The icon of 'Saint Barack' intrigued me, and following up to its source, the American conservative website, and to the article 'Can Barack Obama, who campaigns as an icon of peace, actually be more bellicose than Bush? Yes, he can.', authored by Brendan O’Neill, it gives me the opportunity to bifurcate to new attractors.
I must admit that the author's writing style in this particular article contradicts his writing style in the spiked online publication, for which he is the editor. Which brings me the idea that this was a tailor-made article for the tastes of 'The American Conservative' magazine publishers. However, apart from some emotive overtones sprinkled throughout the article, it does not entirely diminish its value. The claims made are substantiated by valid references, as far as I can tell, and the point made, can not be ignored.
As for the the term conservative, or any term for that matter, I have to say that I hate labels, it is more appropriate, the use of perspective, standpoint, point-of-view. Instead of using hard, rigid descriptions which leave no room for freedom of thought, not to mention that bring along an enormous set of rules which is unwieldy, prone to flaws according to a wider interpretation of Godel's incompleteness theorem, simply godelitis, shutting off its premises, the thoughts and ideas professed, to other individuals which the mere announcement of a label, any label, cringes their innards.
As for the article, I can not deny that the case brought forward by the author is valid. You can say that an overzealous leader is worse than a leader administrator or any kind of leader for that matter. I see that as a serious shortcoming of state structure, its utter reliance upon the will of single individuals. The leader is there to interpret the will of the people and not to assume divine powers, god-send enlightenment, know-all attitudes, infallibility syndromes, messiahs or any other similar flavour descriptions. The elected official suggest and await for approval or undertake action along the lines he/she was elected for, and only acts on behalf of the people, regardless whether they voted for or against.
In the article, among other items, the following paragraphs drew my attention
"There’s a palpable whiff of semi-religious hysteria at Obama rallies."
"They fantasize that he is pure and righteous, a miracle-worker who, in a pique of rage, will overturn the conventions of neocon-ruled America."
"Having never been stirred by the sight of Obama giving an MLK-style speech on the need for change, I can only take the candidates at their words. And Obama’s words are ominous indeed."
"President Obama would be a warmonger. He would be a wide-eyed, zealous interventionist who would not think twice about using America’s “military muscle” (his words) to overthrow “rogue states” and to suppress America’s enemies, real and imagined."
"Yes, Obama described the planned invasion of Iraq as “dumb” and “rash,” but his overriding concern—expressed repetitively throughout the speech—was that the Bush administration was damaging the legitimate case for American-made wars of intervention and potentially making it harder for future administrations (Democratic, for example) to send soldiers around the world to depose unfriendly regimes."
"We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership—military, diplomatic, moral—to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities.”"
Certainly, as a good president, as any other president possible from the existing candidates, or any other american politician for that matter, has to satisfy his employers or employees or even secure employment for the American nation, that is, the war industry as 54% of the American budget is dedicated to war, and need to capitalise on new opportunities.
The crunch to all these comes from these paragraphs
"As Taylor argues, “An adept politician, Obama began emphasizing his ‘anti-war’ stance as the war became increasingly unpopular among Democrats across the country and he began gearing up for the 2008 presidential campaign.”"
"Citing a Pew Survey that found that 42 percent of Americans agree that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,”"
That is the point which should be kept foremost in mind. Barack Obama directly responds to the will of the American individuals, which more than anything, it worths a lot more than the election of any individual for U.S. President. Certainly, any candidate is bound to flow along the direction of the wind and not against it. In the monstrosity that it is the american politics, an arena for combat of all sorts of diverse interests under the constant scrutiny of powerful media, nobody would expect anything better.
This change in the American people, is which Barack Obama currently expresses.
The only clean alternative is to abandon everything, and let America be leaderless. Thing impossible.
(Presidents or other elected officials in case they abandon the premises on which they were elected, impeached by a measure of public opinion?)
Tuesday 25 March 2008
Monday 17 March 2008
Free markets. Are they really free? Exploring.
It drew my attention, the statement, of a probably well known figure in the financial circles, which my meager knowledge of the subject, failed me, that the free market will work out a solution as it was announced in that BBC News article that Markets rattled by bank worries
"Markets worldwide recorded heavy losses in reaction to the emergency bailout of US investment bank Bear Stearns over the weekend."
and its imminent recession in U.S. economy and its subsequent adverse impact in the world economy at large.
The plea(?) to the forces prevalent in the free market were suggestive, or at least that is how it was impressed on me, of chaotic dynamics. Motions, in that case financial economic, unleashed in the phase space comprised by all existing economic states in U.S. and in world economies involved, as well as all sectors of economic activity and the lives of countless individuals, directly or indirectly involved.
An enormous phase space where chaotic motions frantically seek the stability of desperately sought attractors. The question is? Are all the potentialities in phase space open to explore or not? Or, is it the case that only a very small part of the phase space is actually utilised? Available to be explored.
And goes on. Is it actually a free market, or a market that is tightly confined by prohibitive parametres. If it is totally free, phase space exploration will eventually lead to a safe haven that is so eagerly in searched of. But if they are not, if the current parametres, the tariffs, economic rules and regulations, protectionism interventionism or any other imposed measure, effectively curbs the economic activity flow, chaotic motions will suffocate as there is not, adequate and sufficient phase space to unfold into. In the ever parameter-diminished constricted phase space.
"Markets worldwide recorded heavy losses in reaction to the emergency bailout of US investment bank Bear Stearns over the weekend."
and its imminent recession in U.S. economy and its subsequent adverse impact in the world economy at large.
