Home  •  Forum  •  Blogs  •  E-Mail  •  Support Categories
MyCopper Categories Finance Travel Real Estate Games Autos Entertainment
Nearly Relevant
Nonsense, Fiction, and Miscellaneous Things
1 2 3

Efficiency
     
"That this issue was resolved peacefully and efficiently is a testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure and strong."1

     The problem I have with this 'thank you' is the word 'efficiently'.  Mr. Kerry heads the United States Dplomatic dept.  Let me emphasize DIPLOMATIC, not bureaucratic dept.  Efficiency is related to committment.  Committment is related to choices - because there is never one choice and one choice only.  Once a choice has been made, efficiency in carrying out the committment is helpful. Kabisch?
     The Iranians are a seperate govt. from the competitive mono-capitalist western civilizations.  It is there right to be so; It is there right not because I or western civilization AUTHORIES or LICENSES this right but because they - as any self-respecting enlightened person will admit - have the right.   They are endowed with liberties  - as are all men - and from this is derived the right to self-rule.  Kabisch?
      To shorten this rant, let me just say, in thanking the Iranians for the 'efficiency' of the process Mr. Kerry has established himself - and by extension as a representative of the U. S.  he has also established the United States govt. -  as overseer of the process.  'Efficiency', as I stated earlier being an aspect of 'authlorized bureaucracy'; To put it another way, 'overseer of a suposed 'bureaucracy of international relations'.' 
     In the extreme this mentality is fascist and is what leads to groups like ISIS and their revolutionary nihilism.
      As far as I'm concerned Pres. Obama has been the best President snce Lyndon Johnson.  To stick with just the issue in this blogpost I'll mention his admirable non-interventionist philosophy, as well as the realization that the U.S. is not threatened by every bullet that happens to fly across Africa, the Atlantic Ocean, and then hits somebodies bank account causing the account to lose 2 or 3 percent in value.
     However, apparently, the mindset of the State Dept. is still one of the United States overseeing a bureacracy of international relations.  It harkens back to the 20th century when Soviet nuclear potential was an actual concern.   Nowadays, even an AK-47 in the hands of a non-westerner who is thousands of miles away is quote-unquote; 'a threat'.
      Come on State Dept., you're better than that;  Get with it! 

 1    http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Iran-says-all-10-detained-US-Navy-sailors-have-6755473.php
  
Political Junk

I.   Muslim family at Gatwick Airport blocked by US from boarding flight to Disneyland

       http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/12/23/Muslim-family-        at-Gatwick-Airport-blocked-by-US-from-boarding-flight-to-Disneyland/3271450873163/

        Okay, the problem of security for the family is understandable - despite it not being their choice - it's understandable.  It's a concern not unike the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, except in this case the subjected are not interned but merely turned away.
     However, the govt. continues to admonish us - apparently 'us' being non-Muslims - to
'go about life unafraid';  to not be beholden to terrorist fears.  Yet this Muslim family, acting in such a manner, unintimidated despite some risks to their personhood, end up being stoppped. 
        The worst part of this story is that the family won't be refunded their expenditure.  I'm fairly certain they didn't purchase, for $13,000, access to the airport lounge as if they would be going to Disneyland and then to be turned away at the last minute.  I can't imagine them saying as they left the airport, "Oh my!  It was worth every penny wasn't it dear?"  Maybe I should correct myself.  The worst part of this story is the lack of a reasonable explanation for keeping their money.  Or, maybe I should correct myself again.  The worst part of this story is the liklihood of some change of mind and the refunding of the money;  As if it couldn't be expected that the businesses involved would treat them as people and customers rather than picking their pocket.

II.    Donald Trump

         This is crazy!  This is crazy!!!  Yea, maybe!!!!!1

III.  The Political Establishment Which
Has Mistaken Itself For A Government 
       
         #!$!!!!@$$$!4@.  


1 Allusion to Carly Rae Jepson song 'Call Me Maybe', © Universal Music Publishing Group
'Writing Errancy: Outcasts, Capitalism, and Mobility', Alberto Lopez Cuenca
     This is a reposting of a previous post which had been deleted.  Also, the article's sections which are indented to center and extend to the right margin are quotes of other works;  They are supporting quotes.  Those sections are not noted by standard and the article can be confusing to read as a result.      
" . . . errancy keeps meaning."1

