Robert Mugabe is now fighting for his political life by using the same tricks he has used to stay in power since 1980: state terrorism, and cheap tricks that are meant to conjure populist support, but leave the Zimbabwean economy in shambles.
The man who single handedly brought what was once Africa's city on a hill in terms of health care and foreign investment now repeats his mistakes a desperate attempt to keep power. 51% of all business are are now by law to be under the control of indigenous Zimbabweans. While I would applaud African businesses being controlled by Africans and bringing wealth into their country, the world has seen what happens when Robert Mugabe tries to restructure the economy to for the sake of political posturing: chaos, corruption and disaster.
At the turn of the century Mugabe engaged in forcible land redistribution which was uncontrolled and violent. The white farmers lost their land, many of those also losing their lives when the government gave permission for its militias to engage in wholesale murder to kill the farmers. What followed was a massive food shortage as native Zimbabweans took over the farms, but did not know how to farm on a massive scale. Starvation and inflation rates of over 2000% have exacerbated the problem of AIDS in Zimbabwe, which the Mugabe government refuses to address in any way besides stealing international aid meant for its suffering people.
The Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Bill go before a congress which the Mugabe government rigged by altering the constitution. When they do inevitably pass this law they will find that they have no more foreign business willing to invest in Zimbabwe. There is no clear indication of how the bill will be implemented. There is no African government willing to help native Zimbabweans or speak out against Robert Mugabe, who insists that the reason his economy is in shambles is because of a British plot of overthrow him.
Mr. Mugabe: the reason why your people suffer is the culture of corruption and violence which you have created. Blatant nepotism and graft as well as unacceptable violence against the press and the Natebele tribe in your country have proven you are unacceptable as a leader of Zimbabwe. The fact that your currency is worth less than toilet paper and that you have to bribe pollsters to slow down the election process should be evidence enough that you do not represent the interests of Zimbabweans. I predict that your reform will be structured in such a way that your sycophants will receive jobs by the firms you are trying to reform, I those firms will continue to invest in your country, if they did they would have to be relabeled as charities.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
John Stuart Mill
Here's something that needs to be heard:
"A state of things in which a large portion of the most active and inquiring intellects find it advisable to keep the most genuine principles and grounds of their own convictions within their breasts, and attempt in what they address in public, to fit as they can of their own conclusions to premises which they have internally renounced, cannot send forth the open, fearless characters, and logical, consistent intellects who once adorned the thinking world."
-John Stuart Mill On Liberty
Booya. That is not the John Stuart Mill who I heard about from one of my professors who always equated utilitarianism with the Nazi's, nor is it the John Stuart Mill who Air Force Academy Cadets are forced memorize. This is the John Stuart Mill who is against coercion and for the absolute freedom of conscience within the context of what would make a good society. I like this guy, he's good.
"A state of things in which a large portion of the most active and inquiring intellects find it advisable to keep the most genuine principles and grounds of their own convictions within their breasts, and attempt in what they address in public, to fit as they can of their own conclusions to premises which they have internally renounced, cannot send forth the open, fearless characters, and logical, consistent intellects who once adorned the thinking world."
-John Stuart Mill On Liberty
Booya. That is not the John Stuart Mill who I heard about from one of my professors who always equated utilitarianism with the Nazi's, nor is it the John Stuart Mill who Air Force Academy Cadets are forced memorize. This is the John Stuart Mill who is against coercion and for the absolute freedom of conscience within the context of what would make a good society. I like this guy, he's good.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Hamas
I usually don't get too involved in the politics of the Middle East unless it is something really big, like Lebanon's nationalist movement that shook off Syrian political domination, or really scary like anti-Semitism in Iran. The events of this week, by which I mean the Hamas led coup in Gaza with all the barbaric carnivality of parading bodies of Fatah fighters through the street, scares me and takes away some of my hope for peace.
I am by no means a fan of Israel, but I am hard pressed to find an answer when asked which type of terrorism is worse, state terrorism or fundamentalist terrorism. State terrorism, like that of Israel or Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is awful because it is being excused and ignored on the international stage. Fundamentalist terrorism is awful because it is a perversion of religion. I had high hopes for the Abbas government, and they continued to compromise and reason with Hamas militants, even ceding control of part of the government. I still have the hope that Palestine will have a government, a real government for a real state, that is not reactionary and has does not have the explicit goal of destroying its neighbor. Though given the history of heinous Israeli violence against Palestinians I can see why Hamas is popular in Palestine. Hamas claimed Abbas had driven them to do this, I've heard that before, excusing similar violence. I don't like what I've been hearing.
