ecco ancor un altro post felicemente dimenticato:
prima di questo sabato non avevo riflesso sul autore delle città invisibili. a dir il vero, avevo capito che calvino era un uomo di lettere e sempre sono stato disinteressato alle vite di divano degli intellettuali.
questo sabato alla fil (la fiera internazionale del libro di guadalajara) i miei sospetti sono stati confermati: ho imparato da quattro autori di cui mai avevo ascoltato, e chi forse mai leggerò, che italo calvino era un uomo piuttosto silenzioso, profondo e manco di passione pella adrenalina. un uomo di casa, libri e conversazioni exquisite. cioè, un uomo di biografia noiosa per coloro che non possono tollerare al boswell.
ciononostante, e per fortuna, calvino ha fatto due viaggi nel messico e scrisse su montezuma, tula, il cibo messicano ed i sacrifici umani. ecco altre impresse del calvino che sono state riferite dagli esponenti:
1. di come italo calvino ottene una intervista al montezuma
il romanziere belponti, uomo di una cinquentenna d´anni e fazioni grazevoli, parlò di calvino l´antropologo e politologo. il calvino che aveva curiosità sul soggetto della vittoria di cortés sopra montezuma. anzi, la teoria del calvino é interesante: "per cortés tutto era chiaro, egli sapeva ché cosa voleva e niente di più era importante per lui; allora, egli si messe ad agire fin dal comincio senza interruzione. per montezuma, invece, l´ordine del mondo era un mistero fatale che non si poteva conoscere senza rifletterci profusamente; allora, montezuma non ha fatto niente perché lui non capiva ancor quale ruolo egli doveva esercitare senza provocare il disappunto dei dei."
forse non mi sono spiegato bene: calvino non presse a montezuma per un uomo superstizioso e indeciso; al contrario, calvino presse a montezuma per un uomo troppo spirituale e profondo. bisogna leggere quella citazione imperfetta come uno spregio a cortés lo semplificatore ed un riconoscimento al montezuma chi capiva meglio la complessità di questo mondo.
ciononostante, l´interpretazione calviniana di montezuma come il gran portatore di calorie del suo popolo non deve essere pressa per un epiteto eroico, ma anzi come una spiegazione del sostento del suo potere fondamentato sulla apportazione di proteine d´origine animale a traverso i sacrifici umani in un paese dove non c´erano animali di grandi dimensioni.
2. dove si riferisce come scriveva calvino
cerani, lo sceneggiatore di molti film di benigni e antico discepolo di passolinni, fece la distinzione fra moravia (uno scrittore sociologico-realista) e calvino (un autore del genero antropologico-fantastico). poi avanzò la teoría che la storia della letteratura è divisa fra improvisatori e strutturalistici e non si è deciso dove collocare a calvino.
3. dove il pubblico cade addormentato
franco, chi lavora in eunadi sul antico posto di calvino, parlò delle lettere di calvino agli scrittori. queste lettere sono noiose in estremo. l´intervento del quarto scrittore è stato pienamente improvisato e ha avuto una grave mancanza di rilevanza.
insomma, se andate ad una conferenza sulla vita o la persona d´italo calvino, portate un cubo di rubik.
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta se habla globish. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta se habla globish. Mostrar todas las entradas
martes, 6 de abril de 2010
domingo, 28 de febrero de 2010
perché l´italia conserva tante opere d´arte?
ecco una rassegna che avevo lasciato senza pubblicare perché avevo voglia di raffinare il meo italiano di calciatore argentino :) ma adesso che la coppa del mondo s´avvicina, vorrei fare il tifo per l´ARGENTINA con questo omaggio alle interviste "macarroniche" degli sports channels:
ieri sera alla fil guadalajara (la fiera internazionale del libro di guadalajara), lo scrittore philippe daverio ci spiegò perché, dalla sua prospettiva, si conservano tante opere d´arte in italia, ciò s´intenda, in relazione ad altri paesi della europa continentale.
daverio, chi somigliava à kissinger e parlava con un accento leggermente alsaziano, ha avanzato giocosamente la teoria che, dal secolo xvi, cioè, giusto quando le arme cominciano a diventare più distruttive, l´italia s´ha conservato in base ad un patto sociale--la contrareforma--chi ha compresso la chiesa, i potessi amministrativi,l´aristocrazia ed il popolo. così, dal consiglio di trento alla seconda guerra mondiale, periodo in cui l´alemagna ha subito una scolvongente guerra di trent´anni e la francia ebbe una rivoluzione iconoclasta, i fucili in italia non sono stati utilizati che per aggiustare i conflitti amorevoli e consumare i suicidi.
ma daverio non si è sodisfato con scherzare e processe à sviluppare una ipotesi ancor più ambiziosa: egli disse che, dal comincio, gl´altri paesi della europa continentale avevano la tradizione "barbarica" del kohn(?), cioè, la centralisazione del potesse. contrariamente, l´italia aveva una tradizione repubblicana di delegazione, decentralisazione e divisione del potesse.
allora, per illustrare la differenza, daverio messe l´essempio della intolleranza degl´itliani al concetto del kohn mostrando che cesare, i borgie, i savoiardi--sono stati assassinati (ma questo può dirci più sul metodo di successione monarchica in italia che sulla intoleranza ad una forma di governo). poi accettò che l´istaurazione del kohn da carolo magno ha avuto una durezza di due generazione, ma fece notare che i nuclei di assembleisti, cioè, i cittadini stessi, mandarono ai contadini ad articolare la città. e finalmente concesse che ci sono state monarchie assolute durevole, ma raccoglie che le due monarchie più durevole del´italia, quella del papa à roma e quella del dogge in venezia, erano elettive.
io trovo la teoria di daverio piuttosto semplicista perché, alla fine, daverio...
- non considera la varietà di paesi che non si trovano nel continente europeo, e si limita a fare il paragone fra i paesi germanici e i latini
- non parla della quantità d´opere d´arte prodotte in relazione alla quantità d´opere distrutte, e si limita a parlare della quantità assoluta d´opere d´arte conservate; opere d´arte, ricordiamo, che sono riconosciute per una istituzione internazionale che ha un pregiudizio philoeuropeo (parliamo della unesco, cattivata dagli occidentali fin dal´inizio)
- confina il mondo a due tipi di paesi: sei paese germanico o sei latino
- limita le variabili al kohn ed il non-kohn
- non considera la realpolitik militare della seconda guerra mondiale: gl´aliati non hanno bombardato l´italia di mussolini per sgarbo; loro hanno, invece, annichilato la germania nazi per timore
- non considera gl´accidenti tecnologico-temporali: le arme che sono state utilizzate nella seconda guerra mondiale -che non avvene in italia per motivi della realpolitik militare degli alleati, e non per un patto interno fra gl´italiani- erano tantissime volte più distruttive che quelle che sono state utilizzate nei conflitti internazionali che si sono avvenuti nel suolo italiano per volontà dei potessi stranieri, e non per accordo dei potessi locali.
daverio è stato il migliore espositore italiano nella fil 2008; sempre divertente, profondo e acuto. ma l´italia è il paese che "conserva più opere d´arte" perché l´istituto che certifica le opere d´arte a preferenze vantaggiose, perché l´italia ha avuto la fortuna di essere ignorata per i bombers della seconda guerra mondiale, e perché le invasione serie che ha subito sono stato fatte nella premodernità.
Protejamos a la Sierra de la Laguna de la minería a cielo abierto y el uso del cianuro.
Apoyemos a la comunidad del Rosario en obtener fuentes alternas de ingresos:
ecoturismo, artesanías y conservación
ieri sera alla fil guadalajara (la fiera internazionale del libro di guadalajara), lo scrittore philippe daverio ci spiegò perché, dalla sua prospettiva, si conservano tante opere d´arte in italia, ciò s´intenda, in relazione ad altri paesi della europa continentale.
daverio, chi somigliava à kissinger e parlava con un accento leggermente alsaziano, ha avanzato giocosamente la teoria che, dal secolo xvi, cioè, giusto quando le arme cominciano a diventare più distruttive, l´italia s´ha conservato in base ad un patto sociale--la contrareforma--chi ha compresso la chiesa, i potessi amministrativi,l´aristocrazia ed il popolo. così, dal consiglio di trento alla seconda guerra mondiale, periodo in cui l´alemagna ha subito una scolvongente guerra di trent´anni e la francia ebbe una rivoluzione iconoclasta, i fucili in italia non sono stati utilizati che per aggiustare i conflitti amorevoli e consumare i suicidi.
ma daverio non si è sodisfato con scherzare e processe à sviluppare una ipotesi ancor più ambiziosa: egli disse che, dal comincio, gl´altri paesi della europa continentale avevano la tradizione "barbarica" del kohn(?), cioè, la centralisazione del potesse. contrariamente, l´italia aveva una tradizione repubblicana di delegazione, decentralisazione e divisione del potesse.
allora, per illustrare la differenza, daverio messe l´essempio della intolleranza degl´itliani al concetto del kohn mostrando che cesare, i borgie, i savoiardi--sono stati assassinati (ma questo può dirci più sul metodo di successione monarchica in italia che sulla intoleranza ad una forma di governo). poi accettò che l´istaurazione del kohn da carolo magno ha avuto una durezza di due generazione, ma fece notare che i nuclei di assembleisti, cioè, i cittadini stessi, mandarono ai contadini ad articolare la città. e finalmente concesse che ci sono state monarchie assolute durevole, ma raccoglie che le due monarchie più durevole del´italia, quella del papa à roma e quella del dogge in venezia, erano elettive.
io trovo la teoria di daverio piuttosto semplicista perché, alla fine, daverio...
- non considera la varietà di paesi che non si trovano nel continente europeo, e si limita a fare il paragone fra i paesi germanici e i latini
- non parla della quantità d´opere d´arte prodotte in relazione alla quantità d´opere distrutte, e si limita a parlare della quantità assoluta d´opere d´arte conservate; opere d´arte, ricordiamo, che sono riconosciute per una istituzione internazionale che ha un pregiudizio philoeuropeo (parliamo della unesco, cattivata dagli occidentali fin dal´inizio)
- confina il mondo a due tipi di paesi: sei paese germanico o sei latino
- limita le variabili al kohn ed il non-kohn
- non considera la realpolitik militare della seconda guerra mondiale: gl´aliati non hanno bombardato l´italia di mussolini per sgarbo; loro hanno, invece, annichilato la germania nazi per timore
- non considera gl´accidenti tecnologico-temporali: le arme che sono state utilizzate nella seconda guerra mondiale -che non avvene in italia per motivi della realpolitik militare degli alleati, e non per un patto interno fra gl´italiani- erano tantissime volte più distruttive che quelle che sono state utilizzate nei conflitti internazionali che si sono avvenuti nel suolo italiano per volontà dei potessi stranieri, e non per accordo dei potessi locali.
daverio è stato il migliore espositore italiano nella fil 2008; sempre divertente, profondo e acuto. ma l´italia è il paese che "conserva più opere d´arte" perché l´istituto che certifica le opere d´arte a preferenze vantaggiose, perché l´italia ha avuto la fortuna di essere ignorata per i bombers della seconda guerra mondiale, e perché le invasione serie che ha subito sono stato fatte nella premodernità.
