The 'ideological' or 'philosophical' or 'dialectic' division between the American Republican Party and the American Democratic Party is as old as the beginning of Western philosophy.
The term 'dialectic' is used here to denote any such 'dialectic or polar split' in human nature, human behavior, and/or in life in general.
There are literally thousands, probably millions, of such 'polar, dialectical splits'.
Any time you can think of two 'opposites', you can think of the potential for 'bi-polar, dialectic splits'.
DGB Philosophy focuses on these dialectic (polar) splits as the core or essence of its approach to philosophy. And because there are probably millions of such potential or actual 'dialectical splits', that is why DGB Philosophy calls itself a 'Multi-Bi-Polar' Philosophy.
In doing this, DGB Philosophy takes after 'Hegelian Philosophy' which is often called 'Hegelian Dialectic Philosophy'. Hegel's masterpiece philosophical book is called: 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' (or 'The Phenomenology of Mind', depending on the German translation).
Now Western Dialectic Philosophy runs much, much deeper into Western history than Hegel himself who was the philosopher who probably most clearly articulated the 'dynamics of the dialectic'. It is from Hegel, that the classic 'dialectic formula' of: 1. 'thesis', 2. 'anti-thesis', and 3. 'synthesis' -- grew and evolved.
Western Dialectic Philosophy can be traced at least as far back into Ancient Greece as Anaxamander (611BC to 547BC) -- and shortly afterwards, to one of the most esteemed (Pre-Socratic) Ancient Greek philosophers in Western history -- Heraclitus.
Indeed, Anaxamander and Heraclitus -- between the two of them -- created one of the most fascinating and important dialectics in Western history: what DGB Philosophy will call the polarity and paradox between 'Authoritarian, Power-Dialectics' (Anaxamander)and 'Democratic Balance Dialectics' (Heraclitus).
Anaxamander can be viewed as an ancient 'pre-Hegelian' and 'pre-Darwinian' philosopher. He partly articulated the idea of 'survival of the fittest' -- but with a very interesting 'un-Darwinian' twist to it.
Perhaps I am taking some 'creative liberties' here and giving a 21st century spin to an ancient Greek philosophy that was articulated some 2600 years ago. But I believe this 'DGB spin' to Anaxamander's dialectic philosophy captures the essence of what he was saying -- with some much newer 'dialectic terminology' attached to it.
For Anaxamander, the world starts essentially in Chaos. (I will look up his word for it in a minute. Found it! 'Apeiron' which translates as 'The Boundless') Then this 'chaotic world' -- the undifferentiated, unarticulated Universe if you will -- is 'differentiated into opposite pairs of twos' -- let us say for example, 'black' and 'white'.
In this example here, 'black and white', between the two of them, create both our first dialectical pair, and also our first 'dialectical split'. In essence, the two dialectical polarities start to 'compete' with each other for 'power'. It is in this interpretation of Anaxamander's ancient philosophy, that I give the name 'power-dialectics' to his philosophical outlook on things -- and essentially, in the way that the world works.
'Black' and 'white' compete for 'power' -- and this in essence is exactly the same thing that happens with every dialectic opposite, with every dialectic split. There is a 'competition for power' -- a 'survival of the fittest' in pre-Darwinian terms, or even a 'will to power' in Nietzschean terms -- but with one important 'twist' to this pre-Hegelian, pre-Darwinian, pre-Nietzschean, even pre-Freudian, pre-Jungian, and pre-Gestalt theory. Dialectic theory runs deep, deep, deep in the history and evolution of Western philosophy, psychology, politics, medicine, law, culture...The same is true in Eastern philosophy where the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' may or may not be older than Anaxamander's philosophy. Indeed, Anaxamander's philosophy is a Western version of 'yin' and 'yang' philosophy -- with out the addition of the theory of 'dialectic balance' which in Western philosophy would be added by Heraclitus.
However, as I have now alluded to twice, there is a very interesting 'twist' to Anaxamander's ancient 'power-dialectic' theory that gives it a unique character all of its own, perhaps never to be better articulated -- or even fully articulated again at all -- in Western history. Actually, let me correct myself there. Derrida clearly articulated the idea in his philosophy of 'Deconstruction'. The idea -- first clearly stated by Anaxamander -- is that power comes and goes, it is never permanent, and what is 'up' today will be 'down' tomorrow. It is kind of a version of the old saying that 'what goes up, must come down'. But even better than this, it is the first clear articulation of the idea of 'cosmic justice': the idea that 'what goes around, comes around'.
This is the most powerful component of Anaxamander's ancient dialectic philosophy, and it comes down to us, only in 'fragments' of what he said, the most powerful fragment probably being this one below:
.........................................................................
From Anaximander, Wikipedia...
Anaximander maintains that all dying things are returning to the element from which they came (apeiron). The one surviving fragment of Anaximander's writing deals with this matter. Simplicius transmitted it as a quotation, which describes the balanced and mutual changes of the elements:[10]
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
..............................................................................
From 'The Free Dictionary' on the internet...