I am by no means a fan of Israel, but I am hard pressed to find an answer when asked which type of terrorism is worse, state terrorism or fundamentalist terrorism. State terrorism, like that of Israel or Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is awful because it is being excused and ignored on the international stage. Fundamentalist terrorism is awful because it is a perversion of religion. I had high hopes for the Abbas government, and they continued to compromise and reason with Hamas militants, even ceding control of part of the government. I still have the hope that Palestine will have a government, a real government for a real state, that is not reactionary and has does not have the explicit goal of destroying its neighbor. Though given the history of heinous Israeli violence against Palestinians I can see why Hamas is popular in Palestine. Hamas claimed Abbas had driven them to do this, I've heard that before, excusing similar violence. I don't like what I've been hearing.
Monday, June 11, 2007
correction
dammit, it looks like you can't remove a cabinet member unless it is through the impeachment of the President, and the President won't get rid of the guy. The language in Article II Section. 4 makes it seem like the Legislative Branch can remove civil servants. Apparently they can't, Shitty...more concentration of power to the Executive Branch.
A Very Sad Turn of Events: Partisan Ties Hurt Our Justice System
Today is a sad day for anyone who is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Today is a sad day for anyone who believes in the Due Process Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Today is a sad day for anyone who believes that justice is higher then what the sovereign says and that our Legislative Branch is capable of upholding its functions.
Alberto Gonzales, by a margin of seven votes, continues to hold his office as Attorney General. Lord, help us all, but help the people in the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of the United States of America who are opposed to President Bush's Administration.
Seven votes! Shame on the Republicans who kept this man in office. Arlen Specter even said on CNN that Republicans HAVE NO CONFIDENCE in Alberto Gonzales, which begs the question why did they not do their job and vote for what they thought was best for the American people. That is a priceless comment by Sen. Specter because it proves that Republicans are willing to play partisan games and vote against their conscience, essentially "flip-flopping" to use the word they have beat to death. Trent Lott chalked up the vote as utterly inconsequential and pointless; exactly correct Sen. Lott, and it was a pointless exercise because you failed to see past your partisan blinders and remove the Bush sycophant who is utterly unqualified to serve as Attorney General.
How embarrassing, what are your comments Mr. Bush? "This process has been drug out a long time...It's political." Drug out? Political? He makes up a word and labels it as "political" which immediately conjures a negative reaction from the average American. People who do not want to do the work of politics should not be allowed on Capitol Hill and it is completely hypocritical that he would use such a politically charged word in a move that is all political maneuvering. Yes President Bush, the move was political, good job, you are starting to catch on, now repeat after me, "I am a politician. Politics is not a dirty word. I was elected by a political process, and I have the ability to run the country responsibly using politics."
That said we should realize what a tremendous blunder it is to continue to allow Alberto Gonzales to serve in office, because he has displayed time and time again unforgivable miscarriages of justice through political mechanisms. Gonzales has failed to do his sworn duty as a civil servant and instead has helped to dismantle our Constitution instead of protect it and under Article II Section 4, he should be removed from office! It just reminds me of all the reasons why he shouldn't be in high office in the first place, like his total disregard for Article VI, the Supremacy Clause WHICH RECOGNIZES ALL TREATIES WE ENTER INTO AS BINDING, INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS! He is completely reckless in his disregard for our laws, like the Military Commission Act, which states that citizens detained by the military always have due process of law, and because he is a cowering, malleable, miserable excuse for a United States civil servant he is excused by the President who is the only man in the government more willing to break our laws for politics. Bush votes will dismiss this whole process as "political" thinking that politics is dirty, completely ignoring the fact that they support the people who give politics a bad name. I have no confidence in the Executive Branch, and I had high hopes for the Legislative, damn.
Alberto Gonzales, by a margin of seven votes, continues to hold his office as Attorney General. Lord, help us all, but help the people in the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of the United States of America who are opposed to President Bush's Administration.
Seven votes! Shame on the Republicans who kept this man in office. Arlen Specter even said on CNN that Republicans HAVE NO CONFIDENCE in Alberto Gonzales, which begs the question why did they not do their job and vote for what they thought was best for the American people. That is a priceless comment by Sen. Specter because it proves that Republicans are willing to play partisan games and vote against their conscience, essentially "flip-flopping" to use the word they have beat to death. Trent Lott chalked up the vote as utterly inconsequential and pointless; exactly correct Sen. Lott, and it was a pointless exercise because you failed to see past your partisan blinders and remove the Bush sycophant who is utterly unqualified to serve as Attorney General.
How embarrassing, what are your comments Mr. Bush? "This process has been drug out a long time...It's political." Drug out? Political? He makes up a word and labels it as "political" which immediately conjures a negative reaction from the average American. People who do not want to do the work of politics should not be allowed on Capitol Hill and it is completely hypocritical that he would use such a politically charged word in a move that is all political maneuvering. Yes President Bush, the move was political, good job, you are starting to catch on, now repeat after me, "I am a politician. Politics is not a dirty word. I was elected by a political process, and I have the ability to run the country responsibly using politics."
