'Saint Barack'? The warmonger? A view of presidential candidate Barack Obama.

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?)

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.

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?

Multinational corporations in 5th gear towards the 'global village'?

Multinational corporations are gearing up the way to a certified 'global village' reality. The world, in all its aspects, does follow up a path towards global integration. It is inevitable as the transactions between individuals or groups of individuals, in disparate locations around the globe, grow exponentially as time goes by. Multinational corporations have the organisation to achieve that.

Lots of thoughts which are needed to be channeled appropriately. Questions in seek for answers.

Their expansion a result of a multitude of all the wrong reasons, paramount being the maximisation of profits, but at the same time, they only have the know-how and possess the necessary organisational structures to bring the world closer together.

Someone can argue that the profits drive tends to leave places in their path bone dry, lunar landscapes. Using up remorselessly all resources a place can offer. Human and natural resources alike.

But on the other hand they push the world nearer to its attractors. Amidst conflicting forces they spread the means for development and bring the world communities together.

Whereas I find this necessary, a major concern is the extent of the damage to environment and to human lives. Would they manage to bring the world in an unrepairable state beyond recovery? If they are left on their own they would certainly do.

Their course unstoppable. Supported to the hilt by the multitude of legislation and the more effective underlying web of power in governments and states, what spawned them in the first place, spring out of their home countries, to spread all over the world. Assisted by the dominant, in most individuals, ego-centred facet of the human persona, to look after dear self blind of others, driving its insatiable hunger for profiting at all costs.

draft

Scope of individuality

Makes me feel like throwing up, it boaks me. Profits? A feeling of revulsion. As in the Atlas shrugged at 50, proclaim

" .. who held to his own ideas and ideals, in stark contrast to those who surrender their dreams simply for the empty approval of others."

that is true and is everywhere, in all societies and it applies for the capitalists and for the "postmodernists", and in short for any individual.

" ... are needed even more today to provide the philosophical basis for a much-needed culture of principled individualism."

I am getting confused or the message is a product of a confused mind. If the American culture is not purely or largely individualistic, why would be in need for individualism or is it the 'principled' what is in question here? I can not think any other society on earth to be more individualistic than the American society.

Individuality? It makes me think that the only individuality you talk and care about is your very own individuality, your cherished ego. Individuality thrives when it considers the individuality of all individuals, and in a society like yours the individuality that is nurtured is the individuality of a handful, hand-picked individuals ignoring all other.

And a misguided individual which at some point in her life guided by her own simplified mind, produced the work you so proclaim that proves your style, a few self-cherished concepts by the likes of you, out of the richness of concepts about. And by virtue of these few partial concepts built a worldview totally defined by her choices.

Any individuality will grow only when all individualities are let free to grow, in the farthest out freedom-to-grow version, as it can be imagined.

It is vile to mingle genuine human traits with false, empty messages. To admit that there were and are

"... pseudo-businessmen, looters who were more interested in appearance than products; who used government to extort wealth from others; and who were guilty and ashamed of their prosperity."

is not enough to exonerate the pursuit of profits for what it actually is, a scourge to humanity.

Profits? Profits? What on earth would profits give you apart from indulging your ego and spoiling your body.

" ... and who took pride in their profits and achievements."

Does humanity live for that? Profits! Is it its ultimate goal? Profits! Is what it is longing for? Profits! And what kind of achievements are these? As they are so proclaimed. Measured in hard currency?

We are but simplified minds. Our mental capacities does not allow us to be any better. Unable to include in our daily thinking everything that exists and takes place around us. And that is what we are. And fair enough.

But this is something we should always bear in mind when we take a stance, look around and address the world.

Everyone in the world that has been born and died or is born and still alive or even (may be, it depends) has not been born yet and not lived, is, or is going to be an individual with a simplified mind.

Me, you, everybody should drive that deep into mind before even think to actually do pass judgment against another person or persons.

Everybody has the potential to thrive if a chance is there to have.

Mr John McCain voted as the next President of the United States. The white man wins.

This website reports on a study which shows that culture influences brain function, following up the trail left by research in psychology.

"Psychological research has established that American culture, which values the individual, emphasizes the independence of objects from their contexts, while East Asian societies emphasize the collective and the contextual interdependence of objects. Behavioral studies have shown that these cultural differences can influence memory and even perception. But are they reflected in brain activity patterns?"