Anaximander (ənăk'sĭmăn`dər), c.611–c.547 B.C., Greek philosopher, b. Miletus; pupil of Thales Thales (thā`lēz), c.636–c.546 B.C.
He (Anaximander) made the first attempt to offer a detailed explanation of all aspects of nature. Anaximander argued that since there are so many different sorts of things, they must all have originated from something less differentiated than water, and this primary source, the boundless or the indefinite (apeiron), had always existed, filled all space, and, by its constant motion, separated opposites out from itself, e.g., hot and cold, moist and dry. These opposites interact by encroaching on one another and thus repay one another's "injustice." The result is a plurality of worlds that successively decay and return to the indefinite. The notion of the indefinite and its processes prefigured the later conception of the indestructibility of matter. Anaximander also had a theory of the relation of earth to the heavenly bodies, important in the history of astronomy. His view that man achieved his physical state by adaptation to environment, that life had evolved from moisture, and that man developed from fish, anticipates the theory of evolution.
..............................................................................
Power-dialectics create the dynamics behind 'dictatorships', 'authoritarianism, 'imperialism', 'unilateralism', 'righteousness' vs. 'rebellion', 'domination' vs 'submission', and 'the master-slave relationship as first fully articulated by Hegel. Power-dialectics are all about 'conquering or overpowering the will of others in order to get one's own way'. This is the essence of 'unilateralism' and 'imperialism' as well. It can work -- but it usually ends in human tragedy, destruction, self-destruction, rebellion, anarchy, war, civil war, and the like -- because people's rights and wishes -- those who are not a part of the 'power-group' -- are being violated and suppressed.
This is always the achilles heal of 'power-dialetics' and the reason why there is always a push in the world towards 'freedom, equal rights, and democracy' -- what will be called 'democratic(-equal-rights-balanced)-dialectics'.
There is one further point that I would like to make about Anaximander that I almost forgot.
Specifically, Anaxamander, in his own way, without inventing the 'terminology', foreshadowed and anticipated Alfred Adler's theory of 'compensation'
Worded more concretely still, Anaxamander basically argued that 'the weaker opponent will always make adjustments -- or compensations -- that will make the weaker opponent stronger to the point where they will eventually usurp the stronger opponent which will then become the weaker opponent -- and this 'dialectic power-dance' (my terminology of course, not his) will continue through the ongoing course and evolution of history --
....................................................................
'For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.'
.........................................................................
There is 'evolutionary intelligence' in even the so-called 'simplest and/or dumbest of (God's/Nature's) creatures'.
Even the supposedly simplest of bacteria will eventually make 'evolutionary adjustments, or compensations, or 'mutations' -- that will eventually, if exposed often enough to 'anti-biotics' -- become 'immune' to, or 'stronger' than the anti-biotics.
And similarly, Republican 'dirty' campaign tactics which worked in previous elections (Bush vs. Kerry, the Florida voting scandal, robo-calls, negative stereotyping, fear-mongering...) the Democrats have made 'adjustments' or 'compensations' or 'mutations' for in this election...
Which is why McCain and The Republicans are this time going to go down in defeat to a smarter Obama-led Democratic Party.
Of course, I could be wrong.
But I don't think so.
We shall see.
We will move on, in a day or two, to a discussion of the more 'democratic-dialectics' of the ancient Greek philosopher -- Heraclitus.
How many days to the American election? 4 or 5? When is it? November 3rd or 4th? Sorry, I have to check with CNN. I don't have a vote. I'm Canadian. Who's counting? Who's watching?
The whole world is watching.
America, you need to get it 'right' this time.
Bush -- and 'Republican Unilateralism' (read 'imperialism') -- was not the answer.
America needs a more integrative, 'democratic-dialectic', and 'foreign friendly' President as opposed to a divisive, 'power-dialectic', and 'walk all over the world', President.
Otherwise, more and more war is America's future -- and the world's future.
It's the Republican way.
-- dgb, October 31st, 2008.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Little Bit of Self-Promotion for DGB Philosophy (Updated October 30th, 2008)
Here is a little bit of self-promotion for DGB Philosophy...
I love to write and to philosophize -- it is the culmination of my life's intellectual work. This year the American election has caught my fancy, both because it has been exciting, and because it is of major, major importance to the future of world history, and the well-being of people everywhere in the world.
Now up to this point in my life, I have not made one penny from my writing. My writing is my passion, a labor of love, and I would still look for opportunities to write, even if I was at, or near the poverty line (which I certainly am not now but I have been at a few other different times in my life).
As it is, and right now (everything always being subject to change), I make a nice comfortable, midde-class income on a 50 to 55 hour work week, dispatching for a taxi and wheelchair van company. This is my 'bread and butter'. Philosophy and teaching is my vision for the future.
At one point I was part of a dispatching crew that dispatched to a fleet of 500-600 taxis. Now I dispatch to a much smaller fleet of cars and wheelchair vans, which believe it or not, can be, and indeed, is more stressful, when you don't have enough vehicles to handle the business, and/or enough motivated drivers who want to 'cover the business'.
