Holte's corner

Keep Market ownership separate from market playing

I have a few suggestions for improving the regulation of Banks and other Corporations. I've been refining them since they first popped in my head and trying to make them in line with the efforts of others. I think it is important for me to share them because it is not enough to create more or new regulations or to close the door on a particular problem. To effectively regulate corporations both market principles and democratic principles have to be applied so that the systematic injustices and evils can be addressed and not just the symptoms.

The World Shrugged

101 Reasons the Supreme Court Erred

3. It represents a caving in to the worst Republican Instincts and a betrayal of the best Republican ones

Memo to the Angels

Chimps and Bonobos, Stupid is as Alpha Does

Are we more like chimps or more like Bonobos?

Can we get rid of Corporatism?

I've been wrestling with the problem of corporatism since I began realizing just how much power, in the name of democracy, free speech = advertizing = money; and in the name of the "constitution" -- as interpreted by corporate avatars in the Supreme Court; wield in our country. As I've studied the subject hte fulsome and awful dimensions of the problem have become obvious. How the Fascists were trying to apply the corporatism of the United States to advance their cultures. How Germany built its world dominance on US corporations and banks; and how our corporations nearly overthrew FDR and created a whole host of "Think Tanks" and Faux institutions in order to ovrthrow the ideology of progressivism which tried to fight them. Finally I began to realize why and how people like Ayn Rand were bankrolled into creating a "counter" ideology to Communism, which pretty much borrowed the methods of fascism and communism all the while claiming to fight those ideologies.

The final product of all this is a kind of successor to Fascism that is so to the right of common sense that they label Fascism as Socialism.

Okay all this is true, and as far as my evaluation goes, incontrovertible. No matter how many apologists try to tell you that white is black, that social justice is socialism, or that modern Fascists aren't fascists because they aren't Nazis. None of those arguments really hold water. Sure the National Socialists of Germany were "socialists" but they were nothing like the socialists they were fighting. They were corporate Socialists who believed as Hitler succinctly put it that there was no need to "Nationalize the industries, if they could nationalize the industrialists. Sure modern Corporate Socialists sound more like Mussolini before Hitler hit him with his hypnosis, but otherwise their ideas; privatization, imperialism, nationalism, anti-socialism; are fascist ones. Even the "anti-collectivism" is not so much because they are opposed to collectives in the extreme, but because they believe in the importance of order, hierarchy, and people knowing their place. "Individualism" is a theory that bolsters the power of dominant males.

But the problem remains. In a complex society such as ours. Is there an alternative to corporatism?

Sadly, the answer is no, there is no getting rid of it. The only real answer to corporatism is in the constitution. Not the words itself, but in its answer to the question of how to harmonize judicial, legislative and executive functions.

Impunity and Immunity

Republicans have been slamming Obama for being "too leftist" but I'm mostly worried about him keeping too many right wing people in power who ought to be behind bars and being too "centrist". Even the investigations of the law breaking involved in Torture is mostly an elaborate dance that will likely result in no convictions. The OPR, mostly Bush Appointees held over from the previous administration; is about to clear Yoo and company of wrong doing, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And the same effect is probably going to happen with most of the other few investigations going on. It has already happened with wire-tapping. Meanwhile all the capabilities are still in place, just waiting for an administrator to turn them on again.

Sources:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/30/holder-under-fire.aspx

http://www.eff.org/cases/att

The fact is that we can't reign in the executive by expecting the executive to reign in itself. More importantly, we can't curb abuse of power unless we recognize that it comes from giving all our executives judge, jury and executive powers.

Standing on the Shoulders of Angels

Four Worlds

The Kaballist talk about 4 worlds in their version of the ten worlds theory. The ten worlds of kaballa are metaphysical, they are about what is behind phenoemena. I'm not really interested in propagating their Kosher version, but I am interested in using their power for the sake of creation. To me these worlds map to all three thousand worlds. In a sense I think that they kind of make 12,000 worlds out of them. But we only experience 3000 because only while we are alive (actualized) do we actively experience all three thousand. They are metaphysical worlds. They map to the 3000 worlds of Buddhism but not in a one to one manner. Instead, like the three thousand worlds they interpolate with one another and thus define the world around us.

101 reasons continued...

2. Dishonest arguments in the reasoning with regard to the precedents they were overturning:

Totalitarianism, Socialism and Capitalism

Ayn Rand and Hannah Arendt each claimed that Nazism and Marxist-Leninism were totalitarian ideologies, linked by the same underlying forces. However, the two linked each other for different reasons.

