Breed no more Bushes...

============================================================
> Report: NSA eavesdropping wider than White House admitted
> By Reuters -- http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24215626.htm
============================================================

There's been a lot written about this since it came out, on every
side and angle of the political fence, so here's the highlights/main
opinions:

Some people say that since the primary filtering process being done
was essentially pattern recognition and not mainly/initially content
examination, that it was a completely justifiable and essential
course of action. Others say that the sheer volume of communications
data collected, plus the lack of guidelines for its (total) retention
sets a bad precedent in general for accumulating information on
citizens, since there is no guarantee limiting how it will be used,
especially seeing as this administration has also been keeping tabs
on a great many non-terrorist activities that it disapproves of.

In general, there's a fine line of technical
legality/constitutionality that has been invoked here, and even that
has proven to be untenable as a by-the-books defense....so, the
interests of leadership and national security have been highlighted,
and the need for utmost speed and efficiency therewith to pursue
them...but all this doesn't mitigate the fact that not only did Bush
avoid the normal warrants court in seeking to gain private
communications intelligence, but that he firmly and defensively
believes it his right as President, as leader, to have such
immediate powers without question. Which, no matter what sort of a
crisis we're in, does not sit well with the explicit structure of
this nation as one under a consistent and balanced-between-the-
branches rule of law (though, neither does the constant
pressure "from the White House" on the legislature to enforce its
agenda, or "from the White House" on the media to negotiate the terms
of its news exposure). As some columnists have commented, it would
have taken little time and practically no obstacles to get warrants
for these taps through the formal court already in place, so why
avoid the legal process -- unless to make a show and a sticking point
of executive authority, as he is now doing?

I suppose the most instinctive thing to say in response to all this
is, "Who does he think he is??" -- does he really believe that as
President he is above the law? And I think the answer to that is a
resounding, "Well, obviously....." -- judging from the way he has
reacted to criticism and challenges from the start of his first term,
and from the insularity and sycophantism that he cultivates (has been
cultivated to) within his circle of advisers. We have seen already
that this has had an extreme influence on policy, leading informants
from various fields to shape their reports to match the results (and
dependent agenda) known to be preferred by the administration. It
has already corrupted the stream of intelligence, and in more areas
than just the sphere of the now/still-ongoing war. Science itself,
logic itself, is under pressure to conform to the wishes of a
temporary (one hopes) regime, instead of holding to the closest
truths it can achieve. That in itself is cause for alarm, especially
in a nation where the structure and succession of power are supposed
to eliminate the perpetual dominance of any single ruler or
dynasty, and to force all politicians to stand or fall on their own
merits, not as part of a party bloc.

The American constitutional ideal of politics is that of public
service done on behalf of the people of the nation (all of them), in
allegiance to the Constitution of the United States -- and no higher
power than that. Not even God, technically, despite those who have
some crackpot idea that this country's Manifest Destiny is to become
an experiment in theocracy instead of in human reason and dignity.
Even the plan (in the Texas redistricting affair and Tom DeLay's
campaign money laundering) for a "permanent Republican majority", by
the literal terms of it, is an arrogant breach of the ideals that the
nation was based on, in spirit if not in clearly-evidential clause,
because the structure was always and ever intended to change to serve
the people, and intending to establish any nominal party or agenda
as a "permanent" controller of government flies in the face of a free
democratic system, announcing itself as a wanna-be Reich whether its
proponents will admit it or not. To an honest politician (wherever
there is such a thing) it's not about the party but about the
people's needs, and not about aggrandizing power but responding aptly
to the changes of the nation itself. The fact that so much, here,
has gone into the gathering of both power and information, clearly
angling to the needs of this administration as if it were the only
one that ever need be considered, sincerely begs the question of
whether aspiring presidents and all politicians ought not only to be
limited in their terms but prohibited from procreating at all (or
adopting, like Julius Caesar did Octavian), so as to spare the nation
the burden of supporting their family dynastic ambitions, and the
secret avuncular grooming of blood-heirs to the perceived throne.
The more obstacles that can be placed in the way of politics-as-
power, the better for us -- it should no more be an adjunct of wealth
and caste than teaching, farming or collecting the trash and doing
what best can be done with it. If that means proposing that the U.S.
Congress and all the highest federal agencies and branches be not
approached with 'family' loyalties in tow, then perchance the
seriousness of that demand would help deter those who have only their
own self-service and permanent empire-building in mind.

Rather ecclesiastical, yes, on the face of it -- though, I'm not so
stupid as to think that celibacy in itself is enforceable nor
wise...just that one not have children to pass on one's reputation
and expectations to, or that will feel obliged to give favours or
follow orders as given by a parent. Or, the (over the long term)
extended politically-influential family that bears some good fruit
and some indifferent, some bad, but all bearing the same trade name
to be grouped by. Neither am I in favour of shamelessly shilling for
one's wife's (or husband's) political career after one's own terms of
office are done.

Politics, in this country out of all others, ought never to be a
means of constructing a false royalty, nor a false sense of
superiority to the citizenry at large. And that, precisely, is the
crisis of political breedership that we have on our hands right now.

What?--you mean it's really all about getting more MONEY?

===============================================================
[commenting on this article]

Study: Illegal Immigrants Not Drawn by Jobs
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A11

===============================================================

Okay, so here's how it goes -- U.S. corporations "legally" send their
factories (and jobs) south and overseas to not have to pay as much,
and Mexican illegal immigrants get themselves north so that they'll
get paid *more* (much of which they often send home to remaining
family in Mexico, effectively drawing on one national economy to
support another one)...thereby increasing competition in the U.S. for
a lessening number of labouring, factory and other semi-skilled
jobs. That part is true.

Which has led to, and will lead to more of, a decline in the general
working-class standard of living, aided and abetted by the higher
birthrates typical of people with less schooling, earlier ages of
marriage, and stronger religious/cultural mores. A 'positive' view
would be that this will help to equalize the economic conditions
between the U.S. and Mexico and the other 'Third World'/developing
nations it likes doing its business in -- but I doubt that that'll
happen peacefully, and I don't think that many people here would
consider it an improvement. [The current administration's proposal
(the "guest worker" program) of granting an effective amnesty to
people already here illegally seems to omit any clear requirements or
even polite requests/preferences (in contrast to official immigration
and visa standards, should anyone care to examine them) that the
persons thus admitted should be an asset and not a drain to the
nation's infrastructure and economy and overall productivity. [dated; research in detail if desired] Which
makes me come off sounding pretty protectionist, I suppose....but
then, the best ways to make and keep a nation strong involve
maximizing the existing population's potential -- not waging a "race
to the bottom" via mutual economic exploitation.

If anything, American companies raising wages in their foreign-based
locations (and attending to human rights for their workers, too)
would be one of the best ways possible to encourage people to stay in
their own countries and take pride in them where they are, rather
than heading off to other lands for the sake of economic opportunity
without any intended allegiance to the host nation itself. Though,
that does require a certain illogical amount of national loyalty on the part of
the so-called "multinational" corporations, to realize that their own
home country/ies' best interests are served by not taking advantage
of others' homelands. It might even require a certain amount of
loophole-closing and honesty on a global scale -- but beginning with
national governments having some dignity and pride in their own
people, and refusing to let them be exploited and sold short for the
sake of illusory economic progress -- i.e., that kind that is
currently measured out on stringent terms of domestic de-
stabilization by the IMF, but whose benefits tend to either remain in
the hands of foreign investors, or never to trickle down through the
government agencies who have been dis-encouraged (subtly or not) from
taking care of their own people's needs. Governments do not and
should not exist for the sake of serving the government's needs but
those of the people, without whom they would not exist.

And whom do corporations serve, then, in these days of borderless
buying and trading and investing and maximizing profit margins? I'm
inclined to say they're largely guided by the interests of pirates.
By which of course I mean those who intend to take all they can via
their dealings in other people's labour and goods, with as little
restraint as possible.

