It's amazing how folks will forget about things. Like our current attourney General forgetting that he has an obligation to remind his staff to preserve evidence and giving them an overnight to get ready for an investigation -- after a six months in which no investigation was conducted. Well all the flap about the outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife as an undercover agent by no less a fine figure of punditry than Robert Novak himself is finally beginning to wind on into the prosecution phase. Enough leaks about the leaks have come out to show a pretty sleazy administration (act surprised) seeking to get away with murder (in the case of those she had worked with literally) in order to hide the fact that they had absolutely no evidence to back their claims that Saddam was back in the Nuke business and that the President had said a bald faced lie on TV.
Sure the Iraqi's had yellow cake, under lock and key in the north of the Baghdad doing nobody much good. But Wilson had already showed that the Iraqi's weren't yet buying any new supplies and that put the lie to the President's famous 14 words about Saddam Hussein and his "yellow cake" purchases. And Wilson made the mistake of saying so publicly. Which appears to be why he became "fair game." Or rather his wife did.
Did I mention that all this is becoming "known" as facts? Or that the source of the leaks appears to have been traced to two high level advisors; Rove and Libby? Wanna read about this stuff? Anyone here even care?
Oh I know, yawn, it's sleepytime.
I know, but every time I read of another person loosing his feet, hands, eyes, or life -- or read one of Osama's greatful diatribes -- I think of Karl Rove, his friends, and all their clever strategizing about how to convince American's that war was the only immediate choice in dealing with Iraq.
....And then to make matters more surreal, on 7/27 (after first writing this) I pick up the Washington Times and it includes an op-ed still insisting that Wilson was wrong about his assessment of the "yellow cake" incident, because?... because Rove and a committee he was involved in that was tasked with attacking Wilson's report had said he was wrong two years ago and by golly if Rove and the administration says so it must be true. The Times claims that the report even claims "Mr. Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts." Despite the fact that his report noted that there had been no corroborating evidence from local officials and that the intercept (which was in fact forged) had anachronistic names on it and didn't match the then current assemblage of officials involved. Sure committees never lie. Well people are entitled to try anything. If it ain't quite true however, what does that make it???? Well if we are lucky the Special Prosecutor will tell us.
And after the Prosecutor is done, maybe Ms Plame would be smart to consider a lawsuit:
There are always more ways to "skin a cat" than people think. One of the good things that has come about from the assault on progressive ideas, is that those who are thinking them have been challenged to think again. When I was a young fellow watching folks argue in the 70's, the folks I knew who were "progressive" were not very deep thinkers. They had no weapons to resist the various logical, sophist, and sophisticated arguments being developed on multiple fronts by conservatives. While conservatives had the advantage of money, prestigious institutions, and sometimes cutting logic.
That is finally beginning to change. Basically conservativism has shot it's wad. Ideas on environment? Conservatives would drill in Alaska and buy more nuclear power plants. Competition from abroad? Their answer is to allow US companies to form monopolies. They can't make up their mind on China, one half of them want to start a war with the Chinese out of fear of them becoming a superpower, while the rest of them salivate at all the cheap labor there. The threat of Al Qaeda? Unleash the "psy-ops" folks to use every means of forcible persuasion available and launch wars everywhere where Al Qaeda can sucker us into getting involved. Fresh thinking from any of these people? No.
And that's not to mention Social Security -- put it into the hands of the same people who have sunk pension funds from American Airlines to United and from Enron to MCI. Oh yes, and some of them would "solve" Social Security the way that Chile solved it's problems with Social Security. (Lyndon Larouche's group talks about this: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/ss_privatization/3150martinez_intvw.html") They don't tell you that Chile "solved" it's pension plans by creating a system in which there is practically no pension plan for the majority of the people. 50% of Workers aren't covered at all, and even more are covered so poorly that when they retire they can't afford to live on their pensions.