Protejamos a la Sierra de la Laguna de la minería a cielo abierto y el uso del cianuro.
Apoyemos a la comunidad del Rosario en obtener fuentes alternas de ingresos:
ecoturismo, artesanías y conservación
lunes, 11 de mayo de 2009
an HR meritocracy may be more democratic
I had not felt like writing for about 2 months. then I read vaclav havel on the "democratic" process that takes place at the united nations human rights council (see here).
I started by posting this facebook note:
"the UNHR council should be headed by the countries that rank the highest in their HR records based on the rankings published by respected NGO's. there should be no voting process in their selection simply because human rights affairs are questions of principles, not interests, and because, as seen on this article, asymmetries of power and lack of civic+social participation undermine democracy in the UN to the advantage of bully states.
"if solely the countries that are the most observant of human rights are in charge of this council, then the us, mother russia and saudi arabia will do greater efforts to improve their HR agenda, just in order to EARN their seat in the UNHR council. plus, the governments of zimbabwe and sudan wouldn't be able to block action on their abuses.
"not the best solution, an HR meritocracy, but certainly better than the status quo, where china and cuba get to be the HR custodes of the world."
and then I felt like delving on this subject, but, oi! I don't really feel like rewriting that statement. all I can do is to make some "annotations to a facebook note":
1. when I talk about legit NGO´s, I think about the equivalents of amnesty international and human rights watch; institutions relatively more commited to human rights and more independent from the interests and guidelines of heads of states than the human rights department of china, the us or cuba. civic institutions that command more trust than state institutions because they can apply a human rights approach when state institutions must follow the guidelines of the mugabes and the berlusconis of the world--people that don´t focefully prioritize the cause of human rights over raisons d´état or their own irrationality.
I´d make sure I´m including in that list NGO´s focused on women rights, children rights, gay rights, minority rights and the rights of indigenous communities.
2. sure, I believe there are market failures and I also believe there are democracy failures. quirky preconditions, such as power asymmetries (having enough power to buy, block or bully a seat or a vote), non-prioritization (believing that human rights are not on top of the agenda) or categorization (believing that there are priorities that come before human rights) of the topic in question, tradability of seats and votes (the mere opportunity of exchanging votes on human rights as if they were votes on movies to see), lack of civic participation (the mere fact that states, and not peoples, are directly represented in the UNHR council derives in abominations such as putting raisons d'état before the well-being, the fundamental rights and the best interests of the peoples)--this type of preconditions, I was trying to say, can cause the whole democratic process to be flawed.
we cannot call the faulty process that takes place at the UNHR council a democratic process--in democracies the fundamental rights of minorities and the interest groups that are not on power are guaranteed, whereas the fact that the us, cuba and saudi arabia, gross systematic violators of human rights, are likely to be the global guarantors of these rights, assures us that they are not going to be guaranteed. this makes void the democratic value of the election process and outcome at the UNHR coucil.
3. I'd make sure the five continents are represented by implementing a system of quotas, most probably like the one that is in use at the council. in this way, the top 10 HR observing countries would not forcefully be the ones in charge of the council, but at least the most HR observant countries of each continent would be represented.
at this moment I don't know what countries are going to be "elected" to run the UNHR council, but I bet this line-up would be more convenient for the cause:
AFRICA
gabon
south africa
AMERICA
costa rica
canada
ASIA
japan
india
hong kong
MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA
united arab emirates
morocco
EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA
norway
czech republic
OCEANIA
new zeland
4. sure enough, most respectable NGO's don't publish HR rankings, states would bully NGO's, ranking criteria would be politicized, and so on and so forth. this is not a silver bullet to solve all problems or an apple pie to be welcomed by everyone. but it certainly represents an improvement over the status quo--the process is more participative and the outcome, less crook friendly.
I started by posting this facebook note:
"the UNHR council should be headed by the countries that rank the highest in their HR records based on the rankings published by respected NGO's. there should be no voting process in their selection simply because human rights affairs are questions of principles, not interests, and because, as seen on this article, asymmetries of power and lack of civic+social participation undermine democracy in the UN to the advantage of bully states.
"if solely the countries that are the most observant of human rights are in charge of this council, then the us, mother russia and saudi arabia will do greater efforts to improve their HR agenda, just in order to EARN their seat in the UNHR council. plus, the governments of zimbabwe and sudan wouldn't be able to block action on their abuses.
"not the best solution, an HR meritocracy, but certainly better than the status quo, where china and cuba get to be the HR custodes of the world."
and then I felt like delving on this subject, but, oi! I don't really feel like rewriting that statement. all I can do is to make some "annotations to a facebook note":
1. when I talk about legit NGO´s, I think about the equivalents of amnesty international and human rights watch; institutions relatively more commited to human rights and more independent from the interests and guidelines of heads of states than the human rights department of china, the us or cuba. civic institutions that command more trust than state institutions because they can apply a human rights approach when state institutions must follow the guidelines of the mugabes and the berlusconis of the world--people that don´t focefully prioritize the cause of human rights over raisons d´état or their own irrationality.
I´d make sure I´m including in that list NGO´s focused on women rights, children rights, gay rights, minority rights and the rights of indigenous communities.
2. sure, I believe there are market failures and I also believe there are democracy failures. quirky preconditions, such as power asymmetries (having enough power to buy, block or bully a seat or a vote), non-prioritization (believing that human rights are not on top of the agenda) or categorization (believing that there are priorities that come before human rights) of the topic in question, tradability of seats and votes (the mere opportunity of exchanging votes on human rights as if they were votes on movies to see), lack of civic participation (the mere fact that states, and not peoples, are directly represented in the UNHR council derives in abominations such as putting raisons d'état before the well-being, the fundamental rights and the best interests of the peoples)--this type of preconditions, I was trying to say, can cause the whole democratic process to be flawed.
we cannot call the faulty process that takes place at the UNHR council a democratic process--in democracies the fundamental rights of minorities and the interest groups that are not on power are guaranteed, whereas the fact that the us, cuba and saudi arabia, gross systematic violators of human rights, are likely to be the global guarantors of these rights, assures us that they are not going to be guaranteed. this makes void the democratic value of the election process and outcome at the UNHR coucil.
3. I'd make sure the five continents are represented by implementing a system of quotas, most probably like the one that is in use at the council. in this way, the top 10 HR observing countries would not forcefully be the ones in charge of the council, but at least the most HR observant countries of each continent would be represented.
at this moment I don't know what countries are going to be "elected" to run the UNHR council, but I bet this line-up would be more convenient for the cause:
AFRICA
gabon
south africa
AMERICA
costa rica
canada
ASIA
japan
india
hong kong
MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA
united arab emirates
morocco
EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA
norway
czech republic
OCEANIA
new zeland
4. sure enough, most respectable NGO's don't publish HR rankings, states would bully NGO's, ranking criteria would be politicized, and so on and so forth. this is not a silver bullet to solve all problems or an apple pie to be welcomed by everyone. but it certainly represents an improvement over the status quo--the process is more participative and the outcome, less crook friendly.
martes, 14 de octubre de 2008
un mot de reconnaissance--pour chomsky
j'éprouve des sentiments mêlés vers l'oeuvre de chomsky. en bref, je reconnais en lui le las casas de l'amérique impérialiste, mais je lui considère, aussi, sursimpliste et tendancieux au dépit du jugement, surtout quand il parle de tout ce que ne concerne pas les transgressions de son gouvernement à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur de son pays. pour mieux illustrer ma réservé appréciation de cet auteur, je vais lui faire un éloge dans son style (sélective et sousprofond).
je vais commencer pour mentionner un fait incontestable: chomsky est un formidable débatteur. il a une facilité pour écraser son rival et faire voir sa position comme au moins tout à fait valide (si seulement le bout des débats serait d´écraser l´autre personne...). à mon avis, il a eu quelque mérite pour dévoiler le surpartial et ignorant qui était buckley et on éprouve toujours quelque satisfaction quand un péteux est corrigé--même si c'est par quelqu'un pharisaïque et pétulant.
son attitude de petit père la vertu a au moins quelque fondement car il a été consistent dans sa critique de la politique expansionniste américaine et sa béllicosité hégémoniste, et dans ce respecte il a plus de mérite que le new york times, voire l'economist, qui ont soutenu les arguments les plus perverses (la doctrine bush, l'instauration de la démocratie par les armes, la "preuve" de l´existence des armes de destruction massive comme casus belli suffisant) pendant le débat sur l'invasion de l'irak en 2003.
c'est pour cette raison que je maintiens que chomsky, pourvu ses fautes et faiblesses, est un bartolomé de la casas de l'amérique impérialiste qui s'est mis à voir pour les droits des victimes de la béllicosité, l'abuse et l'avidité américaine. et dans mes yeux c'est son plus grand mérite que de créer conscience dans ses compatriotes pour respecter les droits des autres et pour contrôler les transgressions propres.
cela nous amène à une autre raison de mon admiration pour chomsky: il invite ses lecteurs à questionner les autorités et à penser critiquement. s'ils préfèrent de ne pas penser par eux mêmes et de suivre les opinions de chomsky comme la vérité révélé, ce n'est pas la faute à chomsky--il ne peut pas penser par eux :)
pour finir, sa position critique à la société consommatrice et au cours qui est en train de prendre le capitalisme vers une mondialisation d'oligopoles privés est toujours bienvenu. si bien chomsky n'apporte rien de neuf dans le débat, au moins il répand l'inquiétude.
en un mot, je pense que le plus grand mérite de chomsky est de faire l'ombudsman de l'empire américain. je crois que son entêtement est ce qui divise mon opinion sur lui: il lui fournit avec consistance et courage, mais il lui empêche de sa capacité d'analyse--comme intello engagé il est plus un parleur courageux qu'un penseur profond.