That said we should realize what a tremendous blunder it is to continue to allow Alberto Gonzales to serve in office, because he has displayed time and time again unforgivable miscarriages of justice through political mechanisms. Gonzales has failed to do his sworn duty as a civil servant and instead has helped to dismantle our Constitution instead of protect it and under Article II Section 4, he should be removed from office! It just reminds me of all the reasons why he shouldn't be in high office in the first place, like his total disregard for Article VI, the Supremacy Clause WHICH RECOGNIZES ALL TREATIES WE ENTER INTO AS BINDING, INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS! He is completely reckless in his disregard for our laws, like the Military Commission Act, which states that citizens detained by the military always have due process of law, and because he is a cowering, malleable, miserable excuse for a United States civil servant he is excused by the President who is the only man in the government more willing to break our laws for politics. Bush votes will dismiss this whole process as "political" thinking that politics is dirty, completely ignoring the fact that they support the people who give politics a bad name. I have no confidence in the Executive Branch, and I had high hopes for the Legislative, damn.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Mungiki Menace
I have been emailing some friends in Kenya and keeping up with the news from East Africa on the BBC, and lately the stories surrounding the "Mungiki Menace" have dominated the headlines. Though my friends are off to the west in the highlands and are relatively safe, save a few isolated incidents that have happened earlier this year, there is a sect in central Kenya known as Mungiki which has been terrorizing the country. Mungiki which means multitude of Kikuyu, sounded a lot like the bloody Mau Mau rebellion of the 1950's, a wedding of religious zealotry with a land based political movement. However, Mungiki, though claiming to have followers numbering in the millions, does not enjoy the popular support of the Mau Mau Rebellion, and frankly I think that it is something to be just a little bit frightened of if you are going to Nairobi any time soon.
The sect is based around the goal of removing Western culture from the sacred homeland, but they are not yet targeting Europeans, they are targeting their fellow Kikuyu. Although I do not know much about the victims, they seem to be from the same slums that Mungiki was born from, the Matere slum in particular. The cult is very secretive, but what is known is that they take oathing ceremonies like the Mau Mau and worship Nagai, a deity who they believe lives in Mt. Kenya. The sect also sports dreadlocks which is another connection to the Mau Mau. Mungiki was outlawed in 2002 because of their belief in female circumcision but recently they re-emerged with a series of gruesome massacres which often involved machetes or "pangas".
Under my links is Kenyan message board that anybody who is interested should check out. Many Kenyans are so distrustful of their own government that they believe that the murders have some political purpose. It would be interesting to see how public opinion sways in the wake of the violent police crackdown in the Matere Slum. The unmitigated state violence used to root out Mungiki could prove countrerproductive and there is now way that the government is going to create a gulag to put down Mungiki like the British did against the Mau Mau, especially if Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, has the presidency.
For a different type of illustration, please willfully suspend your disbelief and take part in this excercise: Imagine a group of fundamentalist Methodists in the heart of Texas who got the idea of a ritually pure homeland from reading about the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in Old Testament. Then imagine them gaining support among the faithful and enacting some of the laws they read in Leviticus, like stoning their daughters to death for looking at a man with a lustful eye. This patriarchal stuff eventually gets them outlawed by state goverment for but the fundamentalists are able to go underground and spin the defeat in their favor in the minds of their believers. They then couple their movement with a political purpose like throwing off the chains of agribusiness and start cutting people's heads off. That is what it would be like if we had the American equivalent of Mungiki.
It makes me wonder though, how far from the truth is what is being reported. I know that we have lots of sources of information, including Kenyans who could tell us about how Mungiki, but I wonder what goes unsaid. I also wonder about the number of political movements over the years who have used religion, from Sinn Fein to name your Jihadist sect. That is something worth studying, because once we are able to isolate some variables that foster violent religious fundamentalism for political purposes we can start to know what we are working with and how we can end all this hate and death.
The sect is based around the goal of removing Western culture from the sacred homeland, but they are not yet targeting Europeans, they are targeting their fellow Kikuyu. Although I do not know much about the victims, they seem to be from the same slums that Mungiki was born from, the Matere slum in particular. The cult is very secretive, but what is known is that they take oathing ceremonies like the Mau Mau and worship Nagai, a deity who they believe lives in Mt. Kenya. The sect also sports dreadlocks which is another connection to the Mau Mau. Mungiki was outlawed in 2002 because of their belief in female circumcision but recently they re-emerged with a series of gruesome massacres which often involved machetes or "pangas".
Under my links is Kenyan message board that anybody who is interested should check out. Many Kenyans are so distrustful of their own government that they believe that the murders have some political purpose. It would be interesting to see how public opinion sways in the wake of the violent police crackdown in the Matere Slum. The unmitigated state violence used to root out Mungiki could prove countrerproductive and there is now way that the government is going to create a gulag to put down Mungiki like the British did against the Mau Mau, especially if Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, has the presidency.