Though, back in the good old days, pirates risked their own lives for
their plunder (gad, it's the least they could do!), and even had
governments out hunting for them, and stiff penalties--like death--
for their crimes. These days, they have the government so in their
pocket that they're not only going unpunished but rewarded for
squeezing the most they can get out of investments they never put in
a day's labour for. Capital gains and investment dividends don't
just come from nowhere....somewhere, somehow, someone is paying far
more than they should so that someone else is paying as little as
they can get away with. And a lot of people are working for
practically nothing so that others can get money for doing no work
atall. If the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as
any supposed representative democracy would seem to recognize, then
why tolerate the assumption that any socioeconomic elite, no matter
how powerful or pampered from birth, is exempt from the laws that
govern the less-powerful, or somehow too important to ever suffer
full penalties for their deeds, no matter whom they injure, ruin, or
even kill through their choices.

A long way of rhetoric from illegal immigrants from Mexico...but
really, maybe not. After all, everyone's just trying to get ahead,
and we ought not to let the sheer convenience of "hating the
foreigner" get in the way of seeing the underlying reasons why people
do what they do, and what's really precipitating and enabling the
situation. Those caught in the middle at the borders and in the
cities aren't the ones in control, and perhaps they ought to look a
bit harder at those that are.

Again with blaming the gays......(latest Vatican directive)

Article in question:

In Strong Terms, Rome Is to Ban Gays as Priests
By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 23, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/international/europe/23vatican.html?
th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
________________________________________________________

Hmm...please do note the specific wording of this declaration, as it
seems to specifically ban not only active homosexuals and those
of "deep-seated" tendencies, *but also* those who "support the so-
called 'gay culture.'" Meaning, straight allies aren't safe, and the
Vatican is definitely trying to eradicate all pro-gay/pro-acceptance
influence from the church hierarchy.

Which also means that it's official--gays are being used as
scapegoats for pederasts, when it's been stated time and time again
that pederasty and molestation are not the same thing atall as an
adult homosexual orientation. And yet....it's just so *easy* to
blame sexual orientation for this in the popular eye, when really
it's not about sex or gender at all but about control and abuse of
power over others.

Just like in prisons, dare I say, very little of these sexual abuse
scandals had anything to do with whether the priests in question was
attracted to males per se. The one thing we can state for certain is
that they were attracted to the proximity of young persons under
their religious authority, who could be easily manipulated, coerced,
and shamed into keeping quiet. That's not about sex, it's about the
lust of power--and any organization that preaches itself as
infallible and puts individual conscience in the finest of fine print
can be accurately diagnosed as being possessed by the lust of power
itself. And ridding the Roman Catholic Church of gay and open-minded
priests will not exorcise the real sickness that persists at its
bureaucratic heart.

Hmm....scapegoat, scapegoat....you know, that reminds me of something
in the Bible....:-?

My general theory of modern neo-feudalism

[NOTE: Yes, this is actually something current I'm posting from my
little newsgroup....feel free to forward/link it on, with due
credit/blame of course.]
________________________________________________________

In hyperlucidity, "K. Aurencz Zethmayr" wrote:

Yes, there has been a lot of stuff going on in the world, despite the
fact that I've posted on very little of it.

Take, for example, Bush's proposal of a pan-American free trade area,
which met with loud popular protests and a more or less tacit
division of political leaders at the recent summit in Buenos
Aires....the idea is still not settled, and it is one that bears
careful examination before being adopted, especially considering the
current state of these economies and the typical "flight patterns" of
corporations trying to maximise their profits and cut labour costs.
Unless there is an effective and relevant trade union presence in the
U.S. and a majority of other countries that might be disposed to
side with the Bush administration and sign onto this (Mexico, for
example, or anywhere else significantly dependent on the goodwill of
the U.S.), it would be a very convenient reason to outlaw
trade/employee unions altogether as an untenable obstacle to
the 'flexibility' (upward for the big guys, downward for the small)
of economic activity and interaction. That's something that bears
watching.

My general take on the direction of things is that the Bush
administration and its allies are trying to implement a neo-
feudalism -- and in case we all haven't had a thorough grounding in
medieval socioeconomics, I'll summarize:

Feudalism is a hierarchy of authority and allegiance in which the
common worker (peasant or landed serf/slave) is utterly beholden to
his direct employer, who in turn is under the thumb of a larger state
or corporate entity, who in turn (possibly skipping a few levels up
the food chain) is under the utter authority of a political,
commercial or religious leader, who are at the top all bound in a
more-or-less common collusion of interests to keep everyone else
under control--though if they are in conflict, all persons involved
are supposed to act with total loyalty and obedience to their lords
and masters. There's no appealing to anything like a universal democratic
process or outside authority (or outside judicial or legislative
trend, as Bush and some of the Supreme Court justices want to
solidify firmly, as the world gets more socially progressive in
Canada, Australia, Europe, etc.)...there's no effective standard of
values besides that which those in power choose to implement and
promote (and may or may not follow themselves). There's not even the
assumption that a ruler of one country is actually 'loyal' to that
country and its needs--he may just be playing it as a pawn for
increase of territory elsewhere, or perhaps for a nice fat golden
parachute (in the business world)--or guaranteed security for life if
he lets the corporations have their way in all things at the people's
expense.

Things like the oft-cited code of chivalry, in modern or medieval form (loyalty to lord and Church, compassion to the poor, protection of women and children, etc.), are policies (just like every set of rules and policies, pragmatically speaking) designed to officially address known, existing and commonly-accepted behaviours in their time--not to set up anything like a standard of social equality. And in the olden days, the peasant or serf did have the right to depend on the protection of his lord's fortress against raids and warfare--these days, to the contrary, there is no sense of "noblesse oblige", no responsibility in authority. The peasants are sent off to be cannon fodder in war (okay, persuaded to by circumstance--afterall, it is a volunteer army these days), and bear the brunt of every downturn that the rich can absorb and/or avoid for themselves -- and yet they are expected to remain loyal and diligent and compliant.

The communications and transportational infrastructure (*cough*
Amtrak funding *cough* HDTV conversion *cough* FOX News...) is
typically eroded or rudimentary in feudalism, making the common
populace in general dependent on the opportunities,
knowledge/attitudes and social structure of their home areas, with
radically low opportunities for regional mobility except in wholesale
moves/migrations. In addition, the 'social welfare' function in
feudalism is completely delegated to religious or private interests,
enforcing arbitrary moral standards of acceptability/compliance for
any shelter, food, medical attention or job assistance -- "parish
work", in short. This is what dismantling and/or privatizing/de-
secularizing the entire social security/welfare structure means in
end result.

Other typical social symptoms of feudalism (though not limited to it)
are: massive insularity within communities, fear/hatred of minorities
and foreigners, repression of deviancy or difference within their own
(even/especially superior deviance), low education as a norm (with
accompanying mistrust of the overeducated), early marriage/breeding,
generalized social/political/religious inferiority of women (with a
few token decoys to keep the rest in line), and blind belief in
whoever's setting the religious/political rules -- because that's all
they've got to depend on.

So....if this sounds familiar to anyone, I think I'd suggest you read
up on the Middle Ages and the things that brought about the gradual
end of the feudal system in Europe -- like religious heterodoxy,
sudden decreases of population/birthrate (thank you, Black Death and
birth control...), world exploration and broader cultural
contact/learning, widespread scientific inquiry, increases in
education and literacy, diverse sociopolitical philosophies, the
expansion of trade and commercial structure to enable small merchants
and artisans to become a solid middle class rather than dependants to
a lord (or unprotected itinerants), and the erosion of religion-based
social determinism in justifying injustice (as in "divine
right", "subhuman" races, etc.).