je vais commencer pour mentionner un fait incontestable: chomsky est un formidable débatteur. il a une facilité pour écraser son rival et faire voir sa position comme au moins tout à fait valide (si seulement le bout des débats serait d´écraser l´autre personne...). à mon avis, il a eu quelque mérite pour dévoiler le surpartial et ignorant qui était buckley et on éprouve toujours quelque satisfaction quand un péteux est corrigé--même si c'est par quelqu'un pharisaïque et pétulant.
son attitude de petit père la vertu a au moins quelque fondement car il a été consistent dans sa critique de la politique expansionniste américaine et sa béllicosité hégémoniste, et dans ce respecte il a plus de mérite que le new york times, voire l'economist, qui ont soutenu les arguments les plus perverses (la doctrine bush, l'instauration de la démocratie par les armes, la "preuve" de l´existence des armes de destruction massive comme casus belli suffisant) pendant le débat sur l'invasion de l'irak en 2003.
c'est pour cette raison que je maintiens que chomsky, pourvu ses fautes et faiblesses, est un bartolomé de la casas de l'amérique impérialiste qui s'est mis à voir pour les droits des victimes de la béllicosité, l'abuse et l'avidité américaine. et dans mes yeux c'est son plus grand mérite que de créer conscience dans ses compatriotes pour respecter les droits des autres et pour contrôler les transgressions propres.
cela nous amène à une autre raison de mon admiration pour chomsky: il invite ses lecteurs à questionner les autorités et à penser critiquement. s'ils préfèrent de ne pas penser par eux mêmes et de suivre les opinions de chomsky comme la vérité révélé, ce n'est pas la faute à chomsky--il ne peut pas penser par eux :)
pour finir, sa position critique à la société consommatrice et au cours qui est en train de prendre le capitalisme vers une mondialisation d'oligopoles privés est toujours bienvenu. si bien chomsky n'apporte rien de neuf dans le débat, au moins il répand l'inquiétude.
en un mot, je pense que le plus grand mérite de chomsky est de faire l'ombudsman de l'empire américain. je crois que son entêtement est ce qui divise mon opinion sur lui: il lui fournit avec consistance et courage, mais il lui empêche de sa capacité d'analyse--comme intello engagé il est plus un parleur courageux qu'un penseur profond.
lunes, 18 de febrero de 2008
for religion, against harmful residual beliefs
religion stands on three pillars, which constitute, coincidentally, the essence of humanism: love, truth and liberty. belief in each and all of these three pillars constitutes a great leap of faith and an act of common sense; religion, after all, lies where common sense and faith meet.
thus, a virtuous deed is no other than a sacrifice for the cause of truth, love and/or liberty. and sanctity is the fusion of the will of the individual with the way of love, truth and liberty at the tune of ayler´s "spiritual unity".
any belief that is held by whichever church, which is not directly linked to either of these three pillars is a residual belief, which can be ignored at will if it is not harmful, and should be done with immediately if it is, for it is an irreligious practice to attempt against these most humane and yet divine elements in the name of the temporary power of a fallibly manned church.
there is nothing as romantic as a procession or a religious ceremony: communion and spirituality fuse with tradition and hope so as to fill with strength and joy the congregated. and yet, in and of themselves, religious ceremonies don´t make the believer the least bit more virtuous, humane or loving. for this reason, the believer may or may not partake of each or all of the ceremonies estipulated by her church without necessarily affecting the process of the perfection of her soul, or her relationship with god in this life or in the afterlife.
there is nothing as harmful to god, society and the souls of the parties involved as systematic discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, capabilities, etc. even more so in a religious organization, since it is untrue that religion or god, for that matter, mandates that unrightful practice; it is unlovely to marginalize on the one hand and to allocate privileges on the other; and this practice constitutes a serious violation to the religious liberties and rights of believers, for the task of religion is to free the soul, and not to fetter it, even less so selectively.
all this just to say that the church that bans gay marriage, supports male or non-diverse supremacy, or prohibits women´s aspirations to priesthood is involving itself in irreligious deeds by harming the causes of the truth (since it is not true that god mandates discrimination and targeted exclusivity), love (we don´t even need to mention why) and liberty (same as above) within the church and in society.
the crusades were not a christian institution--nor are armed jihads an Islamic one. human sacrifices had nothing to do with the cult of quetzalcoatl. these are unlovely and inhumane acts, and it is untrue that god´s will is to use those offensive and destructive means in order to attain any of the ends the residual-believers and fallible churches had, have or will have in mind.
there is no connection whatsoever between opposing abortion and improving one´s soul. in any case, the best way to erradicate abortion is to distribute condoms and birth control pills so as to prevent unwanted pregnancies. sex education and the proliferation of condoms and birth control pills are more of a christian institution than systematic stigmatization, intolerance and inconsideration for the needy.
thus, a virtuous deed is no other than a sacrifice for the cause of truth, love and/or liberty. and sanctity is the fusion of the will of the individual with the way of love, truth and liberty at the tune of ayler´s "spiritual unity".
any belief that is held by whichever church, which is not directly linked to either of these three pillars is a residual belief, which can be ignored at will if it is not harmful, and should be done with immediately if it is, for it is an irreligious practice to attempt against these most humane and yet divine elements in the name of the temporary power of a fallibly manned church.
there is nothing as romantic as a procession or a religious ceremony: communion and spirituality fuse with tradition and hope so as to fill with strength and joy the congregated. and yet, in and of themselves, religious ceremonies don´t make the believer the least bit more virtuous, humane or loving. for this reason, the believer may or may not partake of each or all of the ceremonies estipulated by her church without necessarily affecting the process of the perfection of her soul, or her relationship with god in this life or in the afterlife.
there is nothing as harmful to god, society and the souls of the parties involved as systematic discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, capabilities, etc. even more so in a religious organization, since it is untrue that religion or god, for that matter, mandates that unrightful practice; it is unlovely to marginalize on the one hand and to allocate privileges on the other; and this practice constitutes a serious violation to the religious liberties and rights of believers, for the task of religion is to free the soul, and not to fetter it, even less so selectively.
all this just to say that the church that bans gay marriage, supports male or non-diverse supremacy, or prohibits women´s aspirations to priesthood is involving itself in irreligious deeds by harming the causes of the truth (since it is not true that god mandates discrimination and targeted exclusivity), love (we don´t even need to mention why) and liberty (same as above) within the church and in society.
the crusades were not a christian institution--nor are armed jihads an Islamic one. human sacrifices had nothing to do with the cult of quetzalcoatl. these are unlovely and inhumane acts, and it is untrue that god´s will is to use those offensive and destructive means in order to attain any of the ends the residual-believers and fallible churches had, have or will have in mind.
there is no connection whatsoever between opposing abortion and improving one´s soul. in any case, the best way to erradicate abortion is to distribute condoms and birth control pills so as to prevent unwanted pregnancies. sex education and the proliferation of condoms and birth control pills are more of a christian institution than systematic stigmatization, intolerance and inconsideration for the needy.
jueves, 14 de febrero de 2008
love
love is the only humanism--as nondiscriminatory and inclusive as life herself.
some may think that to act according to a certain group of precepts or that believing in this ideology or that religion makes up for this vital ingredient; but merely doing the right thing or thinking altruistically doesn´t kindle your heart. it doesn´t fill your soul. it doesn´t make you the least bit more humane.
you may have made everyone happy. but if you were not motivated by love, if you didn´t act with love, if you didn´t partake of that happiness--then you were no more than a useful instrument of humanity, and not a humane agent.
moralists will always be struggling to determine the precepts that will lead you to act rightfully, virtuously, justly, magnanimously, etc. in the meantime, you can rest assured that by truly loving your neighbor you will never act unrightfully, cowardly, unjustly, abusively, etc.
so when you´re raising your child, don´t merely teach her morals--she already has a conscience. show her how much you love her and let her love as much as possible; she will know how to act towards her beloved neighbor.
love is the only celebration of the divinity--as unlimited in intensity and reach as the power of the almighty.
you´re not doing any service to your God by killing on Her name--God didn´t bring you to destroy the lives of Her sons and daughters, your sisters and brothers, but to partake of Her power of creation--to partake of the most holy of miracles: the creation of love. out of nothing. from such a vicious, treacherous, vane egoist as we all are. to such a this-wordly creature as all the objects of our affection are.
God appreciates your intentions, but She would certainly prefer if you simply acted out of love for your neighbor, and not out of this or that interpretation of this or that Holy Scripture.
your people need your enthusiasm, but they need a better education, health care, investment and technological progress: your people would be better off if you were a teacher, a nurse, a micro-creditor, or a researcher-developer--you have the education, you have the means; terrorism, guerrilla warfare and suicide-bombing are no more than ways to add up problems and to complicate things for your beloved people, especially the most vulnerable ones.
again, god doesn´t want you to be intolerant to those who practice birth control. god didn´t bring you to impose your values on her beloved creatures. god wants each individual to be free to take decisions on his or her own consulting her conscience, not exclusively your opinion.
having an abortion is a very wearisome process, try showing some love to your sister just when she needs you most instead of stigmatizing her.
humanity appreciates your respect for life. you can prevent abortions by channeling your energy and your resources into providing sex education, condoms, birth control pills, and other ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies in neighborhoods where prospective parents don't have the resources just yet required to raise such a precious thing as is a child.
love is the only humanism and love is the essence of all religions alike. you don´t need to have a partner to celebrate love and life; you have about 6,649,117,969 neighbors to whom you can show your brotherly or sisterly love anytime.
some may think that to act according to a certain group of precepts or that believing in this ideology or that religion makes up for this vital ingredient; but merely doing the right thing or thinking altruistically doesn´t kindle your heart. it doesn´t fill your soul. it doesn´t make you the least bit more humane.
you may have made everyone happy. but if you were not motivated by love, if you didn´t act with love, if you didn´t partake of that happiness--then you were no more than a useful instrument of humanity, and not a humane agent.
moralists will always be struggling to determine the precepts that will lead you to act rightfully, virtuously, justly, magnanimously, etc. in the meantime, you can rest assured that by truly loving your neighbor you will never act unrightfully, cowardly, unjustly, abusively, etc.
so when you´re raising your child, don´t merely teach her morals--she already has a conscience. show her how much you love her and let her love as much as possible; she will know how to act towards her beloved neighbor.
love is the only celebration of the divinity--as unlimited in intensity and reach as the power of the almighty.
you´re not doing any service to your God by killing on Her name--God didn´t bring you to destroy the lives of Her sons and daughters, your sisters and brothers, but to partake of Her power of creation--to partake of the most holy of miracles: the creation of love. out of nothing. from such a vicious, treacherous, vane egoist as we all are. to such a this-wordly creature as all the objects of our affection are.