Is there anything here that can be connected with the current presidential primaries in USA? Yes there is, as the values adhered by the American people define the simple rules followed by individuals in the American society, and by that, its complexity and the emergent states which will come out of the process of the presidential primaries. Emergent state being the next administration that would follow up Bush.

As the American culture values the individual, it is obvious that their vote is judged on issues that emphasize the independence of the objects from their context(s). The objects being, the candidates and the context(s) being, the current local and global political situation. The candidates will be picked according to their individual merits, regardless of the policies they profess, their approach to the context.

The New York Times report after the decisive Super Tuesday primaries that

"Black voters overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama ..."

and

"Women went, by large margins, to Mrs. Clinton."

and certainly on the day after the Presidential election they will announce

"Mr John McCain voted overwhelmingly as President of the United States."

As the overblown and misguided American individuality will certainly choose along gender and racial lines and the choice between a white man and a black man or a white woman, is not hard to guess.

The white man wins. So there it is again, four more years of McCain health care

"For free-market, consumer-based system; has pledged affordable health care for every American without a mandate; says universal health care is possible without a tax increase."

war in Iraq,

"Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal."

economy,

"Short-term plan is long-term plan: make the Bush tax cuts permanent; eliminate alternative minimum tax."

and so on.

Glimpses galore of the state of the world, US presidential primaries would bring about

Presidential elections, primaries in USA. What does it actually matter here? Would it make any difference what candidate wins?

It is not a simple matter of funding an election campaign in the US primaries, it is what the fundraisers would expect from the person they back that makes the difference. The ties that hold the candidates with their backers. And it is obvious that the big money would back the candidate that would follow a policy that favours their schemes. And usually these schemes do not include the welfare of individuals. It will be the schemes which will ensure that profits for industry do not suffer setbacks.

A recession, it was proclaimed yesterday, looming in the world, as it is deduced by the recent fall in the stock markets.

"Stock markets in London and Europe recorded their biggest one-day falls since Sept 11 yesterday, as concerns about global credit market turmoil and a looming US recession sparked panic selling amongst investors."

A global recession that is driven by a recession in USA. What does that actually mean? Would the recession deduced by the stock markets, involves or is it about the individual in the world? Would be a matter of concern for the individual? Or is the recession the result of the change of mind in the individual? The myth of terror in the world, that the US has to defend the world from, is crumpling. Nobody believes President Bush and the Americans. The global view of the US is going from bad to worse:

" A poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries show the global view of the U.S. role in world affairs is deteriorating.
• 73% disapprove of U.S. role in Iraq
• 68% believe that the U.S. military presence in the middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents
• 49% believe the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world."

The bubble is bursting. If Bush and the rest of the Americans that their livelihood depend on the proliferation of wars and the creation of tensions in the world to bring forth new wars, if they can not convince the individual about the necessity of the wars they start, that would have an effect on their industry, the GDP and so forth, and if the industry doesn't do well, you bound to have recession. Would that be a bad thing? No, not at all.

Is that what actually happens? How can not be? What effect would a 51% of the total current US budget allocated for military purposes would have in an economy? What would happen if the common sentiment around the world is against wars? That economy is bound to go into recession, or nearly collapse? Is that a bad thing? Certainly it is not.

And what is the position of the candidates in the recent US presidential primaries? According to sources all republican candidates have proclaimed they are in favor of troop increase and against a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, apart from Ron Paul, the representative from Texas. As for the democrat candidates they are all opposed to troop increases and in favour of troops withdrawal ranging from immediate to within 16 months, apart from Hilary Clinton who sees troops withdrawal to conclude by the end of 2013.

Over the years it has become a lasting impression of the US as a war nation and that notion is hitting home. And the repercussions are felt and reflected on the American individuals and in the positions put forward by their candidates. True, the republicans did not concede. They continue on supporting war efforts. They are the ones that have direct links with the war involved interests. Their backers and funding partners are representing the war industry. But, as there is the widespread belief that the republicans do not have a chance to win in the presidential elections, that they are fighting a loosing battle, what it matters comes from the positions of the democrat candidates.

They are responding to the change in the minds of the american individuals, all apart, as it is obvious by the prolonged withdrawal procedures put forward, from Hilary Clinton. It brings about notions that her backers are representing the war industry and the prolonged troop withdrawal is translated to a continuing war related business cycle and the hope that, in the meantime another war would be prepared to ensure the war industry would not go out of business.