And support all those things at their best that stave off the "Dark
Ages" from our lives. History's still going on, and there are a lot
of ways that some people and entities are trying to turn back the
years on the rest of us...the unnerving thing, really, is how close
they are already to accomplishing it.

You know what's really wrong with protests...?

It's all the lengths that people in authority will go to to prevent them having any effect. Tomorrow is the day that thousands of people are going to converge in Washington and have a demonstration in front of the White House. The object of their attentions, their pleas and demands will be nowhere in the area.

He's a stinking coward.

Not that he's avoiding any physical danger, but that he's evading his own responsibility as head of state. When the people, as per their constitutional rights, "gather peacefully to petition the government for redress of grievances," don't you think the government perhaps ought not to ignore them? Or, as I've just today learned via one of the main groups organizing the demonstation, to restrict the news media from covering the event at a decent proximity so that it doesn't occur in a mainstream-media vacuum?

Here's (part of) what I got in my email today--it's an appeal for emergency donations:

We really need your help right now. All the major antiwar groups are coming together for this action at the White House, but only one organization, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, has the financial responsibility for the powerful unity rally - for the stage, sound and setup. Now we have the opportunity to have this massive outpouring broadcast to millions - if you can help!

We have learned that C-SPAN is planning to cover this incredible assembly of opposition to the war. They will broadcast to millions - but there's a catch. The government is restricting C-SPAN's access on one side of the rally site, and their satellite trucks, which provide the live feed, are now only authorized to park much farther away.

In order for C-SPAN to have a live feed of the rally, hundreds of feet of additional cable as well as cable ramps must be rented. This will cost many thousands of dollars, on top of the tens of thousands of dollars that must be spent for the joint rally stage and sound to reach the huge number of people assembling, for the thousands of placards, hundreds of thousands of flyers, port-a-johns, the buses, banners, flags and everything else that it takes to make a demonstration successful.

You see, these groups--these people--don't organize rallies and marches just for the hell of it. They are putting their resources into trying to make a difference--trying to reach the nation's leadership, trying to reach the rest of the country and the world--and yet constantly, from Day Zero and before, they have been given the shaft in terms of the very goal of communication itself.

"We won't give you the permit--you'll ruin the grass in Central Park."

"Okay, we'll give you the permit, but you have to take your route all the way over here where no one has to see you, and we won't let anyone join you from the sidewalk."

"Okay, we'll give the the permit, but there won't be anyone there listening and we'll keep the media from getting any decent coverage."

And that's assuming that the counter-protests--the pro-Bush demonstrators scheduled to take the field concurrently and the next day--won't send in any of their own to infiltrate the peace rally and try to make trouble under other groups' names. Not that I want to give them any ideas, of course.....but I'm certain that it's happened with trade protests already, the sort of violent outbursts and vandalizing that work to give protestors a bad name. In reality, protests these days are so law-abiding and decent that the only thing they got majorly arrested in Chicago for was peacefully blocking Lake Shore Drive...just the obstruction of the everyday itself.

But I'm sure the conservative rallies will have all the mainstream news coverage they want.....meanwhile, in the four years since 9/11, I've seen better coverage of U.S. peace rallies on BBC World News than on the local network affiliates. To coin a phrase, isn't that just a bit....obstructionist? As in, obstructing and defusing all the legal rights of assembly and petition and demonstration that were clearly included in the Constitution. I mean, it does specifically say "redress of grievances" and not "just to show support for the administration and kiss ass"....

But that's the thing--the rich and the powerful will do whatever they have to--get whatever guards and police on the case, move their trade meetings to an island (or a secret fortress or whatever), live as far away fom the cities as they can--to avoid dealing with, hearing, or seeing the people their actions affect in real life. To not see what they don't want to see, to not hear things they don't want to hear--and truth and ethics be damned, even though that's all that the "other side" is counting on to prove their cause.

"A little revolution, now and then"....would actually be refreshing. It's a shame to see the majority of the truly "law-abiding" people in this country on the opposite side from the ostensible law.

___________________________________________________________________________

Links:

"War Protesters Seek to Put the Heat on Bush" - Yahoo News

ANSWER Coalition

United for Peace and Justice

--and I'm not including more publicity for the Republican damage-control groups on my blog, but they're mentioned and linked in the Yahell article listed first here.

Re the latest on homosexuality in the priesthood....and here's my own theories

In hyperlucidity@yahoogroups.com, "K. Aurencz Zethmayr"
aureantyev@y...; wrote:

First of all, just to express my essential lack of surprise--
afterall, as a traditionalist, the new Pope is hardly likely to buck
the kneejerk trend of conflating all pedophilia with adult
homosexuality, or to take every opportunity of "purging" the ranks of
all who might possibly compromise the virtue/image/mission of the
Roman Catholic Church (a bit late for that, overall, but hey...call
it a second Counter-Reformation).

Two points, though:

A, all self-respecting sexual deviants reject juvenile predation and
coercion--and likely with very good personal reason--therefore,
anything that is a non-consensual sexual violation by an adult of a
minor is an unjustifiable abuse of trust and authority.

And B, where the hell would the Roman Catholic Church be without
the thousands, millions even of men who found their spiritual and
intellectual vocations there through the ages in the absence of
being able to have a "normal" life, i.e., marriage with the duty of
fecundity and ruling a family? Just read even one Andrew Greeley
novel, for example (I recommend "The Cardinal Sins"), and you realize
that especially in America, the priesthood has long been the only
acceptable way for a good Catholic boy to honourably sublimate and
conceal his homosexual identity--and some repress or exercise their
needs more honourably than others, whatever their basic tendencies.
The many who prefer men and use discretion therewith should not be
tarred for the few who molest boys and teens and further abuse them
with the pressure of a guilt they do not deserve.

In Europe, sexual "deviancy" in general had long been tacitly tolerated under
the aegis of the Vatican, and so long as it was reasonably discreet
and was not molestation--anything forced or abusive that could force
a scandal--it has caused no essential problems save those of
favoritism to one's lovers or preference to the children of one's
mistress--take the Borgias, for example. Concubines both male and
female were tolerated and/or politely ignored, and the main issues of
contention when they did arise were hypocrisy (well, of course,
though the faithful in the lower social classes were hardly in the
know of who was sleeping with whom) and simony--technically the
buying and selling of church appointments, in this case for sexual
favours (either directly or indirectly, as in granting a bishopric to
the son of a mistress).

The particular rise of molestation cases in the U.S. can be
attributed to two main things, besides the technical (and arguably very
politically-based) requirement of celibacy itself -- the longstanding
exclusion of women from the Vatican choirs, an example which in
Europe caused both the flowering of boys' choirs as a tradition and
the musical trend of cultivating castrati for both religious and
operatic music (meaning that young boys and/or the fabulously glam
castrati superstars became prime objects of sensual attraction if
they hadn't been before--there aren't any more castrati divi,
but the all-boys' choir is still a fixture) ....

.... and then the social pressures of transplanting Catholicism via
immigration into the more crowded and suspicious territory of urban
America, which naturally made the gaining of any romantic or sexual
satisfaction a bit harder for everyone. And, seeing as the United
States was by then mainly set in the social pattern of Puritan-borne
Protestantism, the moral and social absolutes were more stringent in
a common-law sense, much less tolerant of difference or
sensual indulgence.

My view is that the social pressures of trying to maintain
Catholicism and its older ethnic traditions (in parish enclaves
within an often disdainful overall WASP milieu) added to internal and
external pressures on all those with any conflict with the
neighborhood parish=close-knit village culture. Both the priesthood
and the veil appealed as always to those not suited to raising a
family, but with far more a component of social coercion because of
the (pervasive) urgency to marry and bring more babies into the
Church. Thus, there was even more tendency for personal sexuality
(even if not practised in itself) to find a haven away from these
demands -- so, for gay men, for lesbians, and also for those who had
more an instinct for power and predation than for any honestly
physical relationship and its responsibilities. I.e., the real
sexual and emotional predators who should ideally not have been around
children or anyone so vulnerable in the first place in any role at
all. Not that they can't make very impressive priests and high-level clerics, though...