God appreciates your intentions, but She would certainly prefer if you simply acted out of love for your neighbor, and not out of this or that interpretation of this or that Holy Scripture.
your people need your enthusiasm, but they need a better education, health care, investment and technological progress: your people would be better off if you were a teacher, a nurse, a micro-creditor, or a researcher-developer--you have the education, you have the means; terrorism, guerrilla warfare and suicide-bombing are no more than ways to add up problems and to complicate things for your beloved people, especially the most vulnerable ones.
again, god doesn´t want you to be intolerant to those who practice birth control. god didn´t bring you to impose your values on her beloved creatures. god wants each individual to be free to take decisions on his or her own consulting her conscience, not exclusively your opinion.
having an abortion is a very wearisome process, try showing some love to your sister just when she needs you most instead of stigmatizing her.
humanity appreciates your respect for life. you can prevent abortions by channeling your energy and your resources into providing sex education, condoms, birth control pills, and other ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies in neighborhoods where prospective parents don't have the resources just yet required to raise such a precious thing as is a child.
love is the only humanism and love is the essence of all religions alike. you don´t need to have a partner to celebrate love and life; you have about 6,649,117,969 neighbors to whom you can show your brotherly or sisterly love anytime.
libertarianism and exploitation
the war on exploitation is a libertarian war.
during the last century we saw hoards of social-fascist regimes (communist regimes in pc-speak) imposing, to paraphrase galbraith, the exploitation of man by man just in order to end with the exploitation of man by man. this century man shall liberate himself from, well, man. and it shall be done using the government as a tool, though no guerrilla warfare or armed revolution ought to be involved.
screw all hitherto "cool" revolutions: libertarian principles, democratic means.
the fight against exploitation is not the monopoly of marxism, caudillos or guerrilleros. at high schools and universities you see plenty of kids taking the ché guevara for an exquisite liberator. this people have failed to consider libertarianism not because of the lack of "cool" promotional gadgets, but because they haven't been informed about the libertarian discourse against exploitation.
libertarians are so absorbed in the fundamentals, that they forget to address the issues of everyday life.
as a consequence, 9 out of 10 people are going to tell you that they understand laissez faire as an ideology that favours the rich and powerful. needless to say, libertarians are seen as the useful idiots of the establishment; perpetuators of the status quo. perhaps the way in which libertarians are perceived is just the same way in which libertarians perceive liberals: clowns with a rhetoric against big corporations, rent-seeking and privileges who end up favouring (in this case, via protectionism, in the case of libertarianism, via carte blanche) these very monsters, thus putting limits to social mobility and retarding the creation of greater opportunities.
how come the ideology of individual liberties is not immediately identified with the war on that most heinous violation of individual rights--exploitation?
I say the "new" perception of economies of scale is to blame. the tolerance of libertarians to big corps and transnationals in the name of economies of scale has become overwhelmingly lax. libertarianism ought to reconsider schumacher if it wants to stay afloat and to be the ideology of choice of the common man.
the intolerance to monopoly power and transnational abuses in the name of innovation, competition and equity ought to take the spotlight.
even some self-proclaimed libertarians believe that laissez faire-ism must be supported unconditionally, irrespectively of the accidents of space, history, the situation of the poor ex ante and ex post (especially in the short term), global and local politics, collective action problems, distribution, culture, etc. those among them who are aware of the consequences argue that the new equilibrium will multiply the fish and the bread in and of itself. but the economic equilibrium in an of itself doesn't address the questions of covering the basic needs of the very poor and of guaranteeing a level field for fair competition to take place at stage 2.
government intervention is a minor evil when compared to unattended basic needs and unrestrained inequity.
in this jihad against exploitation, the role of governments will have to be crucial mainly for two reasons:
-first, the scale of the "new" economy's big corps and transnationals demands greater strength in government institutions just in order to regulate them at a minimum so as to see that social costs are being properly internalized
-second, the main duty of the government is to protect the rights of each individual: if an act of exploitation takes place at home, then the government will have to act in the name of the victim and of society; if any act of exploitation is committed abroad, then the government will have to take measures in order to protect its citizens from unfair competition.
thus, the war on exploitation is a matter of domestic and foreign policy.
during the last century we saw hoards of social-fascist regimes (communist regimes in pc-speak) imposing, to paraphrase galbraith, the exploitation of man by man just in order to end with the exploitation of man by man. this century man shall liberate himself from, well, man. and it shall be done using the government as a tool, though no guerrilla warfare or armed revolution ought to be involved.
screw all hitherto "cool" revolutions: libertarian principles, democratic means.
the fight against exploitation is not the monopoly of marxism, caudillos or guerrilleros. at high schools and universities you see plenty of kids taking the ché guevara for an exquisite liberator. this people have failed to consider libertarianism not because of the lack of "cool" promotional gadgets, but because they haven't been informed about the libertarian discourse against exploitation.
libertarians are so absorbed in the fundamentals, that they forget to address the issues of everyday life.
as a consequence, 9 out of 10 people are going to tell you that they understand laissez faire as an ideology that favours the rich and powerful. needless to say, libertarians are seen as the useful idiots of the establishment; perpetuators of the status quo. perhaps the way in which libertarians are perceived is just the same way in which libertarians perceive liberals: clowns with a rhetoric against big corporations, rent-seeking and privileges who end up favouring (in this case, via protectionism, in the case of libertarianism, via carte blanche) these very monsters, thus putting limits to social mobility and retarding the creation of greater opportunities.
how come the ideology of individual liberties is not immediately identified with the war on that most heinous violation of individual rights--exploitation?
I say the "new" perception of economies of scale is to blame. the tolerance of libertarians to big corps and transnationals in the name of economies of scale has become overwhelmingly lax. libertarianism ought to reconsider schumacher if it wants to stay afloat and to be the ideology of choice of the common man.
the intolerance to monopoly power and transnational abuses in the name of innovation, competition and equity ought to take the spotlight.
even some self-proclaimed libertarians believe that laissez faire-ism must be supported unconditionally, irrespectively of the accidents of space, history, the situation of the poor ex ante and ex post (especially in the short term), global and local politics, collective action problems, distribution, culture, etc. those among them who are aware of the consequences argue that the new equilibrium will multiply the fish and the bread in and of itself. but the economic equilibrium in an of itself doesn't address the questions of covering the basic needs of the very poor and of guaranteeing a level field for fair competition to take place at stage 2.
government intervention is a minor evil when compared to unattended basic needs and unrestrained inequity.
in this jihad against exploitation, the role of governments will have to be crucial mainly for two reasons:
-first, the scale of the "new" economy's big corps and transnationals demands greater strength in government institutions just in order to regulate them at a minimum so as to see that social costs are being properly internalized
-second, the main duty of the government is to protect the rights of each individual: if an act of exploitation takes place at home, then the government will have to act in the name of the victim and of society; if any act of exploitation is committed abroad, then the government will have to take measures in order to protect its citizens from unfair competition.
thus, the war on exploitation is a matter of domestic and foreign policy.
lunes, 4 de febrero de 2008
electability: clinton v obama
before you vote, take into account how others would vote, lest your least preferable candidate ends up taking over the white house.
first start by weighing clinton´s PROS and CONS:
PROS
+ perceived as experienced
+ knowledgeable
+ grasp of the polls and the souls
+ the clinton machine
+ the gender ticket
CONS
- bill's 3rd term in the white house, just when everyone is looking for a fresh start
- "closest thing to an incumbent," just when everyone is looking for "change"
- yet another polarizing figure, just when everyone is tired of divisiveness
- lack of charisma/ perceived as wonk--some inspiration may be needed; otherwise, people won't stand up and vote (mccain is no cheney; people wouldn't feel URGED to vote against him--besides, not enough people were URGED to vote against bush in 2004)
- the dark side of clintonism: calculated destructiveness + bill's uncomfortable pals
then compare your results with obama´s:
PROS
+ charisma (at home and abroad)
+ appeal to independents and moderate republicans ("liberation from divisiveness")
+ young, fresh and culturally diverse, just when everyone is looking for change ("liberation from incumbent dynasties")
+ the diversity ticket
CONS
- perceived as not having enough experience (remember that cartoon by toles where pig-like politicians were rolling in the mud and saying "you don't have enough experience"?)
- where's the beef? it´s the poetry, stupid (just like lincoln´s)--YOU make the change. whatever change hillary has in mind will have to be passed from on top, and with much opposition and lack of support (due to her popularity and charisma); in contrast, the obama effect at the micro level due to the inspiration, feel-good vibe and will to harmonize of the people, will add a push to pretty much the same policies that, by the way, will have more chances of being passed by a less polarizing and more charismatic leader
- the candidate of wine drinkers--just like kerry. (well, iowa and south carolina are not precisely the hamptons).
I don't have anything against mccain, but his xenophobic, fundamentalist & belligerant republican bases scare me out. a vote for hillary gives mccain a chance--he´s already experienced and knowledgeable. he´s not as divisive. he´s more charismatic.
the choice is not between obama and hillary; it´s between obama and mccain.
first start by weighing clinton´s PROS and CONS:
PROS
+ perceived as experienced
+ knowledgeable
+ grasp of the polls and the souls
+ the clinton machine
+ the gender ticket
CONS
- bill's 3rd term in the white house, just when everyone is looking for a fresh start
- "closest thing to an incumbent," just when everyone is looking for "change"
- yet another polarizing figure, just when everyone is tired of divisiveness
- lack of charisma/ perceived as wonk--some inspiration may be needed; otherwise, people won't stand up and vote (mccain is no cheney; people wouldn't feel URGED to vote against him--besides, not enough people were URGED to vote against bush in 2004)
- the dark side of clintonism: calculated destructiveness + bill's uncomfortable pals
then compare your results with obama´s:
PROS
+ charisma (at home and abroad)
+ appeal to independents and moderate republicans ("liberation from divisiveness")
+ young, fresh and culturally diverse, just when everyone is looking for change ("liberation from incumbent dynasties")
+ the diversity ticket
CONS
- perceived as not having enough experience (remember that cartoon by toles where pig-like politicians were rolling in the mud and saying "you don't have enough experience"?)
- where's the beef? it´s the poetry, stupid (just like lincoln´s)--YOU make the change. whatever change hillary has in mind will have to be passed from on top, and with much opposition and lack of support (due to her popularity and charisma); in contrast, the obama effect at the micro level due to the inspiration, feel-good vibe and will to harmonize of the people, will add a push to pretty much the same policies that, by the way, will have more chances of being passed by a less polarizing and more charismatic leader
- the candidate of wine drinkers--just like kerry. (well, iowa and south carolina are not precisely the hamptons).