     This is the ending of the article Writing Errancy: Outcasts, Capitalism, and Mobility by Alberto Lopez Cuenca, online at http://www.culturemachine.net.  http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/551/571 Although the word 'Writing' seems out of place and the article is best described as conjecture, still it hooked me.
     It seems the article's desideratum is of an understanding.  That understanding being, mankind is transferring from a natural state of existence to a societal state of existence but slowly,very slowly.  The theme is touched on only tangentially by Mr. Cuenca. The tangents are summarized by catchwords or slogans, such as mobility, creativity, globalization, criminality, etc.  These refer indirectly to either the decline of a natural state of affairs or the supplanting done by a societal state of affairs.  Although this evolution may seem obvious - hasn't mankind's history been one of moving from a natural state toward a societal state(?) - there are contradictions to its linearity.  Certainly, Theism provided the best foundation of such a transfer but has, incongruously, been besmirched throughout modern history. The result has been the backsliding of various eras towards the natural state of affairs as evidenced most recently by the world wars of our own era.  Yet, the articles tangents suggest an inexorable necessity to abnegate - to some extent - from our natural state existences.  It also suggests that the natural state is implied in societal corruptions and unethicalities despite the 'societal' context.
     The 'semi-academic' article's tone is exigent, its reasoning insufficient, but not insufficient due to malfeasance.  Instead the insufficiency reveals that understanding is arrived at piecemeal.  We only learn a piece at a time rather than learning as a lump sum;  A lump sum falling into somebody's lap isn't generally the route to understanding.  This speaks of experiential learning. 
    The article also struck me as a modern-day antiphon.  Today's secular, scientific, reasoned civilization - seemingly without a deity - still has its verses and hymns, its oblations to a devotion.  However, the devotion is to a secular structure;  Scientific reasoning, evidence, empiricality, thoughtfulness, etc. have replaced prayer,
singing and other worshipful adorations as humanity's -  uncertain as we are - devotional oblations.
     Anyway, the article interested me.
1http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/551/571
Tired of the Claptrap

     There are 3 branches of power to the U. S. government; Executive, Judicial, and Congressional.  Now, each branch has some power which the others don't have.  For example, the judiciary administers laws regardless of Executive or Congressional support.  This is a power of the Judiciary.  Congress enacts - or doesn't enact - laws; The President - Executive branch - has a veto power and can veto laws which Congress is trying to enact.  Congress can - with a 2/3rds quorum - override the veto.  If any branch acts with power, the other branches can manifest powers  they've been given to deny, change, or not accept any nascent act.  These powers are  contentious.  CONTENTIOUS, argumentative, disputatious!  These powers are not suffered.     
     For a branch of power to suffer the power of another branch is malfeasance.  The  abnegating of authorized power is a venal corruption.
     When President Obama says,
“I’ve got a pen, and … I’ve got a phone,”1  he is representing that he is taking the powers of the Presidency and using them.  It is a responsibility.  It is not malfeasance.
      I'm tired of hearing the claptrap which is, 'Pres. Obama is acting unconstitutionally', yet none are impeaching him.  I'm tired of hearing the poppycock which is 'He's breaking the law not making it', yet none are arresting him.  I'm tired of hearing the foolery which is 'He's being neither consesual nor according' as if simpatico of the branches of government - executive, judicial, and congressional which might be labeled in all obstinateness 'JUEXCON' - were a solution rather than a problem.

1http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/politics/obama-not-waiting-on-legislation-ive-got-a-pen-and-i-can-use-it-to-sign-executive-orders
Regarding Congress and Syria
     Congress is a noble idea.  Representatives - numerous - consider issues which aren't deemed relevant as voting issues.   Contemporary representatives are, also, keenly aware of politics.  The differentiating characteristic between  politics and representation is that politics is the means to representation.  But what happens when the obligation of representation is supplanted by the awareness that being a representative is a wonderful means by which to further the political-self?  If I as a representative use my position, not to consider an issue honestly or fully but rather to advantage my future political career then what becomes of representation?  If instead of spending the effort to consider the issues as fully as I can, I spend the effort to ensure my reelection?  Or to ensure a status leading to an even more prominent office of representation?
     Well, I think this incongruity dilutes the effectiveness of representation as well as tainting the position of representation.
     President O'bama has decided to put before Congress the question of retaliating against Syria for it's recent use of the nerve gas sarin.  I think there is some reason to believe a political motive to this procedure.  By going to Congress some of the responsibility for any decision on the issue is shared even, arguably, abnegated .  But is there a reason by which to claim there is neither sincerity nor value in exercising a shared representational relationship between Congress and the President on this issue?  No; not one iota of a reason.  A decision not to consult Congress would have been abnegating.   
     A certitude of correctness in striking Syria, a knuckling under to insinuations of abnegating the constitutionally authorized power of the office of President, and a continuation of an operating procedure characterized by a group-think rusty with 'standard tradition', all would have been present.  Under these conditions, a continuation of commonplace decision-making would have been an abnegation.   President O'bama had the strength of character to make a turn of course;   A characteristic of his I've, unfortunately, come to take for granted.
     Because the value of the Presidential - Congressional relationship is evident, in this case, I think it important that Congress put politics aside on the issue.  I'm not refering to a Congressional deference to the Presidency such that Congress abnegates it's responsibility thus pandering to the President's wishes.   I am referring to a necessity to admit; 
  1. Doubts concerning the issue - to which doubts President O'bama's consultiveness admits.
  2. A President willing to break from a tradition of a certitude of, both, 'moral superiority' and the 'realpolitik'.
  3. A President willing to put some responsibility on Congress - as a recognition of Congresses share in a somewhat unprecedented issue - which issue should sensibly gather the considerations of the peoples' representatives.
     None of this opinion is designed to decide a military strike as wrong.  In fact, personally, I think a military strike is necessary.  What is not necessary is a continuation of a prideful international stance in an ever-changing world.  Nor is it necessary to acquiesce to domestic politics as a career-game.  Congressional representatives are supposed to be some of are brightest, most able citizens.   I hope they're political advantaging is put aside to take on the task of actual consideration on a demanding and difficult issue.  One of many that has been faced by a strong-minded President.  
1 2 3
Blog Search
Go