Personally, I think it's a sick system overall to demand and enforce
these rules en masse, but a lot healthier to allow private affairs
between consenting adults than to force all urges underground even
further. A lot of people, and family of mine, will hail this as a
purification of the Church -- but it will A, not solve the problem of
sexual abuse of power in itself, and B, lead to a great many
gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and even whole LGBT-supportive parishes
leaving the Roman Catholic Church decisively, unwilling to be blamed
for all the crimes of hypocritically pious individuals. Incidentally
undercutting whatever good Pope John Paul II did with his single
exhortation for love and personal acceptance regardless of sexual
orientation. Not that he didn't consider homosexuality "objectively
disordered" as in the catechism (see second article cited), and not
that this policy wasn't in the works under his reign -- but at least
he tried to be socially-conciliatory on the surface.

On the other hand, though, that may have done more harm than good
over the years in allowing people to feel complacent about their own
faith, rationalizing that it's okay to be gay and still Catholic, or
that the (lately) single most temporally-powerful religious figure on
the planet was a "good man" for his tolerance and bridge-building
even though it was only of a thinly social nature, still condemning
the official sins as he proposed compassion and the non-withdrawal of
parental love to the sinners....a magnanimous gesture, that.

I was surprised, after the death of Pope John Paul II, to see how
many people in the online groups I'm in regarded him as such a
positive social figure. When it comes right down to it, the only
thing that I ever had cause to respect him for was condemning the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (though these days a pope's temporal
authority doesn't make or break wars like it used to
when "Christendom" was assumed as Catholicism...) -- point is,
many of these are people with no reason atall to be grateful or
conciliatory towards a religious structure in itself that condemns
many or most of their personal beliefs and practices. A structure
that both would eliminate them from the world if it could and has
tried it with great zeal before. Why give the persecutors such
credit, and their "infallible" leader, moreover?--isn't that a blow
against your own validity? In my opinion, the very best part of
Roman Catholicism is the Franciscan Order -- closest to nature,
closest to their fellow human beings, closest to the ideal of a faith
lived in action, not just in words and dependence on top-down
authority.

Unfortunately, I could very well see them being the next on the
chopping-block, with all their human rights involvement and actual
respect for others....not exactly orthodox, these days.

===============================================================
Inciting Articles:

Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 15, 2005

New Vatican Rule Said to Bar Gays as New Priests
By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 22, 2005
__________________________________________________________________

The majority and theoretical material of this post was first "published" at my news/current events/shape-of-things-to-come group hyperlucidity -- the eternal pathology on 16 September 2005.

Yeah, there's a war on--here, let me /show/ you just how one-sided this one is....

Mainly because it's been being fought under our noses and out of sight of TV screens, where far too many of us still get our news pre-digested, not even able to read between the lines of a printed page, never taught to test for truth. Maybe because there's that other war-- or two, or three--that has been built up and given the spotlight as an honourable cause--America against this, against that, a sanctioned outlet of us versus them, us versus evil. The war that goes unspoken or derided as a mirage is the one that is U.S. versus us--the steady erosion of rights and dignity and the welfare--yes, literally, the well-fare, the well-being--of the ordinary American citizen.

The one who doesn't have an escape pod for every disaster, resources and insurance and medical provisions to cover every loss without hassle or delay, names and connections to get a job in a pinch whenever he or she needs one--or hell, just wants one for the credentials. The one whose name is not a passport to perks and privilege, whose labour is for the sake of survival not amassment of landed wealth. The common man--whether common or not in skills, intelligence, honour and personal virtue--who is being edged steadily back to the feudal ages, under the triple thumb of state and church and all-powerful-&-unquestioned "employer" from whom he must beg his daily bread. Leave God out of it--he's only a name in this machine, a placebo to make people think there's someone looking out for them, a source of true justice and unbiased, unstinting love. Bullshit, at least for the daily grind--only a pill one takes with all the others, and now on the pretense that it'll help one's health, lower one's blood pressure, increase one's life expectancy--and for what? For more of this crap, this technicolour pablum, this sham of a culture, this artifically sweetened and chemically fertilized, hyped-up, accessorized, wholly inconsequential vanity of vanities that is the existence of the American consumer-subject?

iPods and circenses, my friends....an armory of mass distraction--and the unwitting accomplices in it are twofold.

There are the willing marketers, salesmen, trendsetters, survey-takers, test panels--paid and unpaid alike, selling themselves for these corporate gods, external idols, false saviours for whom one will lie, cheat and steal to get a buck, to win a prize, to land the big one, anything to replace the real with the synthetic, the essential with the persuaded luxury, the energy of integrity for the dregs of ephemeral fame, attention, something from the Powers That Be.

And there are the well-meaning but all-too-ambitious politicians who voice their outrage in every moment but the ones that might have counted in the first place, thinking so much for the long-term and the interest of lasting harmony and stability (and political tenure for themselves) that they refuse to take a firm stand against the thousands of little encroachments, erosions, cracks and lapses that the enemy has given them an ostensible choice on--and that they refuse to lead any firm alternative or argument to sway the other side of the aisle, letting the battles be lost and thinking that they have a positive war they're fighting all the same--trying to win support and dollars from the people for their moderation, when it is their very moderation that has let the fox into the henhouse and approved him having his way--ah well, bargaining and quibbling over a wing or a leg here and there, but mounting no decided objections to his presence in itself.

There is a war going on. It is the war of power and wealth against those who are ignored, underrated, have little or no voice, little choice in their lives. It is the war of privilege against a common humanity, of moral hypocrisy against a common decency. Of paperwork against people, the letter of the law against the very virtues that it was supposed to support and encourage. The administration is destroying the people--and it does not care one whit more than it has to for a good soundbite, a dramatic photo opp, another little token to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of those who want to believe that they live in a system that makes sense. But no "god in a machine" is coming down to set things right, and the fox is still feasting in the henhouse. Criticism alone won't get him out.

If you think that made no sense...(assuming you traced it)

...then what else is new in this world? I'm rather used to having people not get what I mean, and even more so when it builds off the elaborations of cerebral duality.

Nonetheless, I'll maintain that it does have truth, even though of course I can demand no recognition of the fact. I try very hard to keep fact and fiction distinct -- not always segregated, but clear at least. Hyperlucidity is one of the places I try to deal more with the "real" world as the issue, even though some of the things inside may seem weird to a stranger's reading. Others may seem too mundane, straight repostings from the daily news -- so what's my motive, what's the purpose here?--I mean, there, or anywhere I try to explain?

It's not the same as Pravda, at least--though, how can you not love Pravda (at least for the reading of it)?--the firm credulosity, the determined weaving of observation and science and folklore into one proudly authoritative package...it breathes new life into the meaning of the word "superstition." No, I am not Pravda -- though, this is not to say that I make no claim to truth (in-joke, that's what "pravda" means). It just takes going about it in a different fashion, more dissection with less conclusion. I'd rather suggest lines of thought than lay them down firmly in every detail, and though I can certainly write a manifesto or a catechism doesn't mean I have any present use for doing so. I'm mainly just trying to - make people think.

Of course, for some people that's an unbearable torture. Those people never last long with the kind of conversations I tend to get into (not bragging, just saying...) -- they haven't enough mental foliage to comprehend the canopy nor the marshy undergrowth in mine -- nor do they have the woodscraft to penetrate into the heart of the forest. Best to lose them at the gate lest they get into trouble.

But, if this intrigues you rather than confuses altogether, maybe you ought to come in a bit deeper into the jungle, off the beaten path. It's more dappled in here, but you can see the roots much more easily, and multiple strands and limbs and tendrils...connections are closer, though tangled, and you run across more at a time.