For a different type of illustration, please willfully suspend your disbelief and take part in this excercise: Imagine a group of fundamentalist Methodists in the heart of Texas who got the idea of a ritually pure homeland from reading about the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in Old Testament. Then imagine them gaining support among the faithful and enacting some of the laws they read in Leviticus, like stoning their daughters to death for looking at a man with a lustful eye. This patriarchal stuff eventually gets them outlawed by state goverment for but the fundamentalists are able to go underground and spin the defeat in their favor in the minds of their believers. They then couple their movement with a political purpose like throwing off the chains of agribusiness and start cutting people's heads off. That is what it would be like if we had the American equivalent of Mungiki.
It makes me wonder though, how far from the truth is what is being reported. I know that we have lots of sources of information, including Kenyans who could tell us about how Mungiki, but I wonder what goes unsaid. I also wonder about the number of political movements over the years who have used religion, from Sinn Fein to name your Jihadist sect. That is something worth studying, because once we are able to isolate some variables that foster violent religious fundamentalism for political purposes we can start to know what we are working with and how we can end all this hate and death.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Returning from a Two Day Break: Political Frustration
I'm sorry I haven't written for the past two days, they have been full of waking up very early, running very slowly, studying the Bible very carefully, filling in spaces on spreadsheets very tediously and sleeping very lightly.
The world of politics has, like it alway does, kept on turning... Scooter Libby...30 months...obstruction of justice... 'bout time. A Presidential pardon would, Ambassador Wilson, whose wife lost her job because of an editorial he wrote, constitute the heighth of unethical conduct, if Bush had any of the values he claimed to have he should recuse himself from the case because he is Libby's superior, that is basic ethics. I tend to agree with Ambassador Wilson and I am not sure why other people are making Scooter out to be such a hero. He broke the law and his superiors, who have put the county's security, economy and reputation under great strain, are not paying the price because Libby is taking the hit. 2.5 years in a REAL prison would do this guy great, he would get to see the part of America that he, or any of his friends have never seen before: the side they screw over.
Speaking of prison, I turned on the radio to KBOO community radio and was about to put in a CD when I started listening to what sounded like a lecture from a woman with a slightly southern drawl who spoke with great conviction and paused on phrases like "civic death" in a way that is similar to Cornel West. Within about 10 seconds (no lie) I said "I think this is Angela Davis," 20 seconds of commentary on institutionalized racism later and I say "this has to be Angela Davis. Sure enough it was, and I was proud for having recognized her ideas so quickly.
I have only seen her speak once, but she delivers these types of speeches with great humor, alclarity and of course witness. She is witness to a severely institutionalized and regulated upbringing in the American South in which the only contact with whites that she had was painstakingly marked by protocol via social and state actors. I just can't get over the fact that there were parts of the street where she was forced to walk and how she was pulled over because her black friend was light skinned and mistaken for being white. What is even more startling about the story is their answer to the officer "Don't worry, she is black, she just looks white," "Ok. Go on." Another unbelievable example of second class citizenship is when she failed her literacy test when she registered to vote in Birmingham. This of course was after she had recieved her undergraduate degree, and I'm not sure if it was after she had studied abroad in France under Theodor Adorno, one of the greatest philosophers of the last century. Her message that racism does not currently exist in law, but in fact is spot on and for those who need substantiation, go check a thread on letsrun.com about Barack Obama and read what many of the posters like BigTex and LynchyLynch have to say. It is a wonder that these posts aren't deleted when the moderators frequently delete other non racially charged posts. Disgusting.
I like what Davis said about the corrupting influences of various societal institutions because this is what I love to study. I love she says that the conception of our freedom is predicated on the oppression and imprisonment of others. Our freedom, at least in the minds of many Americans, is contingent upon "their" imprisonment. It is an Agambian internal/external relationship The center of our society is found imprinted on the psyche of those whose lives are most rigorously governed by a societal institution: prisoners...and maybe some public school students. One can take this to mean that this system has clearly failed and should be done away with (Davis) or that perhaps we can improve the system and make these failures into successes (perhaps Dewey.) I certainly cannot imagine a world without institutions like the church, or the academy or even the prison. Maybe I need to think harder.
Speaking of thinking harder I need to go give my thoughts on the ethical implications of some selections from the Old Testament, or the O.T. if you are savvy like that.
The world of politics has, like it alway does, kept on turning... Scooter Libby...30 months...obstruction of justice... 'bout time. A Presidential pardon would, Ambassador Wilson, whose wife lost her job because of an editorial he wrote, constitute the heighth of unethical conduct, if Bush had any of the values he claimed to have he should recuse himself from the case because he is Libby's superior, that is basic ethics. I tend to agree with Ambassador Wilson and I am not sure why other people are making Scooter out to be such a hero. He broke the law and his superiors, who have put the county's security, economy and reputation under great strain, are not paying the price because Libby is taking the hit. 2.5 years in a REAL prison would do this guy great, he would get to see the part of America that he, or any of his friends have never seen before: the side they screw over.
