Archive for December, 2006

If I was a novelist …

Saturday, December 30th, 2006

I’d be working up something like this:

First, they hang Saddam …

… and then he comes back.

Those who followed the old fairy tales (babies murdered in Kuwait so their incubators could be sent to Baghdad, for example) before the Busheviks introduced the new, improved versions (yellowcake from Niger, dissidents thrown in shredding machines and such) will remember the “body double” bit. Saddam allegedly had a bunch of look-alikes. I’ve seen six mentioned, and I’ve seen 20 mentioned.

The number doesn’t really matter too much, I guess. The key thing here is that before it became convenient to be able to “positively identify” Saddam, the fairy tale narrative included an element that made such identification highly unlikely.

To wit, most of his alleged “body doubles,” who had of course been surgically treated for exact similarity of appearance and coached in Saddam-like body language, demeanor, etc., were relatives from his home town of Tikrit. They weren’t just similar in appearance (supposedly several different “Saddams” spent each night in different presidential palaces to frustrate assassins). They weren’t just similar in demeanor (supposedly “Saddam” would often be giving speeches in, say, Baghdad and Basra at the same time — convenient, eh?). They were similar in DNA.

So, to put it bluntly — if the old fairy tale narrative has any truth to it at all — the Green Zone government and the US occupiers don’t — can’t — have the slightest idea whether or not the guy they just hanged was or was not Saddam Hussein. Granted, we’ve been spoon-fed a replacement set of fairy tales for the last four years or so, but I’m just saying. Maybe the real Saddam’s been kicking back in Amman since 2003. Or maybe he died in 1991 and his doubles just split the duty, the money and the women up and gravy-trained for 12 more years before separately running for the hills. Who knows?

Anyway, back to the novel. What happens next week or next month when “Saddam” shows up in Tikrit, or Fallujah, or both, in uniform, beating his chest and firing a shotgun in the air?

Of course, if I was a really wicked novelist, I’d make the reappearance occur on the third day, mirroring a famous past resurrection, and bring the Busheviks in on the magic show. There’s a certain segment of their constituency which interprets the Bible literally, believes that the antichrist’s capital will be located in Babylon (which, as it happens, is in Iraq), and is fond of prophecy:

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

So Iraq’s Ba’athists get a sort of off-kilter Mahdi figure to rally the Sunnis to their flag, and the GOP’s Jesus Screamer faction gets one king-hell soapbox for a holy war against The Beast.

Sounds like a best-selling potboiler to me … and hey, it’s no farther out than most of the bullshit Dubyah shoveled our way as purported non-fiction to get buy-in on this fiasco in the first place.

I hope someone writes it. I’m not a novelist, of course, so I’ll stick to more hopeful and realistic scenarios, such as this one:

In the White House, Crawford, wherever they are, perhaps George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are absently fingering their own necks and wondering if maybe refurbishing the Nuremberg precedent wasn’t such a good idea after all.


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,
IceRocket Tags: , , , , ,

Life through the eyes of Scott Farkas

Friday, December 29th, 2006
Watching A Christmas Story and its bully made me think of this delusional rant. Art is sometimes only a pale imitation of real life.

Free markets and roads

Friday, December 29th, 2006
I ran across this interesting report on Somalia a while ago. I think it is tremendously interesting, and obviously relevant to anyone who cares about anarchism. I want to focus very tightly on one aspect of the report however, and what it's implications are for what a free market is likely to look like.

Now, I'm going to acknowledge the obvious caveats that 1) culture matters; 2) a failed state is not necessarily the same thing as anarchy; and 3) it's quite obvious that the U.S. and neighboring states have interfered greatly in Somalia, causing problems that are unrelated to what a free market would provide. Given those caveats, this report is still amazing for how well Somalia is doing, although I think the better comparison would be to Somalia under its predecessor state government - that comparison would clearly show how much improved life there is in the (near) absence of a state. I find it especially poignant to compare how successful Somalians are in the telecom market to the much ballyhooed news of "booming" markets in Iraq in telecom. (Quite clearly, this evidence is nowhere near evidence that the Iraqi puppet state is somehow succeeding).

But, the first time I read this, I was somewhat troubled by the part at the end which talks about the failure of the market to provide roads. At that time, I chalked it up to being the result of one of the aforementioned caveats. However, looking at it now, I think it is important to note that there is another possibility: Namely, that in a free market, people don't value large road systems nearly as much as states do.