But all that's just a sheer metaphorical ramble. Suffice it to say, I have a (fairly new) new group where I talk about things that connect to the outside world, but (intendedly) geared to address concerns closer and more relative to us -- and who "us" is, as a matter of fact, a rather interesting and controversial topic.

Which, again, I think I'll refrain from spelling out too clearly right now....

Scientology -- I got the dirt on how it works...you wanna read more?

Here's the crux of the matter, and the reason behind Tom Cruise's
immoderate behaviour of late: Scientology split his brain apart, and
he doesn't think or act the same anymore as what we would call
a "self-aware" person.

If you want to know more about my research and theory on Scientology,
either write me privately or apply to the newsgroup 'Hyperlucidity--
the eternal pathology' ....the relevant post on this is in the message archive there at
message #277 , and I have even more extensive material (the full account of my work on this when I
delved it out) in my thesis Language and Selfhood: Power and
Coercion in the Art of Words.

_________________________________________________________
Note: I don't accept people with blank profiles into my private online groups unless they've introduced themselves sufficiently
beforehand, enough to know that they're not, you know, crazy religious fanatics or government spooks or totally fluffed off their heads. And please do be sure to read the description first, of course.....we don't want to confuse people who were just looking for a simple chatty coffee-klatsch about nothing atall of deeper consequence.

"Post-Modern Evolution" (the foundational proposal)

Original Date: Fri Jun 3, 2005 5:42 am "Post-Modern Evolution" by K. Aurencz Zethmayr / posted June 3, 2005 at my LJ blog and thence to hyperlucidity [If the content of this bothers or offends you, then go away and forget about it--though I warn you that your belief or skepticism will have no effect on the validity of these concepts, or on their operation in the world and people around you. Those who do not believe in evolution are condemned to...well, become extinct...>:)] My newest theory, and one that ties into everything subcultural as well...not to mention providing that direct reason why we're logically in the direct firing line of the Religious Right. Post-modern evolution--or, to spell it out, having arrived at a point in the human species' evolution where it is experimenting and exploring at an unprecedented pace. And, in that process, exploring and revisiting all that has come before--including things not even in its own direct genetic lineage. Before birth, a human fetus recapitulates every stage of evolution that has led to this shape, from gills to a tail. Now, we're doing something even more creative, and which has vast implications for the range and diversity and interconnectedness of all life itself. We're finding inside ourselves that which may have never existed on this planet or plane, but which is still "part of us"...we're consciously living as territorial and feral entities, whether creating new packs and clans or moving as loners through the world....we're learning more and more that there are myriad forms of energy sustenance besides just caloric intake, and that some of us need that in high and specialized degree. And that's not even taking into account anything distinctly "spiritual", though I think I can say that a great many of us, the more sensitive ones at least, suffer greatly from a sense of alienation from the normal round of human society, its priorities, even its developed emotions themselves. Whether we feel as angels above it, or as therians and fae indifferent to its shiftings--or as empathic vampires all too tangibly aware from the outside of that which we somehow cannot completely share ourselves...these are only hypothetical perspectives, feel free to add on--there is a sense of being essentially different, and of that difference causing pain because there is no sense of a place in the world for us--hardly even a way to express the anomie of knowing you're "abnormal" in such a way that cannot be medicated away (though there's always other things to drug for), cannot be simply persuaded out of, converted away from, swept under the rug of conformity and the expected course of things. Even those closest to us, sometimes, though genetics don't happen purely out of the blue...they do not know who we are, what we are--how on earth can they help and ease the growing pains, when they know so little, and when we ourselves have (I speak in general) far more a tendency towards rules than reasons, towards clan ideologies rather than continued searching--and moreover, so little a sense of destiny overall. The only ones who speak pervasively of destiny are the Starseed, Indigo, Crystal demographics...and bluntly speaking, a lot of it comes off as wishful sci-fi crap, just as much as Scientology--and written by regular New Age human adults (female of course, though no offense intended) who think we all oughta worship the little enlightened genii who'll show us the way. But I'm an Indigo myself, by the way--one of the older ones, whose mission is to try to cut the crap and translate to people what's really going on in a practical way, to lead them clearly. As a matter of fact, I know very clearly that's my task, as it was told to me. And I have very little illusion about that being a glamourous or even well-respected role--I'm a bit of a rebel gadfly of a cerebral leader, more goading than dictating, more outside than inside even when I'm in the middle of things. But I can see the whole picture--and no one else seems to have done that yet. Anyhow, we're the waves of the future gathering, in a world that's not ready to grow. What is that gonna mean?--a whole lotta repression and suspicion (especially here in the U.S.), a lotta chafing against the status quo and its patterns, a lotta going underground, so to speak--catacombing, communing, creating our alternative families and support systems as best we can. It's been done before, after all--and not to sound too :uber-psychic, but I've been hooked on that theme for years, and it's always been my ideal to gather that way, though never forcing too hard upon the needs of solitude. So...those are the lines I'm thinking along, together with greater advocacy in the areas of education, social identity (gender, sexual orientation, religion), and basic civil rights altogether, particularly by those who are articulate enough to be taken seriously by all. It's not even a matter of intelligence so much as clear and well-mastered communication, something that a lot of the right-brain dominants among us (and I think most of us likely are either close-to-the-middle, balanced, or right-brain dominant) just haven't got as a useful habit, not when it comes to trying to reason with the outside world. ______________________________ Anyhow...that's the start of my manifesto-manifestation. More to come. [from Aureantes Talks... ]

The conservative Intelligent Design movement....(brief comment)

[This is, with some additions, what I posted on the AlterNet message board for one of the
stories re ID and its effect/methods to deal with it in the classroom - http://www.alternet.org/story/22039 ]

The Real Threat of Evolution.... -->Posted by: Aureantes on May 24, 2005 11:29 PM -->

...is the idea that these bass-ackwards, head-in-the-sand creationists might possibly not be at the top of their own evolutionary ladder. That the best of humanity might lie elsewhere than in the ranks of the faithful, that a conservative politician in a three-piece-suit might be someday as outdated as a pithecanthropus, that America might not be the greatest country in the world, that the status quo of the good old days might need some revision and growth after all, even reinterpretation--in short, the very simple-yet-complex fear of being superseded, both in reality and in the process of human consciousness, morality, honour, ethics, whatever they pride themselves on as a separation to keep from realizing that everyone and everything must keep on growing and learning and adapting in order to survive.

Personally, I believe in emanation, not creation--with a direction and purpose, yes, but not arbitrary, and certainly not dropping in a species from above to have dominion over the earth and its creatures. Biological domination, apart from environmental circumstance, takes intelligence on the inside of a creature, not from the outside via deus ex machina.

The paranoia that's always lain at the heart of every religion-based scientific reactionary trend is the fear of being displaced from the center of the universe, from the apple of God's eye, from having unquestioned rulership and exploitation rights over all. It happened with astronomy, it happened with evolution, and now people are still trying to drag it back into that literal Ptolemian egotism that allows no doubt as to plan or priority, and conflate it withall their other fears as well. In short, they're afraid of not being the superior species, or type, or culture. Creationists fear for their existence, because they have reduced it themselves to such an absolute of domination or utter helplessness, irrelevance in the scheme of things. Therefore they must bolster their delusions and try to force others to believe them as well. If not, they just might become...well, extinct. >:)

Pharmacists (and others) w/ incapacitating moral scruples....