So what ideas should progressives have? Well, abroad the first thing we have to do is to define the enemy. Protecting our liberties while punishing such people isn't as hard as it seems. The US has always drawn a line between free speach and speach inciting violence -- or supporting people who incite violence. The US needs to pass laws defining what an enemy combattant is, how long they may be held, how they may be held, and what is permissible and what is not. Congress needs to tell the executive what to do here, because the abuses at Guntanamo, Abu Gharaib, and at home, tell us that otherwise they are going to do awful things and lie about it. Which is what they did.
Next, progressives need to push for new energy sources; more investment in solar-power, wind-mills, tidal water-turbines, methods to promote more efficient use of waste and recycling. Someday there could be a Chicken-shit King as famous as Frank Perdue -- with a little creative thinking on what to do with waste. As much as people don't want to face it, it's time to come up with new ways of "doing" nuclear energy as well too. Somebody could make money from, say, a power generator that was quiet, safe, and used fuel cell technology to burn say methane, and then also could run people's AC, etceteras.
There is no need for there to be a "either/or" "winner/loser" trade off when things are done progressively. The whole point of progressive thinking is to think outside the box and figure out ways to provide folks with better ways to do things. In the 70's folks figured out how to make cars that could make 30 miles on a gallon. We could make hybrid cars and cars that were more efficient. To do that doesn't take bankrupting GM or Ford, it takes a paradigm shift in the management of those companies and in the politicians and laws that either drive those folks crazy or enable them to do better. We have to chose to take the positivist, aggressive, "I have a dream" approach. Because the opposition has no dreams that can become reality. Their future would be the "Robocop" future of oppression and false advertizing; Robots and unemployment. We can chose a future of life and progress.
And progressives have to be better economicists. Ever since the 80's Democrats and progessives have been hearing straw arguments aimed at the progressive economicists of the Gailbraith and Keynesian eras. The math may make progressives eyes roll up, but they have to learn it. Supply side economics is simply a con, has been, and the con was exposed by none other than David Stockman himself; if anybody ever chose to pay attention. Of course economic systems have to balance their books over the long run. But there is economic horse sense from progressive economics. An economy that floats all boats makes the rich more secure, not less. If our rich are insecure and resentful, it's because for 40 years now they've been taking out their frustrations on the poor, the races, the "left", "liberals" and other targets of opportunity. That is a politics of "nattering nabobs of negativity" as one of their politicians once put it. And it goes nowhere except into conflict and repression.
Do we really worry more about what dirty words are used on HBO? Or do we concern ourselves with what dirty water we are sending downstream from our cities? Is it more Christian to impose the ten commandments and prayer on public schools or to clothe the naked and feed the poor? When did it become a progressive thing to fail to take advantage of medical advances?
So my advice to progressives? Sure, when outrageous things keep yelling! But also propose new ideas. And don't be afraid of ideas that come from "conservatives" either. Nixon and Moynihan were right about "work-fare" -- it's not fair to poor mothers to turn "welfare" into new chains on women and a tool to destroy families. "No Child Left Behind" was a good idea -- it just needs to be well funded.
It's not enough to defend a few privelaged working people who happen to be in Unions when the vast majority of people are outside the Union movement and don't even have the right to complain about poor working conditions. It's time to organize, recruit, figure out new ways to organize. Union organizers! Why do you guys wait until you have a confrontation to recruit members? Why not let people join Unions in an auxilliary capacity -- then when you have a majority then go to the owners and tell them you already represent a bunch of people. When did Unionism become a means to support Union Bureaucrats and not a means to look out for workers? Anyway, just a few ideas for todays blog.
Chris
The subject of "Zuiho Bini" or teaching the law within the language of the people one dwells among has been much on my mind lately. The reason is that the more I research the origins of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the more I feel that those religions have their problems for some of the same reasons that Buddhists have problems. In other words, rather than arrogantly assuming that Buddhism has all the answers, that the various religions are wrong, I'm coming to realize that I've had things backwards and the various religions are wrong and right to the extent that my own spiritual development is wrong or right.