There seems to be some solid reasons behind this observation, as well. First, states are going to value highly developed road systems more than most people for one big reason - it's easier to project force with easy transit. A centralized authority requires the ability to move its coercive power efficiently, cheaply, and perhaps most importantly, quickly.

A look at history dovetails nicely with this observation: The first major road system in the Western world was developed by the Romans at least partially for the benefit of the legions. I would argue that there is plenty of support for the proposition that this was the main intent of the roads, with trade only being a beneficial by-product, but I'm not enough of a historian to claim my belief is undoubtedly true. Fast forward to the 20th century, and the prime mover in the modern superhighway was none other than Nazi Germany - everyone adored the Fuhrer's beautifully engineered roads, and states all over the world soon were rushing to emulate it.

The second part of the equation of why states might value highly developed transit systems over free market consumers is the fact that, in a free market, people generally don't trust far away merchants, especially for necessities. Being dependent on people you don't know is a psychic detriment and therefore is a component of a value determination. Now, as technology, society, etc. develope, this sort of thing will decrease as the benefits of long distance trade for certain luxuries will increase.

Once again, history dovetails nicely with this observation. Tom DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America" provides examples of private road building in early U.S. history - but these roads were relatively local, especially when you consider that almost all of them were entirely contained within one state - the monopolization of legal services by which would help decrease the psychic detriment of having to trust someone from far away. Professor DiLorenzo provides more evidence (although probably not intentionally) in his writings about Lincoln and the Whigs/Republicans, who were all industrialists who wanted the federal government to provide subsidies for "internal improvements". Although DiLorenzo noted that one private interest was able to build a contintental rail line without subsidies, it is important to ask the question "why didn't these others just follow his example if it was so profitable and possible to build these lines?" Because, most likely, it wasn't.

In fact, given all the history my moldy brain can think of, I can't think of any major, modern transportation system that was built entirely privately. I've seen hints that the British rail system arose in a relatively free market fashion, but I haven't dug deep enough to see how true that is. Other than that, everything I see is state provided. That kind of uniformity, to me, is unlikely to be a coincedence. It's evidence of a lack of demand for that good/service...

In Japan, new nationalism takes hold

Friday, December 29th, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061228/wl_csm/onationalism

I'm torn; I hate overt nationalism and militarism in any country, but I also like to see an overcoming of the effects of American jingoism and economic imperialism that have characterized the world since the end of WWII.

Some of these changes actually seem to make Japan more like the U.S.:

“The Japan of 2006 has quietly adopted a tone very different from the milder pacifism of it postwar identity. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe engineered two historic changes - transforming the postwar Defense Agency into a full-scale Defense Ministry, and ushering in a law requiring patriotic education in schools. The new law requires teachers to evaluate student levels of patriotism and eagerness to learn traditions. The Asahi Shimbun warns that this may 'force students to vie to be patriotic in the classroom.'"

When a people are overtaken or stripped of important parts of their cultural identity, they can be prone to overreact, to fight back in ways that are more reactionary than actionary. This leads to a condition in which both the violators and the ones who are violated are wrong.

I love Japan; culturally and aesthetically, it is one of my favorite countries. And though I haven't yet been, I do intend to go--and when I get there, I really want it to be Japan, not a Westernized (i.e., Americanized) version of it. But I also want to be comfortable there, to feel welcome. In short, I want Japan to assert their cultural identity and national autonomy, but not with threats, racism, or belligerance.

Everything You Need To Know

Thursday, December 28th, 2006
The superfluous Albert Jay Nock's insights help us see the world clearly.

I don’t buy it

Wednesday, December 27th, 2006

When I first heard of Barr cozying up to the Libertarian Party, I thought I was trapped in the twilight zone. According to Reason’s Hit and Run blog, though, Bob Barr - former drug zealot in Congress - has come around on the drug war. There’s talk of him assuming a leadership position within the party apparatus. Even Ron Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project has come out in favor of him, and those guys went at it pretty hard when Barr was in office. So now he’s talking about states rights on drug laws and research into medical marijuana only years after having fought those proposals tooth and nail. He also acknowledges that the War on Drugs is a failure.

I don’t have any problem with people reassessing their beliefs and principles, reflecting on their actions, and having a change of heart. But the LP orchestrated a campaign during his final election to get him thrown from office. I find it hard to believe that a politician (an incurable condition if there ever was one) is willing not only to forgive that but to convert to their positions. If the LP has any sense whatsoever, they will throw Bob out on his ass.