Speaking of prison, I turned on the radio to KBOO community radio and was about to put in a CD when I started listening to what sounded like a lecture from a woman with a slightly southern drawl who spoke with great conviction and paused on phrases like "civic death" in a way that is similar to Cornel West. Within about 10 seconds (no lie) I said "I think this is Angela Davis," 20 seconds of commentary on institutionalized racism later and I say "this has to be Angela Davis. Sure enough it was, and I was proud for having recognized her ideas so quickly.
I have only seen her speak once, but she delivers these types of speeches with great humor, alclarity and of course witness. She is witness to a severely institutionalized and regulated upbringing in the American South in which the only contact with whites that she had was painstakingly marked by protocol via social and state actors. I just can't get over the fact that there were parts of the street where she was forced to walk and how she was pulled over because her black friend was light skinned and mistaken for being white. What is even more startling about the story is their answer to the officer "Don't worry, she is black, she just looks white," "Ok. Go on." Another unbelievable example of second class citizenship is when she failed her literacy test when she registered to vote in Birmingham. This of course was after she had recieved her undergraduate degree, and I'm not sure if it was after she had studied abroad in France under Theodor Adorno, one of the greatest philosophers of the last century. Her message that racism does not currently exist in law, but in fact is spot on and for those who need substantiation, go check a thread on letsrun.com about Barack Obama and read what many of the posters like BigTex and LynchyLynch have to say. It is a wonder that these posts aren't deleted when the moderators frequently delete other non racially charged posts. Disgusting.
I like what Davis said about the corrupting influences of various societal institutions because this is what I love to study. I love she says that the conception of our freedom is predicated on the oppression and imprisonment of others. Our freedom, at least in the minds of many Americans, is contingent upon "their" imprisonment. It is an Agambian internal/external relationship The center of our society is found imprinted on the psyche of those whose lives are most rigorously governed by a societal institution: prisoners...and maybe some public school students. One can take this to mean that this system has clearly failed and should be done away with (Davis) or that perhaps we can improve the system and make these failures into successes (perhaps Dewey.) I certainly cannot imagine a world without institutions like the church, or the academy or even the prison. Maybe I need to think harder.
Speaking of thinking harder I need to go give my thoughts on the ethical implications of some selections from the Old Testament, or the O.T. if you are savvy like that.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Meno and Socratic Questioning/Posturing(?)
Today I tackled Meno, a less famous work by Plato which of course chronicles a dialogue between Socrates and a guy named Meno who would like to know what excellence is. Not 20 minutes into the read and I was reminded of how tedious Socratic questioning seems sometimes and how you just wish he got to the same point that he always gets to: I don't know the answer, you don't know the answer, but trust yourself, hate sophistry and seek out the real answer.
It was only towards the end of the book when he really gets to politics, because Meno wants to know what excellence which he links to good governance. The last two to three pages contain some classical ideas: 1)politicians don't have any wisdom and do not speak of what they know and 2) politicians are certainly never inspired and they can only claim to have right opinions if they are to be considered good. It is not by wisdom that the politician governs, the great leader is no more endowed with wisdom then the inspired prophet, but right action guided by true opinion can work as a sort of knowledge of how to guide people, which is beneficial, and what is beneficial is excellent...I think. I believe that this book is just a preview of The Cave because he is speaking in a sort of hierarchy of thought in which right opinion is the shadow of knowledge, experience is fickle but must be trusted and there are always higher truths.
So much of what Socrates does is hashing out the argument by dismantling and rebuilding arguments based on assumptions that he later takes away. Socrates punches so many holes in arguments that you begin to think that he will never take a stance on what it is he is analyzing, and in the case of The Republic, when he finally comes to a conclusion, it is a little disconcerting to people who would perfer a more egalitarian and less Orwellian social construct. However, and I realize might be guilty of taking this out of context, I like how Socrates says that politicians are not divinely inspired people, "possessed by god," and "they achieve success in speaking of many great matters while knowing nothing about what they say." That my friend will NEVER GET OLD, that is a bit of "divinely inspired" wisdom that has withstood the test of time. To turn the critical light back on Socrates, I can't help but to think of him as machiavellian, he advocates philosopher kings and discredits politicians, but I think that every philosopher inevitably puts themselves at the center of their philosophy.
I can also see why Socrates is called the only real philosopher, or at least why all subsequent people who call themselves philosophers model themselves after Socrates. He asks asks you to clearly define your terms which is important in all types of philosophy, but there are things about him that appeal to every group of philosopher. Metaphysicians like him because he seeks intangible truths and believes that there is more then what meets the eye. Epistemologists like him because he lays forth an argument of how he knows what he knows. Logicians like him because his quick wit and flawless argumentation. Political theorists like him because all of his speculation is done in a political context and usually speaking about practical problems that politics grapple with. Everyone loves and hates him because he taught us to hate the sophists, the people who claim expertise and do not seek a higher truth, and in a way there is a little sophistry in us all.