Original Date: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:05 am

[Posted as reply in another group, in response to a member opining it
wrong to "coerce" pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their
moral beliefs.]
==========================================
"I'm with you except for one thing: passing a law obligating
a pharmacist (or anyone else) to do something against their moral
principles is a NO-NO in my eyes. If the pharmacist won't fill
someone's script because of moral objections, then take it up
with the store manager and get someone else or some other company to
fill your script. Enough people going to the store manager or
another company about their script not being filled on moral
principles will ultimately result in removal of pharmacist X to a
different job.
To force an unwilling pharmacist to fill a script against
his/her moral code is just as bad as any other form of coercion.
As for me, I'm strictly pro-choice."]
=================================================================

If a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions given to him
(and incidentally, I sincerely doubt that any female pharmacists are
having these "moral" dilemmas), than why the heck is he in the
profession?

A pharmacist is by definition the person who dispenses medications at
the express request/order or a physician. Call it enabling, whatever-
-that's their function, deal with it. They dispense drugs. They can
keep whatever suspicions or doubts or dislikes they want as to the
uses involved, but a valid prescription legally ought to be honoured--
or, information given as to another pharmacy that will not be so
(pardon the term) "obstructionist".

It is /not/ part of their job to second-guess either the physician's
judgement or the patient's needs, regardless of their own personal
beliefs. I live in Illinois, and I'm glad that Gov. Blagojevich
(yes, I can spell his name w/o looking it up) had the extreme
common sense to pass this measure telling pharmacists to fulfill the
logical duties of their job.

Aurey

(Chronically and unmedicatedly intellectual :P )

_______________________________________________________________________
Furthermore...... (I added)

Most consumers are sheep when it comes to complaining to stores and
getting any positive changes out of it. In some areas, going to
another pharmacy may be extremely difficult if not impossible. Free-
market economics are not always operating under free conditions,
contrary to the gospels of Ayn Rand.

And most of all, have you NOT NOTICED that this whole idea of
protecting "moral beliefs" in the workplace is basically a cover for
Christian right-wingers in any/all professions to refuse to do
their jobs without bias or prejudice, to withhold services and
information selectively according to their own opinions and not the
real needs of the patient, customer, client or student?

That means all medical personnel, high-school counselors (guidance
and school psychologists), librarians, public-school teachers,
police officers, and everyone else whose job description ordinarily
and properly states that they are not to let their own moral scruples
interfere with the actual job at hand, nor let them favour any person
above another in terms of attention or quality of care,
confidentiality, dignity, and civil rights.

Some people, in case you've forgotten, do not 'morally believe' in
civil rights.

All told, I'd rather 'coerce' them all to err on the side of putting
another's /needs/ above their own /preferences/. Anyone got a moral
problem with that?

Aurey

Isn't an "unwinnable" war more useful, though?

 

Some people I've read criticise George W. Bush for not having fully realized the size and complexity of the task of "securing" peace and freedom (and cooperative oil contracts) within Iraq -- they say he's an idiot and all manner of other derogatory things.  They refer back to his drunkenness, his drug use, anything to make the point that this guy has no idea where he's goin, what he's doing, or why he's dragging the rest of us into the firing line ahead of him.

 

Please, folks--this man is more canny than you know.  After all, who else in American Presidential history had the blinding foresight to spend his time and energy in college not on any piffling particular of discipline like law or political science but on the essential business of schmoozing itself.  Socio-political networking and buddy-building was his real major, as the Bush vs. Kerry duo-documentary "The Choice 2004" (Frontline) conveyed very objectively and clearly, and for that he no doubt should have been valedictorian rather than maintaining only "gentleman's 'C's" in his studies.  Diplomacy?--he's a master of it, so long as it suits his current needs.  This is not a stupid man, and his choices for foreign policy and personnel are not mere diplomatic gaffes but do have, mirabile dictu, a method that underlies them.

 

So....who ever said that Bush really wanted a winnable war?  Having the war ongoing does two very useful things: it keeps him in power through the threat that no other leader would be firm enough to sustain the "good fight" that he has fabricated, and it provides a rationale for whatever civic austerity measures and reactionary/repressive legislation he and his bunch want to put through.  It nicely blurs over the slow-but-steady erosion of security for the average person, as they are after all merely sharing a small part in the uncertainty and patriotic suffering of our forces overseas.  He takes on the doubting world as a Crusader king, an image that conjures up to many more of heroism and virtuous triumph than of the necessary feudalism and total monarchic rule that made such ventures imaginable upon the backs of the people.  As I think has been amply demonstrated by resent disclosures (such as certain memos/minutes?), Bush wanted a war, and a big flashy one to cover up cold-blooded actions with the hot-blooded exploits and drama of extended combat.  Peace, and the leisure of critical thought and close examination that it brings, is his real enemy.

 

Just like in "1984", the war is never really meant to be won and completed, no matter how the opponent shifts in name -- it's the guilt-complex-inducing background noise of 'our' troops dying that's meant to keep us docilely in line, and the threat of terrorism in response to 'our' own acceleration of insults and injuries to the rest of the world that is meant to keep us afraid of changing horses in mid-stream -- even if a different horse (perhaps one with actual combat experience to temper/hone his ideology?) would have seen the mess and gotten us the hell out of the swamp we're in by now.

Pre-emptive wars = "Weapons of Mass Distraction"....isn't that a catchy line?

 
Anyhow--do give the man a little credit.  I think he knows exactly what he's doing here.

 

============================================

Website -  http://www.geocities.com/aureantyev/AureantesRealm-portal
Groups Hosted -  http://www.geocities.com/aureantyev/current_groups
Portfolio/Feedback Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AureantesRealm
Official Blog - http://aureantesrealm.blogspot.com
Informal Blog - http://livejournal.com/users/aureantes
News Forum - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hyperlucidity

_________________________________________________

Fifteen minutes of fame....what Andy /really/ meant, dammit!

The most famous Andy Warhol quote of 'em all, now a household phrase invoked at every opportunity for fame, fortune, visibility, et cetera....and yet, we regard it as a ration, a set and finite span of time to be used or wasted and then--"out, out, brief candle"--no more.

Personally, in that spirit I haven't even begun to nibble at my own fifteen minutes, barely done a thing to try and seize the spotlight for myself. Why?--because it might be for the wrong reason. I don't want to waste my time on something that might be unworthy, petty, something less than all that I'm supposed to be and to show. Some people, you can tell when their fifteen minutes has come--there's a completion you can feel, that in a way this event, this issue encapsulates them, and they aren't going to turn up again, in news or in memory, except in relation to that one thing. A one-trick pony, perhaps, a one-hit wonder. The ironing is delicious.

Some people, on the other hand, may show up in the radar beam--even in the highest levels of celebrity--but you get a feeling they're not done yet--their story/saga/movie of the week has yet to receive its final draft from the writing team; there's still another twist or two to come in the theme before one can close the casefile.

And yet, what did Andy really mean? What he really said was, "In the future everyone will have fifteen minutes of fame." Not that that was a maximum allowance--more of a minimum lifetime requirement, I'd say.

And yes, it was a typical idealistic-artistic manifesto-ish thing to say...but do you see where he's coming from there? It's like a sabbatical rest-day law, or mandated health benefits....everyone deserves, everyone will, by virtue of their equal rights as human beings, be guaranteed fifteen minutes of fame. Absolute, word-on-the-street, everybody-knows-your-name fame. People will think of you, will notice you, will not ignore you. You will be a somebody. Everybody will be somebody. Nobodies of the world, unite--we shall not be invisible.

And of course, as most manifestos are apt to see far less than the original lofty spirit of their intent, we have a degraded version of that around us constantly now. Reality TV--game shows--lotteries--contests (and their underminings) that have far less to do with worth or quality or dignity than with the most atavistic drives for attention. People will eat maggots for attention, dress up in a cow costume for a singing audition, sell their bodies for advertising space, expose themselves and fight with their families and lovers onstage...anything to be noticed.

Does anyone see the desperation here, that after so much time this situation of fame has become even worse than before?--that there's a Never-Neverland (geez, thank you, Jacko...) of the "celebrity" world, which we hope to connect to if we're lucky, and then the everyday world of "real people" scrabbling to get out of the general crab-pail?