Tags:

The Gift of Reading

Monday, December 25th, 2006

Happy Christmas, everyone. Here’s some holiday reading, as a gift from me to you. World War I may not seem like the best topic for the season, but, well, that’s what I’ve been working on lately.

  • At Dulce Et Decorum Est today, you can read a powerful review essay by Phil Shannon, on the Soldier’s Truce of Christmas, 1914 (which I first encountered a year ago, through Kevin Carson’s blog.)

    It was the war that was supposed to be over by Christmas. It very nearly was. A spontaneous soldiers’ truce broke out along the Western Front on Christmas Eve 1914, four months after the start of hostilities.

    Peace on Earth, goodwill to all men — British, French and German soldiers took these usually hypocritical Christmas sentiments for real and refused to fire on the enemy, exchanging instead song, food, drink and gifts with each other in the battle-churned wastes of no-man’s land between the trenches.

    Lasting until Boxing Day in some cases, the truce alarmed the military authorities who worked overtime to end the fraternisation and restart the killing.

    Stanley Weintraub’s haunting book on the Christmas Truce recounts through the letters of the soldiers the extraordinary event, routinely denigrated in orthodox military histories as an aberration of no consequence, but which was, argues Weintraub, not only a temporary respite from slaughter but an event which had the potential to topple death-dealing governments.

  • Some time ago, I put up a copy of [Randolph Bourne’s][] most famous essay, The State, online at the Fair Use Repository. Lots of people had already posted extracts from The State online in all kinds of different forums (usually under the title War is the Health of the State). But as far as I know the Fair Use edition is the only complete online transcription. (The others usually omit Part II, Bourne’s analysis of American politics and the party system.)

    In any case, the more topical news is that I’ve just added two more of Bourne’s essays on the war — essays which, unlike The State, were published within Bourne’s own lifetime. These both come from his time writing for Seven Arts: The War and the Intellectuals is from June, 1917, and A War Diary is from September, 1917. Unfortunately what was true of the Sensible Liberals and New Republic columnists of 1917 could just as easily have been written last week.

    The results of war on the intellectual class are already apparent. Their thought becomes little more than a description and justification of what is already going on. They turn upon any rash one who continues idly to speculate. Once the war is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work. Not only is everyone forced into line, but the new certitude becomes idealized. It is a noble realism which opposes itself to futile obstruction and the cowardly refusal to face facts. This realistic boast is so loud and sonorous that one wonders whether realism is always a stern and intelligent grappling with realities. May it not be sometimes a mere surrender to the actual, an abdication of the ideal through a sheer fatigue from intellectual suspense? The pacifist is roundly scolded for refusing to face the facts, and for retiring into his own world of sentimental desire. But is the realist, who refuses to challenge or to criticise facts, entitled to any more credit than that which comes from following the line of least resistance? The realist thinks he at least can control events by linking himself to the forces that are moving. Perhaps he can. But if it is a question of controlling war, it is difficult to see how the child on the back of a mad elephant is to be any more effective in stopping the beast than is the child who tries to stop him from the ground. The ex-humanitarian, turned realist, sneers at the snobbish neutrality, colossal conceit, crooked thinking, dazed sensibilities, of those who are still unable to find any balm of consolation for this war. We manufacture consolations here in America while there are probably not a dozen men fighting in Europe who did not long ago give up every reason for their being there except that nobody knew how to get them away.

    Randolph Bourne, The War and the Intellectuals ¶ 12

    And:

    The penalty the realist pays for accepting war is to see disappear one by one the justifications for accepting it. He must either become a genuine Realpolitiker and brazen it through, or else he must feel sorry for his intuition and be regretful that he willed the war. But so easy is forgetting and so slow the change of events that he is more likely to ignore the collapse of his case. If he finds that his government is relinquishing the crucial moves of that strategy for which he was willing to use the technique of war, he is likely to move easily to the ground that it will all come out in the end the same anyway. He soon becomes satisfied with tacitly ratifying whatever happens, or at least straining to find the grain of unplausible hope that may be latent in the situation.