I don't have anything against mccain, but his xenophobic, fundamentalist & belligerant republican bases scare me out. a vote for hillary gives mccain a chance--he´s already experienced and knowledgeable. he´s not as divisive. he´s more charismatic.
the choice is not between obama and hillary; it´s between obama and mccain.
martes, 15 de enero de 2008
the pc olympics
this has to be a puppet show!
media is representing hillary as "the woman" and obama as "the African American." any other major candidate is just "the white male heterosexual." this very simplistic perception misses... the economy to begin with.
columns are not doing any better: "mrs. liberal programs" and "mr. charisma" are just two faceless puppets that don´t explain the whole situation; these are simply ways for the columnists to get away with avoiding the discussion of touchy issues, such as the politics of pc, or very complicated ones, such as the economy.
columnists demand content, yet their columns lack depth.
let´s be realistic, these shallow and oversimplified perceptions are not going to change by election day, and the implied-but-never-discussed issue of political correctness is going to play a major role in these elections, so we'd better start creating some scenarios just in order to anticipate the consequences of this situation...
NOTICE: ladies and gentlemen of the jury, THE PC-OLYMPICS committee kindly advises you to keep in mind that political correctness (pc) is just one of the fields of battle of our contestants. the official standing of the committee is that pc will play a major role in these elections, but not the determining one--so the winner of the olympics does not forcefully get the elections. as a matter of fact, the PC OLYMPICS commitee would like you to consider this formula as a more precise guide to the relative electability of each ´08 candidate:
electability = (a minimum of decent sex-appeal) + (charisma) + (pc-appeal) + (top-tier funding) + (support from key characters) + (the right spin doctors)*
* it´s difficult to generalize on electability when candidates as different as lincoln and george w bush get to be elected. but one thing is true: a semblance of virtue and honesty has been replaced by competent spin doctors and some pc-appeal.
in any case, these are the highlights of the first pc olympics. please give our contestants a big applause!
1. neither hillary nor obama have to fear any other candidate: any attack by any "white male candidate" is going to be interperted by the electorate as evidence of his misogyny or racism.
point for hillary and obama
2. yet hillary happened to be white. so any attack on obama will be interperted as evidence of her racism.
point for obama
3. but obama happened to be male. so any attack on hillary will be interpreted as evidence of his misogyny.
point for hillary
4. although hillary happened to be perceived as a wonk, and wonkishness is not protected by pc--sorry nerds, you're just not cool enough for pc. so hillary's wonkishness is going to be a pc-approved turn-off for voters.
point against hillary
score: obama 2-hillary 1
obama gets the gold, hillary the silver.
yet the feminist committee contests the results
and the Reverend Jesse Jackson contests that contestation...
so the white male heterosexual judge, bemused, passes the mike to the hispanic jury.
and in the end, media is going to depict hispanics as "the bad guys" who took away the dream from "the woman" or "the African American." hispanics will end up being called "sexists" if hillary loses
or "racists" if obama loses. either way, illegal immigrants of hispanic origins, who don´t even vote, may end up waking up with the unconditional support of some new friends.
NOTICE: the committee would like to thank david brooks for pointing to this whole issue but avoiding especulating on the consequences; ladies and gentlement of the jury, the PC OLYMPICS committee kindly recommends identity politics.
media is representing hillary as "the woman" and obama as "the African American." any other major candidate is just "the white male heterosexual." this very simplistic perception misses... the economy to begin with.
columns are not doing any better: "mrs. liberal programs" and "mr. charisma" are just two faceless puppets that don´t explain the whole situation; these are simply ways for the columnists to get away with avoiding the discussion of touchy issues, such as the politics of pc, or very complicated ones, such as the economy.
columnists demand content, yet their columns lack depth.
let´s be realistic, these shallow and oversimplified perceptions are not going to change by election day, and the implied-but-never-discussed issue of political correctness is going to play a major role in these elections, so we'd better start creating some scenarios just in order to anticipate the consequences of this situation...
NOTICE: ladies and gentlemen of the jury, THE PC-OLYMPICS committee kindly advises you to keep in mind that political correctness (pc) is just one of the fields of battle of our contestants. the official standing of the committee is that pc will play a major role in these elections, but not the determining one--so the winner of the olympics does not forcefully get the elections. as a matter of fact, the PC OLYMPICS commitee would like you to consider this formula as a more precise guide to the relative electability of each ´08 candidate:
electability = (a minimum of decent sex-appeal) + (charisma) + (pc-appeal) + (top-tier funding) + (support from key characters) + (the right spin doctors)*
* it´s difficult to generalize on electability when candidates as different as lincoln and george w bush get to be elected. but one thing is true: a semblance of virtue and honesty has been replaced by competent spin doctors and some pc-appeal.
in any case, these are the highlights of the first pc olympics. please give our contestants a big applause!
1. neither hillary nor obama have to fear any other candidate: any attack by any "white male candidate" is going to be interperted by the electorate as evidence of his misogyny or racism.
point for hillary and obama
2. yet hillary happened to be white. so any attack on obama will be interperted as evidence of her racism.
point for obama
3. but obama happened to be male. so any attack on hillary will be interpreted as evidence of his misogyny.
point for hillary
4. although hillary happened to be perceived as a wonk, and wonkishness is not protected by pc--sorry nerds, you're just not cool enough for pc. so hillary's wonkishness is going to be a pc-approved turn-off for voters.
point against hillary
score: obama 2-hillary 1
obama gets the gold, hillary the silver.
yet the feminist committee contests the results
and the Reverend Jesse Jackson contests that contestation...
so the white male heterosexual judge, bemused, passes the mike to the hispanic jury.
and in the end, media is going to depict hispanics as "the bad guys" who took away the dream from "the woman" or "the African American." hispanics will end up being called "sexists" if hillary loses
or "racists" if obama loses. either way, illegal immigrants of hispanic origins, who don´t even vote, may end up waking up with the unconditional support of some new friends.
NOTICE: the committee would like to thank david brooks for pointing to this whole issue but avoiding especulating on the consequences; ladies and gentlement of the jury, the PC OLYMPICS committee kindly recommends identity politics.
viernes, 11 de enero de 2008
what the hillary-obama contest is all about
let´s not be hypocritical; these elections are not about who´s got the best "message."
we who support obama know that he doesn´t have a program. those that support hillary are in disagreement with two of every three things that she proposes.
in addition, the electorate is not even interested in knowing or comparing the programs of the leading candidates. the candidates themselves are uninterested in elucidating us on this respect: the democratic candidates´ debate (perhaps an opportunity to discuss the comparative, although hypothetical, viability of programs) was just as superficial as a beauty contest.
nobody´s debating any programs. everybody´s discussing candidates. and these elections are not about what the candidates PROPOSE--they´re about what the candidates SYMBOLIZE.
you want to know what are voters really basing their vote on? they´re just sorting a list of their most preferred candidates based on the comparative weight they attribute to the following (rather shallow) criteria:
- hillary stands for "first female president;" yet she also stands for "establishment," "dynastic," "non-diverse" and "wonk".
- obama stands for "first African-American president" and "charismatic;" yet he stands for "male" and "a risky asset" as well, since no one really knows just what he´s planning on doing once he´s elected, and no one really knows whether his "vibe" is always going to be there to excempt him from being treated just like any other politician.
I have to admit that I have a prejudice against dynasties, even when I do admit that, in the beginning, "it takes a family (to break a glass ceiling)." yet that prejudice against dynasties in combination with my preference for cultural and ethnic diversity, make up for my decision.
and that´s as shallow and honest as I can get to be!
of course, I have more weighty reasons to support obama: for instance, I believe that an obama victory will be followed by positive microeconomic effects, especially among culturally diverse households, as well as more intercultural solidarity; not to mention, a different attitude towards america and its government all around the globe that may be more effective and less costly than bush´s "war on terrorism."
but in the end, none of these reasons are related to barack's proposals.
we who support obama know that he doesn´t have a program. those that support hillary are in disagreement with two of every three things that she proposes.
in addition, the electorate is not even interested in knowing or comparing the programs of the leading candidates. the candidates themselves are uninterested in elucidating us on this respect: the democratic candidates´ debate (perhaps an opportunity to discuss the comparative, although hypothetical, viability of programs) was just as superficial as a beauty contest.
nobody´s debating any programs. everybody´s discussing candidates. and these elections are not about what the candidates PROPOSE--they´re about what the candidates SYMBOLIZE.
you want to know what are voters really basing their vote on? they´re just sorting a list of their most preferred candidates based on the comparative weight they attribute to the following (rather shallow) criteria:
- hillary stands for "first female president;" yet she also stands for "establishment," "dynastic," "non-diverse" and "wonk".
- obama stands for "first African-American president" and "charismatic;" yet he stands for "male" and "a risky asset" as well, since no one really knows just what he´s planning on doing once he´s elected, and no one really knows whether his "vibe" is always going to be there to excempt him from being treated just like any other politician.
I have to admit that I have a prejudice against dynasties, even when I do admit that, in the beginning, "it takes a family (to break a glass ceiling)." yet that prejudice against dynasties in combination with my preference for cultural and ethnic diversity, make up for my decision.
and that´s as shallow and honest as I can get to be!
of course, I have more weighty reasons to support obama: for instance, I believe that an obama victory will be followed by positive microeconomic effects, especially among culturally diverse households, as well as more intercultural solidarity; not to mention, a different attitude towards america and its government all around the globe that may be more effective and less costly than bush´s "war on terrorism."
but in the end, none of these reasons are related to barack's proposals.
miércoles, 9 de enero de 2008
hillary has it harder
time for a straight talk. we have to take for granted the ever-changing but everpresent existence of "good" political correctness, "bad" stereotypes and "uggly" prejudices. I'm not saying that we have to assimilate any of these (I actually advocate looking at them objectively and with repulsion, just like the forensic scientist perceives a corpse)--what I´m trying to say is that we have to accept that biased assumptions are in the air, that they're not going to disappear by 11/04/08, and that they're going to play a key role in these elections where the first female or African-American president may be elected. let's just be realistic and add a constructivist punch to our analysis: let's adjust our expectations right away; otherwise we'll get yet another kerry surprise.
that said -that is, adding political correctness, stereotypes, prejudices and other "sad but true" issues into the equation-, I came to the conclusion that, most of the times unfairly so, some others simply arbitrarily so, hillary's road to the white house seems more crooked than obama's. now, let's be honest, fixing the structural and cultural injustices that make things more difficult for hillary would take more than a year. it would take us even more to fix the hillary machine. that's why we should start by getting obama elected while we work on preparing the road for a wider variety of self-made women to take over the white house by 2012.
