a society are often called upon to make some big decisions. Two decisions in particular, how to select our leaders and how to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused, seem to have dramatically different processes.

Generally in our legal system (I can't use the phrase justice system because laws often trump justice) when someone is accused of a crime there is a well defined process which seeks to ascertain the truth of the matter. Generally it is an adversarial process where there are advocates (lawyers) for each side of the decision, and they are responsible for debate (trial) in front of an audience (the jury) and there is a referee (the judge) to enforces the rules of the debate. We hope that we correctly ascertain the truth when the audience has to vote (often unanimously) on which advocate won the debate.

The debate is quite interesting in that an important part of the debate is the concept of evidence. An important component of evidence is testimony. Testimony is so important that there are clear penalties to witnesses making false testimony. Evidence is so important that there are strict rules on how advocates may behave towards witnesses.

Here's where things get interesting: generally the advocates make arguments during the debate, arguments are what connects the evidence together hopefully to logically and rationally ascertain the truth. Remarkably there are fewer rules that the advocates have to make arguments that are logically consistent, valid, complete, or sound. Logical fallacies may creep in either intentionally or unintentionally. Indeed there is a great burden on the audience to have sufficient critical thinking skills to understand the arguments and even debate among themselves when they deliberate.

The legal system is not perfect, but it has goals, standards and process to help make important decisions.

By contrast, in a democracy where we periodically get to decide on who our leaders will be there are surprisingly few rules or processes to ascertain the truth. While every individual who is accused of a crime has a right to due process, and the accuser bears the burden of proof on revealing the truth - collectively as a nation, province, etc. there is no burden of proof on the politicians seeking office to prove they are the best choice for leading us.

In the past there was often debate, in many forms. Politicians would often strive to make reasonable arguments (sometimes based on evidence) to demonstrate to us (the audience) that they were the most qualified to lead us. Increasingly however I have noticed that rarely is any evidence presented in the political debates. Most arguments are made on ideological beliefs, and increasingly often the arguments are logically fallacious. Even more frightening is the extremist nature of these ideologies, but the basic sad fact is debate is increasingly devoid of evidence.

For the most part we rely on media for evidence and sometimes even arguments and reasoning. The mainstream media has often tried to be fair and balanced, especially during times of elections. There are two trends that are compromising this:

1. Increasingly the media is less fair and balanced as it becomes more influenced by profit.
2. Increasingly people only pay attention to the media that tells them what they want to hear, and not what they need to hear. This makes mainstream media less profitable and slanted media more profitable.

In the past, the media used to be more like a referee for the debate, but increasingly there is no referee, the debate becomes a fist fight or rumble without rules, and politics becomes more of a spectacle.

In the end, we each independently are the only referees. Politics has no process like the legal system to guide us to the truth, and the political debate is devoid of truth, evidence and reason.