    But what then is there really to choose between the realist who accepts evil in order to manipulate it to a great end, but who somehow unaccountably finds events turn sour on him, and the Utopian pacifist who cannot stomach the evil and will have none of it? Both are helpless, both are coerced. The Utopian, however, knows that he is ineffective and that he is coerced, while the realist, evading disillusionment, moves in a twilight zone of half-hearted criticism and hoping for the best, where he does not become a tacit fatalist. The latter would be the manlier position, but then where would be his realistic philosophy of intelligence and choice? Professor Dewey has become impatient at the merely good and merely conscientious objectors to war who do not attach their conscience and intelligence to forces moving in another direction. But in wartime there are literally no valid forces moving in another direction. War determines its own end—victory, and government crushes out automatically all forces that deflect, or threaten to deflect, energy from the path of organization to that end. All governments will act in this way, the most democratic as well as the most autocratic. It is only liberal naïveté that is shocked at arbitrary coercion and suppression. Willing war means willing all the evils that are organically bound up with it. A good many people still seem to believe in a peculiar kind of democratic and antiseptic war. The pacifists opposed the war because they knew this was an illusion, and because of the myriad hurts they knew war would do the promise of democracy at home. For once the babes and sucklings seem to have been wiser than the children of light.

    Randolph Bourne, A War Diary § 4

  • Third, I’ve also added a series of essays from 1915, which I discovered thanks to Carl Watner’s essay on nonviolent resistance in the most recent Journal of Libertarian Studies. The exchange began with Bertrand Russell’s The Ethics of War, which appeared in the January 1915 number of the International Journal of Ethics. Russell condemned the war and argued If the facts were understood, wars amongst civilized nations would case, owing to their inherent absurdity. (Meanwhile, in one of the more baffling parts of the essay, he did some utilitarian hand-waving to try to offer some rather despicable excuses for wars of colonization and the attendant ethnic cleansing. As usual, good anti-war instincts are betrayed by prejudice when utilitarian pseudo-calculations are allowed to intrude.) Ralph Barton Perry objected to Russell’s criticism, at least as applied to the ongoing war, in Non-Resistance and the Present War. Russell wrote two more articles. One of them a direct rejoinder to Perry, published as The War and Non-Resistance—A Rejoinder to Professor Perry in the IJE. The other, probably the best essay in the exchange, appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, under the title War and Non-Resistance. Of particular note is Section II, in which Russell considers how Britain might be defended from a foreign invasion with no army and no navy, using only the methods of non-violent passive resistance. Although Russell doesn’t quite realize it, the answer he offers amounts, in the end, to doing away with the central State and its organized machinery. With no levers of centralized power to take hold of, the invaders would find themselves in possession of little if anything. Anyway, it’s well worth a read.

Read, and enjoy.

May your holidays be full of light and warmth, joy in fellowship, comfort, and peace.

Grapevine: In support of Politics1

Saturday, December 23rd, 2006

The blog “grapevine” works: I hadn’t made it by Politics1 in a few days, but I picked up from Gene Chapman, who got it from Conservative President 2008, that Ron Gunzberger, publisher of Politics1, is being sued.

For $5 million. By some asshat who, get this, blames Ron (among others) for the fact that he wasn’t able to get himself elected governor of New York … as a write-in candidate!

I doubt that Ron is worried. The suit, of course, is meritless, Ron’s a lawyer, and it will go away. But he is pissed, and I don’t blame him. He’s never claimed to be “objective” — he’s a Democrat and up front about that — but he does go out of his way to be inclusive of third party and independent candidates, even though he’s under absolutely no obligation to do so. Over the years, I’ve had occasion to throw a bit of news at him now and again, or to offer a correction, and he’s always been responsive and, to the best of his ability, accurate, even when we disagree.

The really bad part here is that he’s considering shutting down Politics1. It’s not that he’s afraid of frivolous suits like this one; I suspect that it’s that they could, if they continue, turn into an annoyance that just isn’t worth it. Running a marginally profitable — or just enjoyable — site can become a big loser if its author has to waste half his time responding to meritless and vexatious litigation.

Politics1 is my resource of first resort for candidate information — not just Libertarian, but general. If you agree (and if you don’t, you haven’t visited the site yet), let him know you support him with a blog post of your own, or with a comment at his site.

After Ten Years, A Tribute to Carl Sagan

Friday, December 22nd, 2006

Carl Sagan (1934-1996) Posted by Picasa


Wednesday, December 20, marked the 10th anniversary of the passing of astronomer/exobiologist, science populizer, skeptic, author, and humanist Carl Sagan, at a mere 62 years of age. For many of us who were inspired by Carl, this date marks a year in which we miss him more than ever. He was a scientist with the soul of a poet, a wise balancer of the essential traits of skepticism and wonder, and an advocate for the planet and life on it--including, and especially, humans. He was voted 99th in the Discovery Channel’s presentation of the 100 Greatest Americans--a position I believe is a profound underestimation (while Carl was very humble, and probably wouldn’t have even liked the idea of such ranking, he would be a lot higher on my list). So, around this time, I thought I’d make my contribution to the Carl Sagan Memorial Blog-A-Thon and write on some of the reasons I miss the great Carl, and some of the ways I believe his legacy and memory matter so much now.