Look at that, and look at the socio-economic situation. Look at the gaps and the poverty of attention, how fleeting it is and yet how far people will go on a hope to escape their poor anonymity. Andy Warhol may have been a total pop-culture flake, but when it comes to fame his dream of the future has yet to be realized in its real and revolutionary form.

Argument re certain celebrities and their (fans') politics.....

"Pre-Election 2004 Fracas....(Aurey making trouble, like hyper-intellectual Bolshevik...)"

Old news, old bit of an affair online that I was involved in last year regarding David Soul's comments re the then-upcoming presidential election...but a large part of this this goes under the heading, actually, of why I do think that celebrities deserve to have their views listened to seriously--at least as seriously as anyone else's who hasn't got that level of visibility, or an audience of fans to care what comes out of their mouths.

This material was compiled 28 October 2004 from various posts, all commenters' names/mails/groups but mine are deleted for civility's sake. Altough I'm quite sure they'd try to have my head if they ever read this out in the open.....
=========================================
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005
From: "K. Aurencz Zethmayr"
Subject: Pre-Election Fracas....(Aurey making trouble, like hyper-intellectual Bolshevik...)

Here's the whole progression of things I actually said back then....there are a lot of things that other people said in the meantime which, as I mentioned, I still have saved in Daily Digest email-format. Anyhow.....*snickers*....enjoy...

==================================================
=====(28 October, 2004--to "Striped Tomato's Revenge")=====

Okay....this is a fight I'm still fuming over, but I guess it sums up
the insular nature of a lot of Starsky & Hutch fangroups, and of most fangroups
in general. I say one thing that happens to highlight political
opinion, and a whole firestorm fills the message lists...just
beautiful. And of course no one bothers to think about the content
of either "original message" here.

But anyhow--the subject line is perfectly readable, so anyone who
didn't want to read this can ignore/delete it in their mail without
further ado. I'm merely reversing the order of the original top-
posted reply and its catalyst-excerpt, so that maybe the whole
thought will have the effect I originally meant.

DM/Aurey

==========================================================
Subject: Re: Why does David live in Britain? ("Talking
politics".....)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--- [previous message, name and group deleted]
Hi all,

I just found this wonderful article obviously written by David that
tells us all about, why he came to England in the first place and a
lot more, too. Enjoy!

My home is where my art is
When David Soul was growing up on the
prairies of America's Midwest, he never imagined that, aged 61, he'd
be sitting in a grey council office, pledging his allegiance to the
Queen of England. Here, he explains how it happened...
20 October 2004

The initiation ceremony at the Haringey Civic Centre was sweet and
warm, not unlike early memories of being welcomed by the principal on
the first day of school... except that then, with my hand over my
heart, I would have pledged allegiance to the United States of
America.
[.......]
British citizenship does not mean that I am cutting my ties with
America. My children and my ageing parents still live in the States,
so I'll be visiting them, and I will be voting in the US presidential
election next month (if my vote actually gets counted). God help us
if George Bush is re-elected. Still, my choice is to belong here, and
in that belonging, I rejoice. Finally.
[.......]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[and then my reply, based on that statement and well-apparent concern
for the integrity of the voting/election process]

Okay, I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here had any
intention of talking politics (just like some of my mother's
relatives...).

Nevertheless, I'm going to break the ice with a proverbial
sledgehammer and say, damn right!!--God help this country and the
whole world if we get another four years of Bush. I am sick and
tired of being ashamed of this nation's actions under the Bush
Administration, and of our global reputation turning into that of an
incipient (if not manifest) Fourth Reich. I was raised to believe in
integrity and social ethics, not to mention to think for myself--I
guess being educated in the post-Watergate spirit tends to do that to
a person.

The blind nationalism, greed, and self-righteous arrogance I have
seen over the past four years have cost us dearly both in lives and
in quality of living, and they have gravely set back the cause of
humanity itself in the world. The United States is being tested--in
rather literally Biblical fashion, though most seem curiously blind
to this--and I certainly pray it can muster itself to pass the ordeal
and regain its honour, for the sake of all.

There. Now I'm going to go back to work on making politically-
incendiary gravestones for the front yard...I'll blend them in with
the rest of the ghastly decor......

Aurey

(now trying to figure out just where the gulags will most logically
be established in a second-term Bush presidency....

.........................................................................
===(elapsed time of indirect arguing over all this)===

"OT": Personal/Political, Fiction/Reality

[general letter]

I have to say, I'm really quite amazed that with all the ruckus this caused on the list, no one posted here to address me in the least over having started it. But then, I'm hardly a member of the fantelligentsia by nature.

At any rate, I am making this letter perfectly conspicuous for any reader to ignore and delete unread, as some of you seem of a type to do. But I thought perhaps, if you *had* gotten upset over my comments, you just might care to hear the reasoning behind them, and my own response to some of the reactions that have been going on around me.

First off: my comment was not technically "off-topic"--it was on the topic of part of what David said in his article. The fact that it happened to to be agreeing with and elaborating on a "political" statement, as opposed to any other topic, is of no importance save to those who avoid "talking politics" (i.e., hearing any actual challenge to their views, no matter what they are or how shallowly formed) like the plague.

And logically, I would *never* have posted such a comment gratuitously on this list. I own about ten groups myself, of various kinds--so I understand the importance of keeping things relevant. I also indicated clearly what the salient facet was of the message that I was responding to--i.e., "talking politics". Right there in the title line. Anyone who actually *wanted* to avoid talking politics could have simply ignored or deleted right there instead of complaining indirectly for the better part of a week.

Enough of that point, though...what really surprises me, in this group, is how many people seem to assume that a person's personal life and values can be discretely separated from the political views resulting therefrom, and the end choices (so far as elections go) conveniently ignored.

If I really care about and admire a person and their work, celebrity or not, I am truly interested in how they think, what they feel, what goes on in their life and the choices they have made therefrom. That's acknowledged, at least with a token sensitivity, as a major part of every fangroup I've ever seen.

So what makes it so taboo to mention the "politics" side of this when it's impossible to make a clear division between personal and political, between values and the choices that are made thereby? At least they indicate that a person *is* thinking, *is* operating according to some strongly-formed principles.

Just about every "serious" fangroup that I have seen about David and Paul takes note of and promotes their areas of activism as well as their creative work. And these do not come out of any frivolous or self-aggrandizing motivations, either, as I am well aware. And yet somehow, when it comes down to the wire of who they'd vote for, a person can seriously and hopefully say, "Well, people do change"?

So, there's the other tack--"Ah well, too bad they're flawed by not agreeing with my views" (paraphrasing of course)--let's all just get away from reality and focus on fiction, think about the boys and how sexy they are...rather than for a moment realizing that that very fiction is *not* the opposite of reality.

For heaven's sakes, this was a rather topical and explicitly-drawn TV series to begin with, and even the sheer sense of social purpose itself draws a line that is hard to ignore. Names may well not be named, "but the problems are real"--and whenever you have real problems, and realistic characters who deal with them and battle the real underlying evils of the system in which they live...well, where exactly are you hoping to escape to?

Off-duty utopias, perpetually, I suppose--places where it doesn't matter that even fictional characters are shaded with motives and values too, and that beneath the surface of sex appeal--and ingrained *with* the emotional closeness and loyalty that we all can see and resonate with--there are some elements of this that just might draw near to "political views" as well, applied to this same situation at hand.

But you're all quite free to ignore such niggling thoughts.

DM/Aurey

P.S.--Anyone who actually wishes to argue with me off-list is welcome to do so--I am not averse to challenge, and the only thing I ask is well-supported views. Actual evidence, if you will--and logic, not hearsay.