Learning the wrong lessons from failure

The Corporate Democrats are all in a twitter about their failure in Massachusetts, but they shouldn't be. The coming election may seem like a perfect storm to mass movement Republicans, but even if it is, the Democrats have to recognize that is a real storm and the Republicans are led by Mermaids singing on the rocks, and the Democrats have their own embedded sirens. If they abandon principles for the sake of survival, they will surely destroy themselves.

Other reading:

David Plouffe: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204216.html

What I'm worried about: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/7-things-about-the-econom_n_433688.html

101 Reasons why the Supreme Court decided wrongly

Number 1: It privileges anonymous and irresponsible behavior; Taken from Stevens' Dissent:

If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by“Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “‘enhance the relative voice’” of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., non-humans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49)

I'm kinda super busy right now, (also I left my power supply somewhere and don't want to lose the thread in the draft post) or I'd have already had more on this subject. However, the only good thing about this decision is that it takes corporate influence out from behind the scenes and makes it explicit for all to see.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf; read it for yourself

Haiti and Hope

I have long found the story of Haiti beguiling. A lovely Island, spattered with blood; conquered and enslaved by the Spanish who exterminated the native Tainos in a thorough holocaust. Settled by pirates, slaves and their children. Site of a bloody revolt led by the redoubtable Toussaint l'Ouverture. Ouverture, betrayed by his own generals, dies in a prison. His general, Desalines, after betraying his teacher has himself proclaimed Emperor, eventually being assassinated in turn. Forced to pay "reparations" to the French for defeating them and in order to be "recognized" as a Nation. Invaded by English, Americans and Spanish. Invaded by the US repeatedly in this last Century. A lovely, sad, warm and beguiling place. Soaked with blood.

My heart goes out to those people.

We ride on the shoulders of Angels

Ending human terror

Bruce Hoffman in his editorial today maintains that, and I think most people agree that:

1.  First, "al-Qaeda is increasingly focused on overwhelming, distracting and exhausting us."

2.  Second, "al-Qaeda [is using]....a strategy of economic warfare."

3.  Third, "al-Qaeda is ....[seeking] to create divisions within the global alliance ... by targeting key coalition partners."

4.  Fourth, "al-Qaeda is aggressively seeking out, destabilizing and exploiting failed states and other areas of lawlessness."

5.  Fifth, ...."al-Qaeda is covetously seeking recruits from non-Muslim countries"

Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803555.html

The only problem with Bruce's analysis is that he presents all the above as something new, which it isn't. But I'm not interested in arguing with neo-cons. I'm interested in some kind of analysis which might lead to solving problems and improving the general human condition, long and short term. The question is, what do these five things tell us? The above list makes a good jumping off point. Lets see if we can solve his problems.

Ideology, Mass movements and clear thinking.

The difference between ideology and clear thinking is explained on page 159 of Hannah Arendt's book "The origins of totalitarianism;" Ideologies are:

"systems based upon a single opinion that proved strong enough to persuade a majority of people [within the group or in a nation] and broad enough to lead them through the various experiences and situations of modern life"..."an ideology differs from a simple opinion in that it caims to possess either the key to history, or the solutions to all the 'riddles of the universe,' or the intimate knowledge of the hidden universal laws which are supposed to rule nature and man."

Foxes Guarding the Hen House

So far the biggest strategic error the Obama administration has made is related to a tactical success. Obama got into power because he enlisted wall street to his side by involving people like Larry Summers, Chicago bankers, and others such as Geithner and Bernanke in his cause. If he doesn't start distancing himself from these people he's going to destroy himself.

The truth about Geithner and Bernanke's involvement in creating the crisis they are charged with fixing is coming out in congressional hearings. And it is a sordid thing (See Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/geithners-new-york-fed-to_n_414449.html for more). Apparently they were involved heavily in using AIG to leverage risky real estate ventures by the big investment banks (Goldman Sachs, etc...). The report referenced in the Huffington Post notes:

"It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information to the SEC," Issa said in a statement. "The American taxpayers, who own approximately 80% of AIG, deserve full and complete disclosure under our nation's securities laws, not the withholding of politically inconvenient information.

If you ask me Geithner should be fired, and Bernanke too. What they have done with these bailouts is to finance the huge salaries and bonuses of predatory banks, without extracting any punishment or even significant changes in the underlying making money from money system which caused the crisis in the first place. These banks are either too big to exist, need to be run as utilities, or we need to admit we don't live in a Democratic Republic anymore, but in a corporatist financial plutocracy.

"This news ought to serve as a cautionary tale to those who advocate giving the Federal Reserve even more power over the U.S. economy. The lack of transparency and accountability is disturbing enough, but the outstanding question that remains is why the [New York Fed] didn't fight for a better deal for the American taxpayer. Clearly, the New York Fed wanted to suppress details and limit disclosure of the counterparty deal from the American people -- the only question is why?"