Carl Sagan was, maybe above all, a humanist. Science was not, to him, something that was cold, sterile, and soulless (which it seems to be for many people, some of whom, sadly, are scientists). In the most eloquent expressions, he made the point that science is something that is profoundly human, something that should engender a sense of wonder about life, about the world, about the universe, about everything.



“It is sometimes said that scientists are unromantic, that their passion to figure out robs the world of beauty and mystery. But is it not stirring to understand how the world actually works — that white light is made of colors, that color is the way we perceive the wavelengths of light, that transparent air reflects light, that in so doing it discriminates among the waves, and that the sky is blue for the same reason that the sunset is red? It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it.” (Pale Blue Dot)
“To penetrate into the heart of the thing—even a little thing, a blade of grass, as Walt Whitman said—is to experience a kind of exhilaration that, it may be, only human beings of all the beings on this planet can feel. We are an intelligent species and the use of our intelligence quite properly gives us pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When we think well, we feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.” (“Can We Know the Universe?”)

Carl Sagan helped an entire generation to learn to think thoughts, when they look up at the stars, that they might never have considered to think. He said things like:


“We are star stuff which has taken its destiny into its own hands. The loom of time and space works the most astonishing transformations of matter.” (Cosmos)
and


“We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.”
He pointed toward the development of a new religion (one, I believe, which is yet to emerge, but will), not a religion of blind faith and superstition, but a religion of natural wonder inspired by science--a religion with earth as its cathedral, the cosmos as its hymnal, humanity as its congregation, and every awe-inspiring and profound truth of the universe as its sermon.

Said he,



"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'" (Pale Blue Dot)
"A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions."
“A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.” (Pale Blue Dot)
He wasn’t, however, belligerent towards religion in the same way that some among the modern “brights” movement are--disdaining arguments from authority, he pointed people towards the joy of discovery of truth for themselves, and he expressed respect and admiration for such spiritual leaders as the 14th Dalai Llama, Tenzin Gyatso (who said that, if science were ever to disprove a tenet of Buddhism, “then Buddhism would have to change.”) In fact, Carl often made the distinction between religion and spirituality, noting that some skeptics might not make the distinction enough--“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” A lack of faith in supernatural entities, for him, was to be more than made up for with the faith that, as he said, “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”

To many people, the name Carl Sagan first brings to mind his reputation as a skeptic. But for Carl, skepticism wasn’t a crotchety, habitual nay-saying, but simply the need for an imaginative and wondering mind to utilize investigation and empirical scrutiny--it was merely the position of his well-known statement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” He knew that skeptics have to balance skeptical scrutiny with great openness to new ideas:

“If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.” (“The Burden of Skepticism”)
That balance between openness and critical examination is something that current skeptics, I think, need to remember.

Thinking about skepticism, it’s ironic that a certain movement that strives at the behest of certain corporate interests to deny the effects of those interests on our climate and environment have adopted a reputation as environmental/global warming “skeptics”--considering that one of the 20th Century’s most celebrated skeptics was a passionate environmental advocate.


"Those who are skeptical about carbon dioxide greenhouse warning might profitably note the massive greenhouse effect on Venus. No one proposes that Venus's greenhouse effect derives from imprudent Venusians who burned too much coal, drove fuel-inefficient autos, and cut down their forests. My point is different. The climatological history of our planetary neighbor, an otherwise Earthlike planet on which the surface became hot enough to melt tin or lead, is worth considering — especially by those who say that the increasing greenhouse effect on Earth will be self-correcting, that we don't really have to worry about it, or (you can see this in the publications of some groups that call themselves conservative) that the greenhouse effect is a 'hoax'". (Pale Blue Dot)
Considering the recent efforts of certain organizations to make the case that short-term economic development is more important than serious environmental problems (see the Competitive Enterprise Institute's especially ridiculous adds countering An Inconvenient Truth) it seems opportune that we should consider Carl's simple, powerful appeal: "Anything else you're interested in is not going to happen if you can't breathe the air and drink the water. Don't sit this one out. Do something."