==================================
From: "David Michael Starsky" <aureantyev@y...>
Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:08 am
Subject: Re: "OT": Personal/Political, Fiction/Reality [LAST POST

--- In ----, ----... wrote:

This discussion was ended last night and will remain so but since
you seem to think it was so on topic I've pasted your email Friday Oct 22
below. No where in that post was David or Paul mentioned. It was clearly
you stating your political opinions. It didn't belong on this list nor did
the responses.
This is the last post I'm going to make on this. I repeat take it
off list.
(name deleted)

Dear (name deleted)--

"This discussion" (meaning the original one) was ended, so to speak,
unilaterally, without any resolution save that of censorship--and
frankly, the email of mine that you so thoughtfully provided was also
thoughtfully truncated of what I was actually referring/replying to

Which was the relevant paragraph of David's article where he says,
and I quote exactly, "God help us if George Bush is re-elected." I
happened to agree with him very emphatically on that sentiment, and
that was the sole reason why I posted as I did--i.e., because it was
not my opinion alone. Thank you so much for taking my remarks out
of their original context and totally misrepresenting my intentions.

Would it have been technically on-topic just so long as I mentioned
his name directly?

That latest "OT" post, btw, was a 'new' topic in the sense of trying
to bring up some general issues relative to Paul and David and their
personal values without naming other names or making any specific
political issue of it again.

But again, thank you for assuming my complete ill intentions. I have
no intention of posting anymore here on the "forbidden" topic--and if
you wish to argue against me directly on this matter, please come
off-list and do so. My case is closed as of this post.

DM/Aurey

===================================(and the last exchange here)===

-- In ----, ----... wrote:
How come people are allowed to talk about RED SOX but not politics?
Who are RED SOX and what sport do they play? I guess Paul supports them,
that's why we are allowed to talk about them? Just as we are allowed to talk
about politics because, in his recent article, David talks about not wanting Bush
to win?
With the election only a week away I guess this subject would have died a
natural death in a week or so anyway but its very hard not to be interested in
how David and Paul feel about the election of the most powerful man in the
world. **name deleted**

(Trying not to mention that I am inclined to believe that all those not
wanting the thread to continue were Republicans)

Oh, of course they are (I reply confidentially from the site)....and moreover, they know that they haven't got a leg to stand on logically...therefore making the topic off-limits is the only way to make sure their own opinions aren't critically assaulted, demolished, etc.

Personally, I think that most of the people who say they're voting for Bush, even though his policies will only hurt them more in the long run, are actually secretly afraid 'cause they haven't real evidence to back him on--only propaganda and peer pressure. Still, they're even more afraid of being proven wrong in their trust, and pride is a powerful force. Even though the only people in this country who can trust in Bush have to be making at least $200,000 a year to afford that luxury of ignoring the good of everything and everyone else--if they so choose.

But hey...as the Talmud says (and I quote this off the tag of an herbal tea bag), "You can educate a fool, but you cannot make him think."

I think that's the lesson for the past week, actually...

Aurey

"...the howling vacuum of anonymity...."

Whatever inequities (and we all know there are many) our modern society holds, one of the greatest disparities--and sources of despair, I may as well add--is the attention gap that lies between "celebrities"/other "personalities" and the rest of the world. It's greater than the economic gap and keeps growing every day in the world at large; it's fueled by all the tempestuous tension of a teenage love affair. Same needs, same primal and aching needs--to be known, to be seen. And for millions of people those needs are denied, distracted, pushed under the red carpet. Most of the people in the world are ignored, unrecognized, unremembered until the hour of their deaths and then ever after--like prophets unaccepted in their own countries, their gifts and potentials never fully realized by those closest to them, never given that blessing of sight from those in whose presence they live.

Given no honour--given no credit, really, because there's this deepdown strong-rooted thing that, based in our own general need for attention, draws most of us to hitch our wagons to the momentarily brightest stars, the ones that everyone can see, hoping that they will draw us up as well, like Cyrano de Bergerac's championship-bullsh***ing ruses of getting to the moon (Act III of Rostand's play):

"With crystal vials filled with morning dew,
And so be drawn aloft, as the sun rises,
Drinking the mist of dawn!
[...]
Or again,
Smoke having a natural tendency to rise,
Blow in a globe enough to raise me."

Smoke in a globe--apt enough, to hope to rise aloft by the smoke of one's own incense, prayers and devotions and sacrifices to your Well-Known God...and don't think that I haven't been there, done that myself. If I didn't know the phenomenon well, and from both sides moreover, do you think I'd have this bitterness to sharpen my words?

Love is an energy--hate is an energy...all attention that we give is energy spent, channeled onto another or onto ourselves. Nathaniel Hawthorne said that the strongest instincts of hate and revenge were as powerful as the deepest passion of love (this in The Scarlet Letter, re Roger Chillingsworth's pursuit of Arthur Dimmesdale to destroy him)--and we have proof through history that the worst thing you can do to people is not to hate them passionately as individuals but to group and dehumanize them en masse in one's mind, in one's actions and policies. Reducing people to statistics, demographics, religions, ethnicities, anything rather than giving them the dignity of their own identities.

When people are focused on each other at hand--in the closest forms of cameraderie and communion--their emotional energy flows to the other and back, strengthening each and all. When people are focused together on a common goal or adversary, their mutual energies gather and multiply, gaining force that may cause greater change than we can calculate or prove. When people focus together on one person as their leader or idol or sex symbol, that has a power too--but one that is unlikely to ever return benefit upon those who worship, unless this person in question truly has them in heart as well. Kings and dictators, I believe--politicians and televangelists and cult leaders, oh my--draw on this power widely to strengthen themselves, as if it were a net of devotion sustaining them, keeping them from mortal harm, feeding them out of their followers' own lives. And even the gods themselves (anyone watch old Star Trek episodes lately?) cannot hold their sway without the worship of mortals...

But gods are supposed to answer the plaints of their votaries, and kings have duties as well as rights if they want their homage and tributes to keep coming without relying entirely on force of arms. Sending your attention out to all that which does not answer and cannot help you--i.e., the "professional" world of celebrities--does you no good...it's only a fantasy. If you're going to choose idols, choose them wisely. Choose them for actual reasons and virtues, not just their good looks and the trend of the moment. Choose them for what they change and make better (or reveal better) in the real world, not just for being addictive distractions from a lackluster life. And try to notice other people, closer people a little bit more, to give their real lives some serious airtime, not just a passing blurb...and remember that celebrities are just people too, in every good and bad and human way.

"...The howling vacuum of anonymity"...the best phrase I've ever read to describe these times, and the one that finally got me writing on something I've felt and railed against for years. It struck me like a bolt the first time I read that speech, as that thought, that thing is something that I've always felt lies at the core of this nation's particular dysfunctionality, and exacerbates every other poverty and injustice here. The vast chasm that lies between those that everyone knows and those whom nobody knows--whether they're good or bad, idiots or geniuses, rich or poor, wrong or right. The fact that we can see some people on TV and in the news and talk about them, fantasize about them, argue about their guilt or innocence, send them our love and our hate, and yet not shed the same light for each other, not give a damn. Such a gross imbalance of attention as we have in the United States--and exported from it--is practically obscene. And when I use that word, it harks back to my father referring to The Stroop Report--the verbatim and photo-facsimile report of the SS destruction of the Warsaw Ghettos in 1943--as the "the most obscene book in this house." Go figure a little deeper to understand that one...

So, yeah, I think it's serious--a serious enough thing that people live their lives craving for fame and attention, and thrive and feed or wither and die or blow their brains out one way or another if they don't find what they really want after all. I'm not saying that people never deserve the spotlight they have--after all, there are definitely those I look to and follow their careers out of admiration, appreciating what they've shown me for my own journey--but the glare of celebrity does tend to be...rather overblown.

And besides, why should the rest of us be living in darkness?


Next topic: What "fifteen minutes of fame" was supposed to mean...