Simple answer; do you expect people in bed with each other for more than 10 years not to be corrupt? Geithner did this to transfer risk from the banks to AIG and thus keep his buddies in the black. He rationalized it as necessary to prevent further collapse of the economy. Really simple, they have the economy by the throat. Historically, the first one to make the mistake of not realizing that was Andrew Jackson when he destroyed the National Bank. Too big to fail is no joke -- however the right solution is to break the investment banks up, make the remainder of the giant ones utilities, and prosecute or fire the lot of their officers and insiders. But that "ain't gonna happen."

This is bi-partisan corruption, and it threatens the middle class (what's left of it) threatens the stability of the country, and it threatens all the noble promises made by folks like Obama. All because in our country we have the best system money can buy. Emphasis on the buy.

Joseph Cornell

The Ballerina and the Box Maker

Cornell loved his Ballerina;

She of Bravas, Bouquets, and exquisite scenes,

She of bright lights and palaces in distant places.

He of dusky towers in his meadows;

Making her wonderful little things.

...

He made her miniatures in boxes:

Swans and castles,

Birds and clocks,

Soldiers in the woods,

Medichis, Cockatoos and Peacocks…

And Stars, lots of stars, in his heart.

...

She, his ballerina, danced with the stars,

In Defense d’ afficher, her fame needed none

Like a swan, but free of one of his boxes,

In Palaces like the ones he drew,

But she went where only his heart could travel,

To places his soul could fly, but his feet never knew.

...

He was a knight errant to his ballerina,

Snipping pieces of her gown to take to his tournaments.

Her feathers gave light to his urban solitude

In a tower in a meadow in the Bronx.

...

He loved her from afar,

And she, disappointed in love,

Considered him a friend.

...

But for him, only to her,

Did he save his hearts to send.

And I suspect, she saved her final dance for him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cornell

Freedom and swimlanes part 1

Human beings are endowed with "inalienable rights." This concept sounds good until one gives it logical analysis, then there are all sorts of arguments. Today I'm looking at the definitional arguments. What constitutes an inalienable right?

Buddhism and Freedom

The goal of buddhism is enlightenment. The primary narrative of Buddhism is that by defeating Mara an entire vista of wisdom and understanding can be opened up within any human heart. And conversely, that the way to defeat Mara is by walking towards the light; the path of Buddhism. To me Buddhahood is about freedom. But it is not just about our sole selfish freedom. Once we are aware of the light, we have a duty to share that light.

Atlas Dropped the Ball (or On Selfishness)

Back in High School I was first exposed to Ayn Rand. In college I had friends who were into her. It took reading her musings on selfishness for me to realize why I never got sucked into her orbit the way I was briefly sucked into Heinlein's version of libertarianism. His almost makes sense and is not so insufferable. I still love the term "grok" by which I get a sense of spiritual connectedness to other human beings. I'll always be a bit of a "stranger in a strange land." But I never will be comfortable in the world of Atlas Shrugged. You see....

I read her musings on selfishness.

Objectivism as an Anti-Democratic ideology

It is actually with horror that I find the sheer hatred expressed towards all manifestations of democracy on those pages. I had always assumed that libertarians were influenced by writers citing Jefferson and Hamilton and so were simply conservative liberals, until I started really digging into the subject. (see 6552). They also distort the subject. But totalitarian movements always do that.

Swimlanes and Liberty

I had a dangerous water-cooler discussion the other day. It was really useful because the person I was discussing with has been really thinking about the subject. Maybe he'll break away from the Pinheads or maybe not, but at least he was thinking.

Anyway we were drawing diagrams of liberty, property and I was trying to explain my views on the subject. His argument was that if I denied that there was such a thing as an absolute right to property, or to liberty, I was denying these as fundamental rights. I thought about his diagram and slept on it. And next thing I knew I had the image I wanted. He drew one circle on the board for liberty, one for Justice/adjudication, and another for property.

Ayn Rand says "Bah Humbug" to the Common Good

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/common_good.html

Ayn Rand says "Bah Humbug" to the Common Good

The more I research this movement the more destructive this movement appears to me. In my last post I talked about how Ayn Rand's philosophy of "Objectivism" was amoral bordering on immoral. The reasons I gave were from her list of principles, which denied the notion that humans owe any obligation to other human beings other than to not do them direct harm. To her each of us is to be as Cain was to Able; "each man is an end to himself...existing for his own sake" -- and not for the sake of anybody else. Normally when examining a more nuanced discourse I'd have to qualify her words at this point and say "she meant this in such a such a sense, within such and such limits." I can do that with most religious and philosophical teachers. Often they used such absolute language in an ironic fashion, to get attention. But if Ayn Rand meant these things ironically, it doesn't come across in her language. And when one follows her reasoning you see she reinforces this point consistently. No her thinking is consistant: When she admonishes disciples to hold her ideas "with total consistency" she is perfectly consistent. It never occurs to her that that word "total" is the real basis of all totalitarian systems, which are always based on "ideology."