What do I like about Socrates besides what I have already written, I like how he affirms the power of the individual in the polity and refuses to settle. Cornel West would say that he is a man who can envision civic death, but is a political animal because under these conditions he can ask the questions with the answers that are just barely out of our reach but define us as human beings, like what is equality, what is justice and what is man? He brings us so close to the answer everytime, but then we find out we are no closer then we were before. The answer is still there within us and I think that was his final challenge to us, to seek truth no matter what the consequences.
It was only towards the end of the book when he really gets to politics, because Meno wants to know what excellence which he links to good governance. The last two to three pages contain some classical ideas: 1)politicians don't have any wisdom and do not speak of what they know and 2) politicians are certainly never inspired and they can only claim to have right opinions if they are to be considered good. It is not by wisdom that the politician governs, the great leader is no more endowed with wisdom then the inspired prophet, but right action guided by true opinion can work as a sort of knowledge of how to guide people, which is beneficial, and what is beneficial is excellent...I think. I believe that this book is just a preview of The Cave because he is speaking in a sort of hierarchy of thought in which right opinion is the shadow of knowledge, experience is fickle but must be trusted and there are always higher truths.
So much of what Socrates does is hashing out the argument by dismantling and rebuilding arguments based on assumptions that he later takes away. Socrates punches so many holes in arguments that you begin to think that he will never take a stance on what it is he is analyzing, and in the case of The Republic, when he finally comes to a conclusion, it is a little disconcerting to people who would perfer a more egalitarian and less Orwellian social construct. However, and I realize might be guilty of taking this out of context, I like how Socrates says that politicians are not divinely inspired people, "possessed by god," and "they achieve success in speaking of many great matters while knowing nothing about what they say." That my friend will NEVER GET OLD, that is a bit of "divinely inspired" wisdom that has withstood the test of time. To turn the critical light back on Socrates, I can't help but to think of him as machiavellian, he advocates philosopher kings and discredits politicians, but I think that every philosopher inevitably puts themselves at the center of their philosophy.
I can also see why Socrates is called the only real philosopher, or at least why all subsequent people who call themselves philosophers model themselves after Socrates. He asks asks you to clearly define your terms which is important in all types of philosophy, but there are things about him that appeal to every group of philosopher. Metaphysicians like him because he seeks intangible truths and believes that there is more then what meets the eye. Epistemologists like him because he lays forth an argument of how he knows what he knows. Logicians like him because his quick wit and flawless argumentation. Political theorists like him because all of his speculation is done in a political context and usually speaking about practical problems that politics grapple with. Everyone loves and hates him because he taught us to hate the sophists, the people who claim expertise and do not seek a higher truth, and in a way there is a little sophistry in us all.
What do I like about Socrates besides what I have already written, I like how he affirms the power of the individual in the polity and refuses to settle. Cornel West would say that he is a man who can envision civic death, but is a political animal because under these conditions he can ask the questions with the answers that are just barely out of our reach but define us as human beings, like what is equality, what is justice and what is man? He brings us so close to the answer everytime, but then we find out we are no closer then we were before. The answer is still there within us and I think that was his final challenge to us, to seek truth no matter what the consequences.
Another reason to be proud to be from California: 22 year old Joe Chestnut from San Jose brings the world hot dog eating record back to America by downing 59 hot dogs in 12 minutes in Phoenix Arizona!
Professional eater Takeru Kobayashi of Japan was the former world record holder, but our boy Joe shattered the previous world record of 53 3/4 set last year at Nathan's Famous Fourth of July Hotdog Eating Championship. Joe came in second in that same competition behind Kobayashi with52 hotdogs, but didn't receive half of the media attention reserved for Takeru; I guess no one cares about who finished second in an eating contest.
This recent competition where Joe "no nickname yet" Chestnut bested Takeru "the tsunami" Kobayahsi's record could be a tune up for the match of the century on the Fourth of July, I would look for it on all the major networks. I am not sure how long it takes someone to recover from such an event but I have a feeling that both champions will be up for the title hunt and we can finally see who is the world's greatest glutton.
Chestnut is no rube to the scene of competitive eating, a month ago he was downing hot wings at a competition in New York City. Joe was the first American to eat 50 hotdogs in 12 minutes and also holds the American Record, or AR for short, for eating grilled cheese sandwiches, fried asparagus and waffles.
There are a lot of other Americans on the competitive eating scene like 420 lb Eric "Badlands" Booker who ate 49 glazed donuts in 8 minutes or 130 lb Rich "The Locust" LeFebre who got his start in competitive eating late in life as a hobby he could share with his wife. Even 101lb Sonya "The Black Widow" Thomas has an eating record, eleven pounds of cheesecake in 9 minutes.