I don´t mean to say that hillary doesn´t have a chance. the electorate is more than ready to elect the wife, daughter or widow of a prominent political figure. but here's some of the reasons that come into my mind when I say that, as counterintuitive as it may seem, obama's movement has it easier than the hillary machine:
1. hillary has to look "tougher than a man," and this may translate into taking tougher-than-necessary measures, which may cost many moderate votes.
even some of those that discriminate in favor of women still hold this anacronystic stereotype to be self-evident: "women are softer on security issues." nevermind the fact that, even if the generalization was correct, it could well be because men are culturally compelled to be rougher than necessary, while women are free to choose to be just as tough as necessary, and not the least bit more. nevermind the gross and shameful unfairness. the truth is that hillary, a liberal woman running for president, has to appear to be HARDER than adviceable for a male candidate (read obama) on crime, on terrorism and on iraq just in order to be taken seriously by biased voters.
if hillary was elected prez, she´d HAVE TO be perceived as an iron woman (a stalinette) in this respect. this pressure wouldn´t fall as heavily upon barack (let's call it "the male prime"--unfair but factual). moderates are switching from hillary to obama because they find her comparatively more trigger happy than they really are (this may simply mean that perhaps hillary was TOO successful in being perceived as a tougher-than-your-average-joe candidate). neocons prefer hillary because they know that she knows that a bunch of voters think that bin laden, kim jong-il & other machos on top won´t take her seriously unless she´s "tougher than a man."
2. she´s not precisely miss charisma, and this may bring about a low voter turnout.
american voters discriminate against... "stiff ones." the "nerdy" type is the forgotten minority. even pc shuns "nerds." let's not discuss whether that's because "nerds" will never get to be "cool." the point is that hillary´s "machine-like" distance inspires voting in america as much as it inspired faithfulness in bill.
let's face it, if it weren´t for her womanhood and her clintonhood, hillary´s greatest aspiration would be that of being someone else´s "eminence grise" (a cheneyesque liberal) or a renowned spin doctor who knows all the ins and outs but lacks the "attitude" and the "electricity" to lead, to inspire and to be followed.
why risk betting on hillary when we've already got a charismatic leader capable of attracting hoards of independents, as well as of syntonizing a wide variety of voices? why have just another clinton experience when you get to feel redeemed and to vote with a smile on the sunnier side of the same road?
3. in the new economy 2.0: "new" beats "established in 1992"
bill is alive. even hillary´s supporters feel uncomfortable about that.
obama´s not a clinton or a bush for a change. plus he´s somewhat more diverse than hillary is. his victory would be perceived as a real, decisive, positive change at home and abroad.
4. the movement will end up beating the machine
obama´s movement runs on less dollars per new voter: charisma is more economic than the most precise of calculations.
you need to convince someone to get a new hillary voter; you only need to tune in someone to get a new obama girl or boy.
it´s turning increasingly costlier for hillary to make new converts and to keep brand loyalty at the same time.
hillary doesn´t get her support from the grassroots. plus, she´s a rather polarizing figure--those that would support her are already with her; it´s going to be really expensive for her to buy the support of those that have already opted out. and the worst is that the more money hillary will get from big corps and rich, "pardonned," donors, the more her voter base will be alienated, and the more difficult it will be to convince new voters to join a party with so many intimidating guests around.
that said -that is, adding political correctness, stereotypes, prejudices and other "sad but true" issues into the equation-, I came to the conclusion that, most of the times unfairly so, some others simply arbitrarily so, hillary's road to the white house seems more crooked than obama's. now, let's be honest, fixing the structural and cultural injustices that make things more difficult for hillary would take more than a year. it would take us even more to fix the hillary machine. that's why we should start by getting obama elected while we work on preparing the road for a wider variety of self-made women to take over the white house by 2012.
I don´t mean to say that hillary doesn´t have a chance. the electorate is more than ready to elect the wife, daughter or widow of a prominent political figure. but here's some of the reasons that come into my mind when I say that, as counterintuitive as it may seem, obama's movement has it easier than the hillary machine:
1. hillary has to look "tougher than a man," and this may translate into taking tougher-than-necessary measures, which may cost many moderate votes.
even some of those that discriminate in favor of women still hold this anacronystic stereotype to be self-evident: "women are softer on security issues." nevermind the fact that, even if the generalization was correct, it could well be because men are culturally compelled to be rougher than necessary, while women are free to choose to be just as tough as necessary, and not the least bit more. nevermind the gross and shameful unfairness. the truth is that hillary, a liberal woman running for president, has to appear to be HARDER than adviceable for a male candidate (read obama) on crime, on terrorism and on iraq just in order to be taken seriously by biased voters.
if hillary was elected prez, she´d HAVE TO be perceived as an iron woman (a stalinette) in this respect. this pressure wouldn´t fall as heavily upon barack (let's call it "the male prime"--unfair but factual). moderates are switching from hillary to obama because they find her comparatively more trigger happy than they really are (this may simply mean that perhaps hillary was TOO successful in being perceived as a tougher-than-your-average-joe candidate). neocons prefer hillary because they know that she knows that a bunch of voters think that bin laden, kim jong-il & other machos on top won´t take her seriously unless she´s "tougher than a man."
2. she´s not precisely miss charisma, and this may bring about a low voter turnout.
american voters discriminate against... "stiff ones." the "nerdy" type is the forgotten minority. even pc shuns "nerds." let's not discuss whether that's because "nerds" will never get to be "cool." the point is that hillary´s "machine-like" distance inspires voting in america as much as it inspired faithfulness in bill.
let's face it, if it weren´t for her womanhood and her clintonhood, hillary´s greatest aspiration would be that of being someone else´s "eminence grise" (a cheneyesque liberal) or a renowned spin doctor who knows all the ins and outs but lacks the "attitude" and the "electricity" to lead, to inspire and to be followed.
why risk betting on hillary when we've already got a charismatic leader capable of attracting hoards of independents, as well as of syntonizing a wide variety of voices? why have just another clinton experience when you get to feel redeemed and to vote with a smile on the sunnier side of the same road?
3. in the new economy 2.0: "new" beats "established in 1992"
bill is alive. even hillary´s supporters feel uncomfortable about that.
obama´s not a clinton or a bush for a change. plus he´s somewhat more diverse than hillary is. his victory would be perceived as a real, decisive, positive change at home and abroad.
4. the movement will end up beating the machine
obama´s movement runs on less dollars per new voter: charisma is more economic than the most precise of calculations.
you need to convince someone to get a new hillary voter; you only need to tune in someone to get a new obama girl or boy.
it´s turning increasingly costlier for hillary to make new converts and to keep brand loyalty at the same time.
hillary doesn´t get her support from the grassroots. plus, she´s a rather polarizing figure--those that would support her are already with her; it´s going to be really expensive for her to buy the support of those that have already opted out. and the worst is that the more money hillary will get from big corps and rich, "pardonned," donors, the more her voter base will be alienated, and the more difficult it will be to convince new voters to join a party with so many intimidating guests around.
sábado, 5 de enero de 2008
8 reasons 2 switch 2 obama
1. let's face it, we were supporting hillary because we thought she was the one that COULD win. now we know that she can also LOSE.
better to chew this on time than to end up swallowing yet another kerry surprise.
2. we liked obama but we thought he couldn't make it... until we started to like him for his electability.
3. clinton is more a last name than a woman.
does resorting to dynastic titles empower women more than it harms social mobility?
admitedly, women who belong to privileged families may be empowered in that way, but that "privilege" of being effectibly eligible wouldn't necessarily trickle-down so as to become a "right" for all women: there is a "bhutto" effect upon the ELECTABILITY of those that hold that last name, but--was there ever a "benazir bhutto" effect upon the effective ELIGIBILITY of non-dynastic-titled women?
the empowerment of women belonging to just a few dynastic families may even CROWD OUT the merit of self-made women and newcoming, very capable men belonging to minority groups. read the most recent column on the washington post about this topic; it really is of much aid.
4. obama is more of an African-American newcomer than he's just another male heterosexual candidate.
who honestly believes that big bad retrosexuals of the male sex are playing the "diversity" card so as to ascertain their patriarchal order?
what women, homosexuals and society are doing for themselves (empowering themselves, empowering themselves and becoming more equitable, respectively) can't be hampered by the accidental gender or sexual orientation of a GOOD candidate.
the fact that obama is a new face, the face of this decade, may not only give us a hand in taking a break from the otherwise routinary bush-clinton-bush-clinton two-card game; it might even jumpstart a tradition of non-family-based meritocracy in the white house by opening the doors to female bill clintons (not just clintons of the female sex) and minority lincolns.
5. the hillary machine is very effective. yet hillary gets her $ and support from big donors (remember bill clinton's pardons controversy?), corporations and unions; obama gets a significant part of his $ from us--who's going to pay more attention to us? who's going to feel more indebted to us? who's going to host more uncomfortable friends at the party?
6. their iraq war, environmental and healthcare policies are pretty much the same--but obama is more charismatic, while hillary is more polarizing.
who's going to get more support, when obama is attracting more independents than hillary is?
who's going to be in a better position to make negotiations in the international arena, when hillary voted for the war in iraq and obama voted against it?
7. let´s keep "cool" on our side this time.
no matter how you see it, the truth is al gore, "the stiff one," lost to w bush because w was perceived as "the cool one" (well, the truth is bush cheated, but the point is he got away with it handily partly because gore´s "stiffness" didn´t inspire much support before, during and after the vote, while bush´s "attitude" inspired more key people to vote for him and to support him unconditionally). do we want to see "starchy" hillary lose against "easygoing" huckabee?
if you´re thinking being a female candidate, no matter how uninspiring, makes up for "cool" and "must"--then think about thatcher. female voters are betting on obama´s "vibe," not on hillary´s sex--caroline giuliani is an obama girl; "young hillary would be an obama girl."
8. you want to hear something irresistible? an obama for prez, hillary for vp candidacy.
this formula keeps up with the "cool" cop-"cold" cop tradition that has proved to be undefeatable ever since the clinton-al gore couple ran for what w bush (clown cop) and cheney (bad cop) are still holding.
better to chew this on time than to end up swallowing yet another kerry surprise.