To quote Hannah Arendt:

"An Ideology is quite literally what its name indicate: it is the logic of an idea It subject matter is history, to which the "idea" is applied; the result of this application is not a body of statements about something that is; but the unfolding of a process which is in constant change. The ideology treats the course of events as though it followed the same "law" as the logical exposition of its "idea." Ideologies pretend to know the mysteries of the whole historical process -- the secrets of the past, the intricacies of the present, the uncertainties of the future-- because of the logic inherent in their respective ideas."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/arendthtml/essayb1.html(source Page 469 in the Chapter "Ideology and Terror" in The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt)

Like all ideologies, "Objectivism" as taught by Ayn Rand has a total answer for all the questions of life, and this total answer not only justifies selfishness and self interest, it tries to make it Moral and right; and she denies all paths that advocate to the contrary. If one believes her arguments her system of thought becomes a "total"...."philosophical system to guide the course of"[ones] "life." I take her at her word. I'm following her admonishment; Philosophy must be debated. And I'm following in the footsteps of Thom Paine when he critiqued Edmund Burke. Not that I'm as smart as any of them, but somebody has to do it.

Objectivism and Reality

Objectivism is basically an example of astro-turfing in the philosophy zone. It is to real philosophy what Marxism is to economics. Ayn Rand was a good author, but her philosophy doesn't hold up to even cursory inspection as an ideology. The only reason it is so popular is that its premises are extremely convenient to the selfish, the greedy, and the powerful.

Polish Aristocratic Anarchy

I have a book on Polish history I've been keeping nearby. I started reading it in order to understand various family members better. But I've been reading it more intensely lately in order to better frame the argument about limited Government. You see the medieval and early modern history of Poland has many parallels to that of Britain and France, and also warnings not just about the benefits, but the dangers of limited Government. You see Poland was a country that was a very special commonwealth. As the Wiki article describes it:

The Nihil novi act adopted by the Polish Diet in 1505 transferred all legislative power from the king to the Diet. This event marked the beginning of the period known as "Nobles' Democracy" or "Nobles' Commonwealth" (Rzeczpospolita szlachecka) when the state was ruled by the "free and equal" Polish nobility (szlachta). The Lublin Union of 1569 constituted the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as an influential player in European politics and a vital cultural entity. By the 18th century the nobles' democracy gradually declined into anarchy, making the once powerful Commonwealth vulnerable to foreign influence. Eventually the country was partitioned by its neighbors and erased from the map in 1795.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1569-1795)

RIP Health Care Reform

The headline says "Single Payer dies in Senate." But what died in the Senate wasn't single payer, it was honest reform of the system. Both the notion of enabling a "public option" for ordinary systems through "medicaid for all" or through a State run alternative; never even got to the floor except as an amendment offered by Bernie Sanders. What is coming instead is a mishmash of lobbied initiatives meant to satisfy the giant corporations that run our country while appearing to do the will of ordinary people. In short we've been conned by the con men again. I'm with Howard Dean, might as well trash the whole thing, and launch a campaign to clean house in the next set of elections.

Austria during the 1930's

Libertarians have two fundamentalist ideas that they plug constantly. One is the notion of "objectivism" which was spelled forth in Ayn Rand's novels. The other is the ideas of the Austrian School, by which they mean Frederick Hayek, Von Mises and their successors, specifically Murray Rothbard who practically iconicized him. Their core ideas were formed by Von Mises, who built on Carl Menger's ideas, (added and subtracted) which is why I had to read about him. In my previous post I gave a summary of his life and ideas. In this one I just want to document some history and context to give my opinions their historical context.

Fight Global Warming? Plant a tree

I was reading some climate change muckety muck make his proposal the other day. He talked about a machine that could be mass produced and placed all over the world to sequester carbon.

I thought "cool"!!!! We already have that!

It's called a tree.

Fort Hood

The attack at Fort Hood affected me, almost personally. My cousin runs a ministry near Fort Hood that provides "Born Again" (fundamentalist) counseling to people stationed there. And the gunman came from Northern Virginia where I work surrounded by a Moslem community and Falafel Shops (good eating !). The message of that attack was reinforced by the arrest of a student from Howard, where my wife teaches. Indeed I love Mideastern food: "Greek", "Turkish", "Persian" (Moby Dick is pretty good) and I love middle eastern culture. But not that dark side of fundamentalism.