Carl was, of course, known for his determined stance of questioning authority of any form and in any sphere--and encouraging the same in everyone. “Arguments from authority,” he said, “simply do not count; too many authorities have been mistaken too often.” This applied particularly, he said, to citizenship, American or otherwise. As he stated compellingly in Demon-Haunted World,



"Education on the value of free speech and the other freedoms reserved by the Bill of Rights, about what happens when you don’t have them, and about how to exercise and protect them, should be an essential prerequisite for being an American citizen — or indeed a citizen of any nation, the more so to the degree that such rights remain unprotected. If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness." (Demon-Haunted World, "Real Patriots Ask Questions")

It is a challenge that is both timeless and, in all truth, especially timely.

Finally, perhaps one of the most important roles that Carl Sagan took on was that of a sober voice of warning, particularly on the need for people to be educated about science and the dangers that are inherent in our modern utilization of it. “Our species,” he opined, “needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.
More explicitly, he pointed out:

"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster." (Demon-Haunted World)
Drawing on his perspective as an astronomer, one with a sense of the delicate position that human life inhabits on this wondrous and fragile planet that we call home, he penned a poetic appeal to end one of his books:


"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and, I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." (Pale Blue Dot)
Carl Sagan was a beautiful soul, of the kind that we sorely need more in our day. Since his passing, I don’t believe any public figure has stood up to even approximately fill his shoes. Hopefully, though, many of us smaller, private individuals that have been inspired by him are doing our best to carry on his profoundly, compassionately, and daringly humanistic legacy.

_______________________________________


More Quotes From Carl Sagan:


"The choice is with us still, but the civilization now in jeopardy is all humanity. As the ancient myth makers knew, we are children equally of the earth and the sky. In our tenure of this planet we've accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage — propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders — all of which puts our survival in some doubt. But we've also acquired compassion for others, love for our children and desire to learn from history and experience, and a great soaring passionate intelligence — the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity. Which aspects of our nature will prevail is uncertain, particularly when our visions and prospects are bound to one small part of the small planet Earth. But up there in the cosmos, an inescapable perspective awaits." (Cosmos)
"Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home." (Pale Blue Dot)

"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." (Billions and Billions)

"For most of human history we have searched for our place in the cosmos. Who are we? What are we? We find that we inhabit an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions, and by the depth of our answers."

"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true."

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny."

"There is a place with four suns in the sky — red, white, blue, and yellow; two of them are so close together that they touch, and star-stuff flows between them. I know of a world with a million moons. I know of a sun the size of the Earth — and made of diamond....The universe is vast and awesome, and for the first time we are becoming part of it."

Bayonet-point capitalism

Friday, December 22nd, 2006

(Story via to the barricades 2006-12-19.)

Here is the latest from the bowels of the military-industrial complex: the United States Army is now threatening to invoke Taft-Hartley to intervene on behalf of Goodyear management against striking steelworkers. That is to say, if the Army can’t reliably get the parts for its war machines on the free market, there’s always industrial conscription to smooth out labor relations for its suppliers.

The US Army is considering measures to force striking workers back to their jobs at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Kansas in the face of a looming shortage of tyres for Humvee trucks and other military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A strike involving 17,000 members of the United Steelworkers union has crippled 16 Goodyear plants in the US and Canada since October 5.

The main issues in dispute are the company’s plans to close a unionised plant in Texas, and a proposal for workers to shoulder future increases in healthcare costs.

An army spokeswoman said on Friday that there’s not a shortage right now but there possibly will be one in the future.

According to Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House of Representatives armed services committee, the strike has cut output of Humvee tyres by about 35 per cent.

According to Mr Hunter, the army is exploring a possible injunction under the Taft-Hartley Act to force the 200 Kansas workers back to their jobs.

He proposed that they return under their current terms of employment, on the understanding that any settlement would be extended to them.

Bernard Simon (2006-12-15), Financial Times: US Army might break Goodyear strike

As long as the bayonets stay sheathed, nearly 16,000 USW workers will remain on strike. In solidarity, you might consider making a contribution to the USW strike fund to help support striking workers while they stand up to the bosses and try to make it through a holiday without paychecks.

Nearly 16,000 Goodyear employees are facing the holidays without paychecks. These United Steelworkers (USW) members are sacrificing for all of us, fighting the fight for good jobs. Being without a paycheck any time is painful—but right before the holidays, it’s especially hard. Every penny of your contribution will go to striking Goodyear workers and their families.

Please help. Please take a moment now to make a generous donation to support the striking Goodyear workers and warm up their holidays. They deserve to know we care and we honor their fight to hold employers accountable to their workers and communities.

Working Families: Support Goodyear Workers