How Many Times Do You Have To Be Slapped In the Face to Know You Are Being Slapped In the Face

Belligerism

A man enters a bar and saddles up next to a big guy. The big guy turns to him and says, "stop staring at my girlfriend!"

The man is looking at an empty row of seats and says, "what girlfriend? There's noone there."

"Yeah, you're staring at her right now! Quit staring at my girl!" the big guy says.

"I don't know what you're talking about: there's nobody there!"

"If you don't quit looking at my girl I'm going to have to smash your face in." says the big guy.

On and on it goes. We would describe the big guy's behavior as belligerent wouldn't we?

Belligerent behavior induces conflict, it creates it out of nothing.

In the post-Bush era we can now look back with owl of minerva hindsight and see clearly the regnant political philosophy of that administration now that we are at the close of the age. That philosophy can only be described as belligerent: feigning injury in order to invade and depose the leadership of a country; the treatment of war prisoners at Guantanamo; etc. This philosophy--a philosophy which, I might add, also formed the groundwork of our foreign policy in the Bush years--is rightly described under the rubric of Belligerism. By 'Belligerism', I mean to describe a political ideology that is aggressive and acquisitive, one which is built to produce conflict; a further criterion of Belligerism is that it derive its authority from something other than the will of the public, either actual or theoretical.


The Bush regime, in its communications with the public and Congress, exhibited all or most of the following actions:

1. Assuming a posture of mutual competition and, by the by, affirming the idea of aggressive war. In other words, rewriting the theory of just war to favor pre-emption.
2. Assuming also a certain American Exceptionalism: ours is the correct moral and economic world order. The Roman Empire thought of itself as exceptionalist in a similar way.
3. Foment a distortion or lie about a foreign threat in order to generate a war.
4. In tone, demeanor, and content never accept blame.
5. Act with apparent public authority but not with actual public reason.
6. Make up your own reality; train through propaganda the listening audience in the reality of your fantasy.
7. Using normative concepts like 'Human Rights' as a figleaf for corporate-capitalist extraction of the natural resources of a region and the bubble in the military industrial complex.
8. Exempting itself from public scrutiny through an asserted "executive privilege".

These events are actions brought about by a prior reasoning. That reasoning, exhibited in the bullying tone of Bush Administration rhetoric, not to mention the still unjustified war in Iraq warrant an identification of the Bush philosophy as a paradigm instance of what I have been calling 'Belligerism'.

I should also add that Belligerism here emerges from a democratic social form, which is surprising, since one wants to think only of ruthless authoritarian regimes as belligerent, and they are. For in the case of all Belligeristic regimes, they exercise decision making authority apart from public consent. But because a belligeristic regime need not be an authoritarian one, there is often in belligeristic but democratic regimes a concerted attempt to manipulate and distort that support in the form of "free elections". The government that believes in Belligerism justifies the use of force to coerce consent and may supply it, argumentum ad baculum, to generate support through "democratic" procedures.

Suppose that we evaluate Belligerism on its philosophical merits. What then?

First criticism of it is that it is a recipe for a war without end. It provides other actors in the global public arena with a similar grounds of exclusion from law, inviting endless challenges to international peace.

Second criticism is that it fails the most basic tests of consistency, coherence, and reciprocity one would expect from a fair and trustworthy political philosophy.

Third criticism is that it lacks a self correction mechanism and operates once loose like a runaway train.

more....

Doctor's Park

Whiskey Dick and Cletus ride again! Look at those two sharpies on their shoulders.

The Copper Standard

From Schott's bl;og, NY Times 4/17/09.

Very interesting article describes China's stockpiling of copper with its currency. Clever fuckers, aren't they?

To Leave or to Fight?

The above link is to an article in the Nation online magazine which describes the present attempt of adjunct professors to organize under a union. I believe such an attempt will most certainly fail. Because of that I have chosen to leave academia because I don't believe that it is a fight that can be won by adjuncts. There may be small victories here and there, but the overall war is a losing one. The fact is that higher education is beholden to a model that cannot serve the interests of the teachers/professors. To familiarize yourself with the concrete data, here is a link to the facts about "contingent faculty" on the American Association of University Professors website. Let me give some considerations as to why the current attempt to unionize is bound to fail.

1. There is a perennial oversupply of Phd's in any quarter of academia with the exception of certain niche disciplines like biomedical technology or nursing administration.
2. The modern university is economically built around sports, entertainment, engineering, and nursing. Most academic disciplines have nothing to offer these fields.
3. The long term demographic trends (i.e., numbers of matriculating students) will not support the current oversupply of Phd's.
4. Tuition at colleges and universities has far outstripped inflation for the last ten years. This trend cannot continue and thus, economics dictates that there will not be more money to go around.
5. Many schools lack an endowment capable of furnishing decent wages and benefits for its teaching corps. Those that do have witnessed large hits to their portfolios on account of the financial crisis.

So, unless you are rich and can afford the social battle, you really can't put up a fight against these facts. Those that do are going to be sadly disappointed.

So, to leave is itself the only honorable course.

And that is just what I've done.

Three Reasons for Renewable Energy Now

The reasons for a cultural shift towards renewable energy are many and obvious. Let me give but three of these.

In the first place, there is the argument that renewable--and by that I mean non-hydrocarbon--energy will help curb greenhouse gas emissions. This argument is bolstered by the scientific facts regarding global warming (yes, global warming and not mere "climate change"). The factual aspect of this, namely, that our hydrocarbon usage is causing global warming is contested only by the lunatic fringe and not mainstream science. Second, the moral concern for future generations is again contested only by the lunatic fringe who see a silver lining in a coming apocalypse. Whatever the basis for our moral judgments, we all ought to see the value in bequeathing to future generations a planet that is capable of sustaining life in all of its diversity and a civilization worthy of human dignity.

Secondly, traditional hydrocarbon sources of energy are already in decline even as demand is is increasing worldwide. The scientific data on peak oil is robust and conspicuous. While there are hidden pockets of oil and natural gas, many if not most of these resources will dwindle in the imminent future. Industrial civilization depends on an abundance of cheap energy. If we want industrial civilization, then we need energy. Because that energy is becoming more difficult and costly to find, it follows that some alternative is a practical necessity to sustaining the project of civilization. Some will say that we should just let this industrial phase of civilization wither on the vine because it has brought too much inequality, pollution, and alienation. While that is true, it is also true that in the industrialized countries the life expectancy has been increased by about 50 years per individual and the quality of life has, in many respects, improved. On the whole, then, new forms of energy are needed to continue (at the least) the benefits of industrial civilization. The downsides of industrial society are very real as well, but I believe that they can be dealt with on their own.

Lastly, there are moral reasons for a cultural shift to renewable energy based upon an interest we have in facilitating autonomy. By this I mean that citizens have a moral and economic interest in the production and use of their own energy resources. Morally, a citizen has an interest in preventing the devastating effects of global warming while also working towards advancing the interests of the common good of industrial society. Economically, a citizen has an interest in reducing the costs of their own energy usage. By possessing technologies to produce energy in a minimally polluting fashion, citizens can take hold of this problem and contribute on an individual basis to the solution. Policy and legislation which facilitates this (such as a carbon cap and trade scheme) will greatly enhance individual control over energy production and use both now and for future generations. The alternative is that individuals are forced to utilize the existing hydrocarbon intensive energy infrastructure as it currently stands. They are forced, in other words, to cause global warming and to commit future generations to a diminished standard of living. This does and should sit uneasily with the individual conscience.

These, then, are three powerful reasons for a cultural shift to renewable energy: global warming, peak oil, and individual autonomy.