The plea(?) to the forces prevalent in the free market were suggestive, or at least that is how it was impressed on me, of chaotic dynamics. Motions, in that case financial economic, unleashed in the phase space comprised by all existing economic states in U.S. and in world economies involved, as well as all sectors of economic activity and the lives of countless individuals, directly or indirectly involved.
An enormous phase space where chaotic motions frantically seek the stability of desperately sought attractors. The question is? Are all the potentialities in phase space open to explore or not? Or, is it the case that only a very small part of the phase space is actually utilised? Available to be explored.
And goes on. Is it actually a free market, or a market that is tightly confined by prohibitive parametres. If it is totally free, phase space exploration will eventually lead to a safe haven that is so eagerly in searched of. But if they are not, if the current parametres, the tariffs, economic rules and regulations, protectionism interventionism or any other imposed measure, effectively curbs the economic activity flow, chaotic motions will suffocate as there is not, adequate and sufficient phase space to unfold into. In the ever parameter-diminished constricted phase space.
Sunday 2 March 2008
U. S. politics bifurcating to new attractors? Expressed in Barack Obama?
I am impatient and common sense(?) would tell, imprudent. But I can not resist. I want to use my new found knowledge to find answers. Regard it as an experiment, a sort of case study. To put all the data out and applying the framework and let the thoughts unleashed, without fear and prejudice. Well just a little prejudice, the least. But not to the point that will compromise the thoughts.
As I was thinking lately about attractors, the set of states that a system falls as chaos is testing all configurations possible. Chaos unleashed as is physically observed by the frantic involvement of all the people engaged in the presidential elections. That drives the efforts of countless individuals in their attempts to preempt the chances of one or the other candidate.
But what would be these attractors in this particular case? Corresponding to what is mentioned here
"falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."
An existing attractor, like a recognised odour or bifurcating into a new attractor in response to new learned stimuli. What can the existing attractors be? Or what a new attractor be? Which of the candidates represent or even, is the expression of the existing attractors and what of the new attractors? There is no doubt about that. Mr McCain rely upon the existing attractors whereas Mr Obama represent that part of the american state that wants to bifurcate to new attractors, to a new set of states, be that social, political or other.
As what would the content of the attractors be, a fair amount is deduced by reading through the article 'For Obama, a Taste of What a Long Battle Would Hold' in New York Times.
"In the last few days alone, Senator John McCain has mocked a statement Mr. Obama made about Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Tennessee Republican Party, identifying him with his middle name as Barack Hussein Obama, suggested that his foreign policy would be shaped by people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel."
By 'mocking' instead of 'criticising' brings about an air of superiority and condescension, the superiority myth of the white race. By referring to the middle name of 'Hussein' makes artificial connections by the name's Arab origin and assumes that, the name determines the foreign policy. Soon it would follow the transliteration of Mr Obama's name to Ossama and again will instigate connections with Al Qaeda. And even the very name of Mr Obama for its lack of the Anglo-Saxon origin, will be used against.
The thoughts brought out in this post
"History bears witness as countless norms and laws have perished as they journeyed to infinity and oblivion as they were not part of the attracting basins and countless more keep perishing and will perish as the human kind draws closer to its goal."
Is that the time, where the norms that define the policies that Mr McCain stands for, to journey into oblivion, as they are not part of the attracting basins. And the policies that Mr Obama stands for, taking advantage of their favorable position within the attracting basins, to materialise a state that will find Mr Obama a winner of the presidential election, and Mr McCain his policies and their followers into the doldrums of history?
As I was thinking lately about attractors, the set of states that a system falls as chaos is testing all configurations possible. Chaos unleashed as is physically observed by the frantic involvement of all the people engaged in the presidential elections. That drives the efforts of countless individuals in their attempts to preempt the chances of one or the other candidate.
But what would be these attractors in this particular case? Corresponding to what is mentioned here
"falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."
An existing attractor, like a recognised odour or bifurcating into a new attractor in response to new learned stimuli. What can the existing attractors be? Or what a new attractor be? Which of the candidates represent or even, is the expression of the existing attractors and what of the new attractors? There is no doubt about that. Mr McCain rely upon the existing attractors whereas Mr Obama represent that part of the american state that wants to bifurcate to new attractors, to a new set of states, be that social, political or other.
As what would the content of the attractors be, a fair amount is deduced by reading through the article 'For Obama, a Taste of What a Long Battle Would Hold' in New York Times.
"In the last few days alone, Senator John McCain has mocked a statement Mr. Obama made about Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Tennessee Republican Party, identifying him with his middle name as Barack Hussein Obama, suggested that his foreign policy would be shaped by people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel."
By 'mocking' instead of 'criticising' brings about an air of superiority and condescension, the superiority myth of the white race. By referring to the middle name of 'Hussein' makes artificial connections by the name's Arab origin and assumes that, the name determines the foreign policy. Soon it would follow the transliteration of Mr Obama's name to Ossama and again will instigate connections with Al Qaeda. And even the very name of Mr Obama for its lack of the Anglo-Saxon origin, will be used against.
The thoughts brought out in this post
"History bears witness as countless norms and laws have perished as they journeyed to infinity and oblivion as they were not part of the attracting basins and countless more keep perishing and will perish as the human kind draws closer to its goal."
Is that the time, where the norms that define the policies that Mr McCain stands for, to journey into oblivion, as they are not part of the attracting basins. And the policies that Mr Obama stands for, taking advantage of their favorable position within the attracting basins, to materialise a state that will find Mr Obama a winner of the presidential election, and Mr McCain his policies and their followers into the doldrums of history?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)