If you are interested, aside from saying that you are morbid and kind of strange, I would recommend checking out The International Federation of Competitive Eating's website at ifoce.com. You will probably get a kick out of some of these "athletes."
I'm beginning to think that I have a shot in this sort of a sport, I did drink a gallon of milk in 27 minutes and didn't throw up my freshmen year in Corrado's Milk Chug Contest. I think it is time for me to take my talents past the intercollegiate level and into the pros.
Professional eater Takeru Kobayashi of Japan was the former world record holder, but our boy Joe shattered the previous world record of 53 3/4 set last year at Nathan's Famous Fourth of July Hotdog Eating Championship. Joe came in second in that same competition behind Kobayashi with52 hotdogs, but didn't receive half of the media attention reserved for Takeru; I guess no one cares about who finished second in an eating contest.
This recent competition where Joe "no nickname yet" Chestnut bested Takeru "the tsunami" Kobayahsi's record could be a tune up for the match of the century on the Fourth of July, I would look for it on all the major networks. I am not sure how long it takes someone to recover from such an event but I have a feeling that both champions will be up for the title hunt and we can finally see who is the world's greatest glutton.
Chestnut is no rube to the scene of competitive eating, a month ago he was downing hot wings at a competition in New York City. Joe was the first American to eat 50 hotdogs in 12 minutes and also holds the American Record, or AR for short, for eating grilled cheese sandwiches, fried asparagus and waffles.
There are a lot of other Americans on the competitive eating scene like 420 lb Eric "Badlands" Booker who ate 49 glazed donuts in 8 minutes or 130 lb Rich "The Locust" LeFebre who got his start in competitive eating late in life as a hobby he could share with his wife. Even 101lb Sonya "The Black Widow" Thomas has an eating record, eleven pounds of cheesecake in 9 minutes.
If you are interested, aside from saying that you are morbid and kind of strange, I would recommend checking out The International Federation of Competitive Eating's website at ifoce.com. You will probably get a kick out of some of these "athletes."
I'm beginning to think that I have a shot in this sort of a sport, I did drink a gallon of milk in 27 minutes and didn't throw up my freshmen year in Corrado's Milk Chug Contest. I think it is time for me to take my talents past the intercollegiate level and into the pros.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
1st Blog EVER
What the world needs now is love, sweet love. That is why I created this blog, to spread the love. Whether it be the agape love Peirce theorizes on or the violent love of brotherhood "that wills to beat weapons into sickles for work" that Oscar Romero evangelized before an assassin's bullet took his life. I want to explore, expose and expound all types of love through this median which I hope will never be tainted by hate.
With that little invocation done with I want to say that I will be using this blog more often then not to report and comment on things and events that I see as particularly pertinent. The issues discussed may range from political economy and bioethics to the impact of bands like The Clash. In that way I hope this blog will be eclectic, reflective, thoughtful rather then a journal about me.
Though this is site is small beans in the greater blogosphere I think it is important that every media outlet be honest about itself, and to have a soul, so I will say that this blog will undoubtedly reflect my interests, which is why I give this preemptive mea culpa: I am a biased media source and not that great of a journalist. My goal is not to editorialize every blog entry, sometimes I might report a news story about something that happened in St. John's or Santa Cruz California or Venezuela or Kenya. I will strive to not let my personal biases taint any of those stories, but when I say I that everything on this page will "reflect my interests" I mean to say that this is stuff that I want to report or comment on, which is probably a good mechanism for quality control. You will never get an entry titled "BRITNEY SPEARS SHAVES HER HEAD" and have it be treated as pertinent news and not gossip. My idea of what news should be more closely resembles the The New York Times or The Financial Times then USA Today. My idea of thoughtful commentary is more closely aligned with what you would find in Adbusters or in a good book, not Us Magazine or your favorite supermarket tabloid.