2. we liked obama but we thought he couldn't make it... until we started to like him for his electability.
3. clinton is more a last name than a woman.
does resorting to dynastic titles empower women more than it harms social mobility?
admitedly, women who belong to privileged families may be empowered in that way, but that "privilege" of being effectibly eligible wouldn't necessarily trickle-down so as to become a "right" for all women: there is a "bhutto" effect upon the ELECTABILITY of those that hold that last name, but--was there ever a "benazir bhutto" effect upon the effective ELIGIBILITY of non-dynastic-titled women?
the empowerment of women belonging to just a few dynastic families may even CROWD OUT the merit of self-made women and newcoming, very capable men belonging to minority groups. read the most recent column on the washington post about this topic; it really is of much aid.
4. obama is more of an African-American newcomer than he's just another male heterosexual candidate.
who honestly believes that big bad retrosexuals of the male sex are playing the "diversity" card so as to ascertain their patriarchal order?
what women, homosexuals and society are doing for themselves (empowering themselves, empowering themselves and becoming more equitable, respectively) can't be hampered by the accidental gender or sexual orientation of a GOOD candidate.
the fact that obama is a new face, the face of this decade, may not only give us a hand in taking a break from the otherwise routinary bush-clinton-bush-clinton two-card game; it might even jumpstart a tradition of non-family-based meritocracy in the white house by opening the doors to female bill clintons (not just clintons of the female sex) and minority lincolns.
5. the hillary machine is very effective. yet hillary gets her $ and support from big donors (remember bill clinton's pardons controversy?), corporations and unions; obama gets a significant part of his $ from us--who's going to pay more attention to us? who's going to feel more indebted to us? who's going to host more uncomfortable friends at the party?
6. their iraq war, environmental and healthcare policies are pretty much the same--but obama is more charismatic, while hillary is more polarizing.
who's going to get more support, when obama is attracting more independents than hillary is?
who's going to be in a better position to make negotiations in the international arena, when hillary voted for the war in iraq and obama voted against it?
7. let´s keep "cool" on our side this time.
no matter how you see it, the truth is al gore, "the stiff one," lost to w bush because w was perceived as "the cool one" (well, the truth is bush cheated, but the point is he got away with it handily partly because gore´s "stiffness" didn´t inspire much support before, during and after the vote, while bush´s "attitude" inspired more key people to vote for him and to support him unconditionally). do we want to see "starchy" hillary lose against "easygoing" huckabee?
if you´re thinking being a female candidate, no matter how uninspiring, makes up for "cool" and "must"--then think about thatcher. female voters are betting on obama´s "vibe," not on hillary´s sex--caroline giuliani is an obama girl; "young hillary would be an obama girl."
8. you want to hear something irresistible? an obama for prez, hillary for vp candidacy.
this formula keeps up with the "cool" cop-"cold" cop tradition that has proved to be undefeatable ever since the clinton-al gore couple ran for what w bush (clown cop) and cheney (bad cop) are still holding.
miércoles, 2 de enero de 2008
start the year by unthinking
(finally, an easy and likeable new yrs resolution)
my thoughts, theories, perspectives, opinions, informed guesses & co. are all based upon biased assumptions.
catch-all-ism, prejudism, partiality, misinformation, hurry-hurryism and cherry-picking--those are my sources.
my thoughts? their origins may be found in me, the zeitgeist, teachers, books, family, friends, society, culture, etc. the point is they're not the direct offspring of the truth.
that much I share with the deconstructionists. and yet, I still believe in common sense and its identity with the truth and rightfulness. and in their name I shall tear down the wall of indoctrination, generalization and universalism that has ruled my life for a long, long time (even if under different names). enough of basing my decisions upon theories, dogmas and traditions. from now on I will unthink the world as I was brought to understand it, and I will take my decisions on a case-by-case basis, with a pluriversal focus and in tune with common sense and my conscience.
I am very thankful to the theorists and historians I have learned from. I treasure my thoughts and experiences. and yet, I can't say that any of these lessons and simplifications have made me the least bit wiser than I was when I was a child and I didn't listen to any other than my conscience and common sense. on the whole contrary, these lessons and models had made me proud, self-absorbed, biased and opinionated. most probably I was not worth the lessons and theories; in that case, there won't be any problem in my unthinking them.
as for common sense, I'll have to demystify it as well. in some other occasion
my thoughts, theories, perspectives, opinions, informed guesses & co. are all based upon biased assumptions.
catch-all-ism, prejudism, partiality, misinformation, hurry-hurryism and cherry-picking--those are my sources.
my thoughts? their origins may be found in me, the zeitgeist, teachers, books, family, friends, society, culture, etc. the point is they're not the direct offspring of the truth.
that much I share with the deconstructionists. and yet, I still believe in common sense and its identity with the truth and rightfulness. and in their name I shall tear down the wall of indoctrination, generalization and universalism that has ruled my life for a long, long time (even if under different names). enough of basing my decisions upon theories, dogmas and traditions. from now on I will unthink the world as I was brought to understand it, and I will take my decisions on a case-by-case basis, with a pluriversal focus and in tune with common sense and my conscience.
I am very thankful to the theorists and historians I have learned from. I treasure my thoughts and experiences. and yet, I can't say that any of these lessons and simplifications have made me the least bit wiser than I was when I was a child and I didn't listen to any other than my conscience and common sense. on the whole contrary, these lessons and models had made me proud, self-absorbed, biased and opinionated. most probably I was not worth the lessons and theories; in that case, there won't be any problem in my unthinking them.
as for common sense, I'll have to demystify it as well. in some other occasion
domingo, 23 de diciembre de 2007
basic needs libertarianism
I'm a basic needs libertarian. I do not see any conflict between maximizing liberty and mandatorily covering the basic needs of those whose income is insufficient for this purpose.
by so doing, some market imperfections -the most perverse ones- would be fixed, while peace, solidarity and trust (sine qua non conditions of efficient market behavior--unless you think that conflict, discord and the lack of trust promote non-discriminatory behavior and italian style renaissances) would be consolidated among the individuals within the community. plus, the bases for growth would be guaranteed to be as broad, solid and stable as possible; thus creating a propitious environment for the flow of information and goods, and overall, for sustainable growth, to take place.
think about it: if basic needs are not covered in at least one individual in the community, then this individual may take decisions under conditions of despair and/or irrationality, and extreme measures may follow--some may be willing to work for less; some others may be willing to work under inframarginal circumstances; very few may loose their heads and end up cheating, stealing, giving themselves to the abuse of some narcotic, loosing all hope, protesting violently, or even joining their local extremist group.
whatever the consequences, they surely are more costly to individuals, families, communities and society, than those of mandatorily covering the basic needs of each individual. no one would be compelled to do any indecent work; wages would not be pulled down incessantly; economic exploitation would be much rarer; crime rates would drop; people would live a healthier, longer, more peaceful and safer life, and this would guarantee a broad-based, stable and robust growth.
in short, the cause of freedom is at greater risk when basic needs are not covered than when there is an obligation to cover them. in the first case, chaos and poverty restrain liberty and development. in the second one, the negative effects of governement intervention are surpassed by the positive effects of a more productive labor force.
let no one say laissez faire until liberty is at the helm! level the field first, then play.
3 issues may arise: 1) how to define "basic needs," 2) how to solve the conflict between libertarianism and that "mandatory" clause, and 3) how to implement that mandate
1) I'm not anyone to impose my understanding of the term "basic needs" on any community. however, I understand that the universal declaration of human rights, which has been ratified by most of the states we live in, recognizes that food, housing, medical care, basic education and security are part of the inalienable right to an adequate standard of living of each individual. of course, I'm aware about the fact that "food," "health services," "security," "education" and "shelter" may be defined in many different ways given different circumstances. that's why I'd suggest defining each generation's basic needs via cyclical and regional plebiscites.
2) a true libertarian is a declared enemy of exploitation, abuse, inequality of opportunity and anything that doesn´t look like well-functioning markets--all of the above limit the freedoms of individuals and create perverse incentives that attempt to instaurate the law of the jungle as opposed to the paradise of human liberties that we all dream of. it so happens that, as stated above, not covering the basic needs of each individual puts the suppliers of labor into a trap while perverting the demanders of labor so as to reach an equilibrium which, on the aggregate and over the long run, yields an inferior quality of life and human development for everybody when compared to the hypothetical case in which basic needs (basic education + basic health care + basic nutrition + an existenzminimum living place + basic insurance and minimal safety nets + policing for all) are mandatorily covered.
preemptive libertarianism erradicates the causes of that which is averse to each individual´s freedoms. by mandatorily covering our basic needs, we´ll erradicate economic exploitation and unfair practices; we´ll level the playing fields and we´ll be guaranteed trully equal opportunities; + we´ll fix, improve and create more efficient and trustable markets on the way.
3) am I saying that I´d like santa government to overexpand? not necessarily. first off, some forms of government expansions are beneficial: take the case of a developing country where carbon emissions are taxed so as to fund conditonal programs of a progressive and corrective nature.
in any case, this is the idea: the state mandates and regulates, while free enterprise, non-profs and associations deal with the execution and evaluation. realistically speaking, this program wouldn´t add much to the hillarycare model. not anybody´s favorite but preferable and less costly (think in terms of forgone growth and the social costs of real needs) than the status quo.
by so doing, some market imperfections -the most perverse ones- would be fixed, while peace, solidarity and trust (sine qua non conditions of efficient market behavior--unless you think that conflict, discord and the lack of trust promote non-discriminatory behavior and italian style renaissances) would be consolidated among the individuals within the community. plus, the bases for growth would be guaranteed to be as broad, solid and stable as possible; thus creating a propitious environment for the flow of information and goods, and overall, for sustainable growth, to take place.
think about it: if basic needs are not covered in at least one individual in the community, then this individual may take decisions under conditions of despair and/or irrationality, and extreme measures may follow--some may be willing to work for less; some others may be willing to work under inframarginal circumstances; very few may loose their heads and end up cheating, stealing, giving themselves to the abuse of some narcotic, loosing all hope, protesting violently, or even joining their local extremist group.
whatever the consequences, they surely are more costly to individuals, families, communities and society, than those of mandatorily covering the basic needs of each individual. no one would be compelled to do any indecent work; wages would not be pulled down incessantly; economic exploitation would be much rarer; crime rates would drop; people would live a healthier, longer, more peaceful and safer life, and this would guarantee a broad-based, stable and robust growth.
in short, the cause of freedom is at greater risk when basic needs are not covered than when there is an obligation to cover them. in the first case, chaos and poverty restrain liberty and development. in the second one, the negative effects of governement intervention are surpassed by the positive effects of a more productive labor force.
let no one say laissez faire until liberty is at the helm! level the field first, then play.