The key is to realize that the principle of upaya; talked about in the Lotus Sutra is talking at an esoteric level about esotericism. Nichiren also talked extensively and critically about esotericism, but then I realized he also used the methods and conventions of esotericism. This led me to think there might be an appropriate kind of esotericism.
This in turn led me to look at what esotericism is supposed to be about. Esotericism is the teaching of secrets. They are kept secret for a number of reasons, but when esotericism is appropriate, the reason for keeping "secrets" is simply that people won't "get" the message if one reveals it. That is probably what half the folks reading this paragraph are thinking. "What the hell is this guy saying?" But if you feel that way about something in an esoteric religious teaching, that is probably why that religious teaching is esoteric. Once one gets that "ah-ha" moment, the teaching isn't so esoteric anymore. Well when one masters what one is supposed to know, then many times people find that what one had been taught before was only part of the reality.
For instance, folks like me learn simple disciplines and teachings like "Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so..."
Then some of us find out that Jesus is semi-mythical and that the bible is a compendium of rewritten works of myth, legend, fiction and a little history; all passed down orally through competing lineages until finally redacted by a committee of teachers in Babylon and Jerusalem. It can be most disconcerting, which is why such knowledge was once somewhat esoteric and then later those who knew these things in an unauthorized manner were burned as heretics and the books burned too. Getting hit with the truth is like getting hit by a brick. But when I look carefully, I find that the "teachers" may know some of this, but the teachers of the teachers, certainly knew these facts. And also knew other facts that led them to believe that it was okay to teach these things anyway. That is esotericism. It is meant to teach the teachers of teachers.
I find similar layers in Buddhism, Judaism, and I haven't studied Islam enough to be sure, but I'm sure they are there too. The purpose of esotericism is to teach the teachers and to teach the teachers of teachers. Achieving Samadhi can awaken one to the oneness of all things. That in turn makes one realize there really is a mystical, spiritual, wild and yet natural, unity to all this reality we live in. The founders of Judeo-Christianity called this unified field of awareness "God." The founders of Buddhism called this "Buddhahood" and didn't want to name it and so called the first one to awaken to it "Buddha." This mystical, experiential, subjective and often deeply insane field of experience and sometimes highly hyperaware way of living is the source for all higher religions -- unfortunately in every case filtered through less able minds such as, well mine. The experience of Samadhi, of meditation, of life-time learning from others and from this field within -- is the teacher of teachers, but those receiving or passing on the teachings have problems communicating their thoughts. Like Moses they end up relying on priests, and like Jesus they end up being interpreted by former enemies such as Paul/Saul, or by committees such as the Council of Nicea and the Emperor Constantine.
Such is life. But we can transcend these barriers. That is called enlightenment. And Zuiho Bini is the process of deepening the world's shared "field of institutional memory" so that the core ideas that make sense, can be passed on.
Chris
My heart goes out to the folks in London. Evidently Al Qaeda (or some other group) has decided to make a point about the G-8 meeting and London's participation in the Olympics. I doubt that the bombs will accomplish whatever sick goals the folks who set them intended for them.
The Bombs won't stop us.
Means and Ends are related. Time and time again history has shown us that the ends not only don't justify the means used to attain them, but in fact means make or break ends. There can be no good outcome when bad means are used. This is because any sustained creative future requires creativity and participation, courage and effort; not destructiveness, bullying, or force. Bad means produce only bad ends.
Folks demonstrate the bankruptsy of their dreams by their means.
It is only a nightmare that has such explosions and screams.
The fruits of fanaticism and ideology can only be ashes.
For abstracts fall out of the sky -- they cannot fly.
Lies only spawn more lies.
Bombs only spawn death and destruction.
No flowers bloom where heavy boots tread.
No edible fruits grow where men fail to bury their dead;
or respect the living.
But Miracles occur when flowers and fruit appear at the same time.
Chris
I'm glad I wrote the poem that goes with this.
I don't know about you, but i'm looking forward to the fourth of July. It falls on a monday, which is really cool, and I'm looking forward to re-affirming my beliefs and my faith in the power of democracy, human rights, and "people power."
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
Happy Birthday!