Now for the explanation of the name Jeff the Mzungu. I started this blog after looking at some of the day's events in Africa on bbc.com. I love African politics because it is by far the most interesting, and with the growing access to and popularity of the Internet in Africa you get many Africans broadcasting their opinions on important subjects in Africa in chat rooms, forums, YouTube etc. This is a great thing because with free speech and democracy, according to my one of my heroes Amartya Sen, is a powerful tool against poverty. I love hearing about African politics because during a trip to Kenya last year I realized that Kenyans are remarkably well informed and involved in their politics. The democratic spirit is there in a way that people can't even imagine here in the United States. Many Americans have some gross misconceptions about African politics and Africa in general, I have heard my fair share of college kids talk about people being constantly chased by lions or coming up with some racist comment that makes me sick. After studying African politics for some time I think this is the case in many countries across sub-Saharan Africa from Zimbabwe, to Nigeria, to Tanzania people are extremely politically savvy and conditions believe in the power of democracy. They know their governments and they have an opinion, they are not like uninformed, easily sidetracked and apathetic Americans. It is tragic that political and economic conditions are such that Africa is not thriving, but, at least in Kenya, there is a well informed and politically active citizenry. While I was over there I acquired a bit of a nickname, one not all that uncommon for people of my racial background. Over and over again, running down the road being chased by smiling schoolchildren or walking down the street or talking to people over tea I would be referred to as mzungu which means the white guy. For many of the people I met their exposure to the "typical American" was limited to old sitcoms and soap operas, cartoons, the news, televangelists and professional wrestling, so people were constantly asking me different questions about Americans, and our thoughts on everything from farming, to God, whether professional wrestling was real or not. In return I got a healthy dose of what it is to be Kenyan, a hard life punctuated by catastrophes, and personal loss, but enriched by friends to talk and drink tea with and hope for the more elusive effects of democracy.
I want to try to be a little bit more like I was in Kenya, which is to say a little bit more Kenyan. I'd like to be politically involved, I want to take part in fostering public debate and discourse. I want to be politically conscious, and approach the world like I did over in Kenya: as something new and exciting that I am open to, want to learn about, and have a stake in. I have a lot of love for that country and the people I met and still talk to, isn't the goal to spread the love?
En Pace,
Jeff the Mzungu
With that little invocation done with I want to say that I will be using this blog more often then not to report and comment on things and events that I see as particularly pertinent. The issues discussed may range from political economy and bioethics to the impact of bands like The Clash. In that way I hope this blog will be eclectic, reflective, thoughtful rather then a journal about me.
Though this is site is small beans in the greater blogosphere I think it is important that every media outlet be honest about itself, and to have a soul, so I will say that this blog will undoubtedly reflect my interests, which is why I give this preemptive mea culpa: I am a biased media source and not that great of a journalist. My goal is not to editorialize every blog entry, sometimes I might report a news story about something that happened in St. John's or Santa Cruz California or Venezuela or Kenya. I will strive to not let my personal biases taint any of those stories, but when I say I that everything on this page will "reflect my interests" I mean to say that this is stuff that I want to report or comment on, which is probably a good mechanism for quality control. You will never get an entry titled "BRITNEY SPEARS SHAVES HER HEAD" and have it be treated as pertinent news and not gossip. My idea of what news should be more closely resembles the The New York Times or The Financial Times then USA Today. My idea of thoughtful commentary is more closely aligned with what you would find in Adbusters or in a good book, not Us Magazine or your favorite supermarket tabloid.
Now for the explanation of the name Jeff the Mzungu. I started this blog after looking at some of the day's events in Africa on bbc.com. I love African politics because it is by far the most interesting, and with the growing access to and popularity of the Internet in Africa you get many Africans broadcasting their opinions on important subjects in Africa in chat rooms, forums, YouTube etc. This is a great thing because with free speech and democracy, according to my one of my heroes Amartya Sen, is a powerful tool against poverty. I love hearing about African politics because during a trip to Kenya last year I realized that Kenyans are remarkably well informed and involved in their politics. The democratic spirit is there in a way that people can't even imagine here in the United States. Many Americans have some gross misconceptions about African politics and Africa in general, I have heard my fair share of college kids talk about people being constantly chased by lions or coming up with some racist comment that makes me sick. After studying African politics for some time I think this is the case in many countries across sub-Saharan Africa from Zimbabwe, to Nigeria, to Tanzania people are extremely politically savvy and conditions believe in the power of democracy. They know their governments and they have an opinion, they are not like uninformed, easily sidetracked and apathetic Americans. It is tragic that political and economic conditions are such that Africa is not thriving, but, at least in Kenya, there is a well informed and politically active citizenry. While I was over there I acquired a bit of a nickname, one not all that uncommon for people of my racial background. Over and over again, running down the road being chased by smiling schoolchildren or walking down the street or talking to people over tea I would be referred to as mzungu which means the white guy. For many of the people I met their exposure to the "typical American" was limited to old sitcoms and soap operas, cartoons, the news, televangelists and professional wrestling, so people were constantly asking me different questions about Americans, and our thoughts on everything from farming, to God, whether professional wrestling was real or not. In return I got a healthy dose of what it is to be Kenyan, a hard life punctuated by catastrophes, and personal loss, but enriched by friends to talk and drink tea with and hope for the more elusive effects of democracy.
I want to try to be a little bit more like I was in Kenya, which is to say a little bit more Kenyan. I'd like to be politically involved, I want to take part in fostering public debate and discourse. I want to be politically conscious, and approach the world like I did over in Kenya: as something new and exciting that I am open to, want to learn about, and have a stake in. I have a lot of love for that country and the people I met and still talk to, isn't the goal to spread the love?
En Pace,
Jeff the Mzungu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