3 issues may arise: 1) how to define "basic needs," 2) how to solve the conflict between libertarianism and that "mandatory" clause, and 3) how to implement that mandate
1) I'm not anyone to impose my understanding of the term "basic needs" on any community. however, I understand that the universal declaration of human rights, which has been ratified by most of the states we live in, recognizes that food, housing, medical care, basic education and security are part of the inalienable right to an adequate standard of living of each individual. of course, I'm aware about the fact that "food," "health services," "security," "education" and "shelter" may be defined in many different ways given different circumstances. that's why I'd suggest defining each generation's basic needs via cyclical and regional plebiscites.
2) a true libertarian is a declared enemy of exploitation, abuse, inequality of opportunity and anything that doesn´t look like well-functioning markets--all of the above limit the freedoms of individuals and create perverse incentives that attempt to instaurate the law of the jungle as opposed to the paradise of human liberties that we all dream of. it so happens that, as stated above, not covering the basic needs of each individual puts the suppliers of labor into a trap while perverting the demanders of labor so as to reach an equilibrium which, on the aggregate and over the long run, yields an inferior quality of life and human development for everybody when compared to the hypothetical case in which basic needs (basic education + basic health care + basic nutrition + an existenzminimum living place + basic insurance and minimal safety nets + policing for all) are mandatorily covered.
preemptive libertarianism erradicates the causes of that which is averse to each individual´s freedoms. by mandatorily covering our basic needs, we´ll erradicate economic exploitation and unfair practices; we´ll level the playing fields and we´ll be guaranteed trully equal opportunities; + we´ll fix, improve and create more efficient and trustable markets on the way.
3) am I saying that I´d like santa government to overexpand? not necessarily. first off, some forms of government expansions are beneficial: take the case of a developing country where carbon emissions are taxed so as to fund conditonal programs of a progressive and corrective nature.
in any case, this is the idea: the state mandates and regulates, while free enterprise, non-profs and associations deal with the execution and evaluation. realistically speaking, this program wouldn´t add much to the hillarycare model. not anybody´s favorite but preferable and less costly (think in terms of forgone growth and the social costs of real needs) than the status quo.
martes, 18 de diciembre de 2007
birth control and the catholic church
in the times of the ancient aztecs and greeks -when men as labor units were rather homogeneous-, the state would promote reproduction, so as to have, among others, more taxes and soldiers on their side. perhaps they thought, as well, that this would keep wages low enough so as to afford cheap labor for the construction of their temples and roads.
with time, however, thanks to technological progress and knowledge-based production, the states that kept promoting the multiplication of the mere quantity of their citizens started to lag behind; otherwise, they simply stagnated. their failure to implement new technologies and quality work in the production process kept production growing at a continuous and even gradually decreasing pace, just as new mouths with no other thing than their hands to do their work on fixed and even perishing resources kept on coming.
in contrast, those states that bet on improving the quality of their citizens´ human capital (without necessarily limiting in a direct or active way their quantity), started to leave behind all other countries just as their production grew progressively.
these states didn´t impose any restraints on the quantity of newcoming citizens via stricter/discriminatory border policies, perverse vasectomy campaigns or mandatory birth controls. women, via their liberation movement, chose to use birth control pills or even to abort just in order to have such a special thing as is a child at the perfect moment and under the most adequate conditions. men started using condoms for the sake of mitigating the proliferation of std´s, among others.
these measures, true, were not always altruistic, but this doesn´t necessarily mean that they´ve ever been mean-intentioned actions or that they´re evil in themselves. the fact that children are born under better conditions in countries where birth control is practiced most regularly, openly and safely, might mean that to-be-parents in those countries are choosing rightly (for their own interests and those of their children) how many children to have and just when exactly to have them.
and yet some anti-catholic factions among the catholic church have been alienating moderate, sometimes truer, catholics. they´ve been stigmatizing free-will and family-oriented decision-making. they´ve been distracting the attention from the self-examination process that has to be done regarding abusive authorities, gender roles, and the representation of non-european, non-reactionary, forms of catholicism. and all of this for what they take for more "soldiers," more "taxes" and cheaper labor to build their temples!
with time, however, thanks to technological progress and knowledge-based production, the states that kept promoting the multiplication of the mere quantity of their citizens started to lag behind; otherwise, they simply stagnated. their failure to implement new technologies and quality work in the production process kept production growing at a continuous and even gradually decreasing pace, just as new mouths with no other thing than their hands to do their work on fixed and even perishing resources kept on coming.
in contrast, those states that bet on improving the quality of their citizens´ human capital (without necessarily limiting in a direct or active way their quantity), started to leave behind all other countries just as their production grew progressively.
these states didn´t impose any restraints on the quantity of newcoming citizens via stricter/discriminatory border policies, perverse vasectomy campaigns or mandatory birth controls. women, via their liberation movement, chose to use birth control pills or even to abort just in order to have such a special thing as is a child at the perfect moment and under the most adequate conditions. men started using condoms for the sake of mitigating the proliferation of std´s, among others.
these measures, true, were not always altruistic, but this doesn´t necessarily mean that they´ve ever been mean-intentioned actions or that they´re evil in themselves. the fact that children are born under better conditions in countries where birth control is practiced most regularly, openly and safely, might mean that to-be-parents in those countries are choosing rightly (for their own interests and those of their children) how many children to have and just when exactly to have them.
and yet some anti-catholic factions among the catholic church have been alienating moderate, sometimes truer, catholics. they´ve been stigmatizing free-will and family-oriented decision-making. they´ve been distracting the attention from the self-examination process that has to be done regarding abusive authorities, gender roles, and the representation of non-european, non-reactionary, forms of catholicism. and all of this for what they take for more "soldiers," more "taxes" and cheaper labor to build their temples!
sábado, 15 de diciembre de 2007
the more autonomy, the more accountability
(this is not the posture of the nepantlist party. ladies & gents, I present to you... my unveiled opinion!)
ok, I admit it: sometimes I pay more attention to my ideas than I do to Common Sense. I have to admit, as well, that this entry is written under the influence of some heavy doses of Schumacher and Jefferson.
but my point is: the nation-states that have worked out are the exception--besides the enthusiasts of the nordic countries (myself included), who´s ready to stand for any other chauvinistic experiment of the sort?
the norm is... nation-states are plagued by an intermittent history of massive and systematic repressions of minorities and groups (homosexuals, ethnic groups, women, children) that have been disempowered precisely by the machinery of nation-states themselves.
not satisfied with the human sacrifices of their own constituents, nation-states organize florid wars with their neighbors and even preventive wars abroad.
their aggregate greed, coupled with their gigantic fund-raising capabilities, lead them to waste resources in weapons of mass destruction and other military extravagances.
in short: nation-states, not evil in themselves, have been the primary anti-human enterprises of the globe. I mean, what multinational is more dangerous than north korea?
I guess that the reason is that the more the density of their constituents grows, the more each voter is alienated, dehumanized and relegated to the status of just another statistic, although this might just be my schumacherian bias. I think, just as well, that we´re just not able to work with more than three-digit numbers whenever we deal with lives, money, pounds or inches; it´s just too much of an abstraction for us! try to conceptualize the difference between 2 billion gallons and 2,01 gallons. try feeling sorrier for 600,000 lives than you´d feel for 599,999. yeah, sure!
whatever the reason... federalism or democracy for that matter just don´t fix this problem: look at the US. new york, massachusetts and california were against the war in iraq. middle america and other warmongers imposed the war and took the funds from new york, california and massachusetts to finance their war.
I´m running out of time and space. the point is: nations are not popular anymore. independence days, their glories and "that" enthusiasm are so out (probably because they mostly took place thousands of days ago). nations have been organizational anachronisms at least ever since post-modernity.
we must take the next step towards the liberation of each individual: we must start by liberating states within states and nations within nations. another generation will go on with cities and villages once the first wave of the enthusiasm of the mother of all liberations is exhausted; so don´t worry about them for the time being. besides, it´s rather too early for their cause to be popular in times of multinationals, lou dobbs and the eminent danger of hu jintao.
so that´s pretty much my opinion. do you know about any party or ngo advocating this cause? thanks
ok, I admit it: sometimes I pay more attention to my ideas than I do to Common Sense. I have to admit, as well, that this entry is written under the influence of some heavy doses of Schumacher and Jefferson.
but my point is: the nation-states that have worked out are the exception--besides the enthusiasts of the nordic countries (myself included), who´s ready to stand for any other chauvinistic experiment of the sort?
the norm is... nation-states are plagued by an intermittent history of massive and systematic repressions of minorities and groups (homosexuals, ethnic groups, women, children) that have been disempowered precisely by the machinery of nation-states themselves.
not satisfied with the human sacrifices of their own constituents, nation-states organize florid wars with their neighbors and even preventive wars abroad.
their aggregate greed, coupled with their gigantic fund-raising capabilities, lead them to waste resources in weapons of mass destruction and other military extravagances.
in short: nation-states, not evil in themselves, have been the primary anti-human enterprises of the globe. I mean, what multinational is more dangerous than north korea?
I guess that the reason is that the more the density of their constituents grows, the more each voter is alienated, dehumanized and relegated to the status of just another statistic, although this might just be my schumacherian bias. I think, just as well, that we´re just not able to work with more than three-digit numbers whenever we deal with lives, money, pounds or inches; it´s just too much of an abstraction for us! try to conceptualize the difference between 2 billion gallons and 2,01 gallons. try feeling sorrier for 600,000 lives than you´d feel for 599,999. yeah, sure!
whatever the reason... federalism or democracy for that matter just don´t fix this problem: look at the US. new york, massachusetts and california were against the war in iraq. middle america and other warmongers imposed the war and took the funds from new york, california and massachusetts to finance their war.
I´m running out of time and space. the point is: nations are not popular anymore. independence days, their glories and "that" enthusiasm are so out (probably because they mostly took place thousands of days ago). nations have been organizational anachronisms at least ever since post-modernity.
we must take the next step towards the liberation of each individual: we must start by liberating states within states and nations within nations. another generation will go on with cities and villages once the first wave of the enthusiasm of the mother of all liberations is exhausted; so don´t worry about them for the time being. besides, it´s rather too early for their cause to be popular in times of multinationals, lou dobbs and the eminent danger of hu jintao.
so that´s pretty much my opinion. do you know about any party or ngo advocating this cause? thanks
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)