'Motivation' is an imperative part of any successful business. Sometimes business owners and managers can be so intent on bringing in new contracts and customers -- especially the large ones -- that they can completely disregard and/or not care about the other side of the equation: having enough 'healthy, happy foot soldiers' who are well-rested and well-motivated to properly service the incoming business. 'Top-heavy, narcissistic businesses' that 'over-feed' the top of the organization and 'under-feed' the bottom of the organization leave themselves wide open to the onslaught of superior competitors, and/or to the organization essentially collapsing from the bottom upwards.
Life is one of the best philosophy teachers -- especially when you can combine it with the philosophy of others who can help with the development and evolution of your particular philsophy, either through their agreements and expansions of your ideas, and/or through the ideas of others who may oppose and disagree with you, and in so doing, help you develop, a larger, more 'worldly, bi-partisan, dialectic-democratic perspective.
We must also assume here that you don't generalize your 'life experiences' in an unproductive, self-destructive, pathological fashion. This usually stems from 'over-associating' and/or 'under-differentiating'. See General Semantics and Cognitive Therapy -- or my essays on them. They taught me that.)
I pine for the days in which I may be able to devote my entire working time to building and teaching 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy' -- but that time hasn't come yet, I still have to economically support myself and help my family, so I -- and you -- will have to make do with the amount of time and energy we have together, until, hopefully, that time and energy expands.
I take great pride in my writing and the philosophical 'Grand Narrative' that I am building here. (Yes, for DGB Philosophy, 'grand narrative' is not a 'dirty post-modern, deconstructionist' word).
One day I hope that Hegel's Hotel will be viewed as a significant addition to, and extrapolation on what I perceive to be the most important philosophy book in the history of Western philosophy -- Hegel's masterpiece: 'The Phenomenology of Spirit (Mind)'.
Permit my ego to go a little wild here but one day I would like 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy (Dialectic-Democratics For The Mind, Body, and Soul)' to be viewed as one of the greatest integrative achievements in Western Philosophy. But obviously, I have a long way to go yet -- probably another 3 to 5 years of writing are needed for me to finish the first 25 to 50 'floors' of Hegel's Hotel.
I am shooting to write somewhere close to a thousand essays. I would say I have already written somewhere around 300 essays, some of which you can already find in Hegel's Hotel; others, I still need to bring out of the 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology Archives' if I believe they add significantly to the structure and foundation of Hegel's Hotel. (Evolution-wise, they certainly do belong to Hegel's Hotel; it is just a matter of whether or not I believe that these essays are 'worthy of bringing back to life' for present and future readers, depending on how well or poorly they may have been written.)
I wouldn't be saying any of these things if I wasn't finding more and more of my essays on a greater and greater number of websites throughout the internet: philosophy ones, political ones, psychology ones, business ones...
The increasing popularity of my philosophy work is obviously good for my 'writing and philosophical ego'. The feedback encourages me to keep writing as fast as I possibly can -- ideally, with a maximum amount of possible impact on my potential reader audience.
I don't expect everyone to believe or agree with everything I write -- and I still have a lot to learn along the way -- particularly in politics, business, and economics, but as long as my essays are being read, being provocative, and being reproduced on other websites (with an acknowledgement of my authorship, of course), I am a happy man.
I will keep building 'Hegel's Hotel' higher and higher.
I was excited to see that one of my 'Faceoff': DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party' had been picked up by an Ayn Rand history of philosophy website not too long ago, another essay has been picked up by an Adlerian Psychology website (Gods, Myths, Philosophers -- and 'Self-Energy Centres'). I spent a year and a half studying Adlerian Psychology at the Adlerian Institute in Toronto (taught at OISE, right next to the University of Toronto) before my personal economics pushed me back into the work world. I learned some important ideas from studying Adlerian Psychology ('lifestyle', 'inferiority feelings', 'superiority striving', and the 'metaphorical importance of conscious early recollections'. (See my essay 'Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry...')
My 'Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republic Party, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 seem to be very popular, and have gone to assorted different websites. My 'Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry' essay seems to be popular also, and so too, is my 'DGB Sun-Planet Theory' essay.
A number of my essays have done well on the website 'Helium' (the one which I am particulary proud of is: Classification Systems, Mythological Entities, Post-Hegelian Ideas - and The Multi-Dialectic Force of God').
What I like best is the fact that I seem to be reaching a broad range of readers which is the one thing that I most wanted to do -- to 'bridge the gap' between 'academic circles' and 'pragmatic readers'. Now, I am not sure that my work is being appreciated and/or recognized in the more 'anally-retentive, scholarly philosophy quarters' but that's okay. I do not particularly want to write in these circles anyway -- they are a little too 'stuffy' for my liking -- and if one day, recognition flows my way from these quarters, then great; if not, then not. (That last part was borrowed from Fritz Perls' 'Gestalt Prayer').
Two of my non-political essays have even travelled as far as 'Yahoo, India' to the website of 'The Bain Capability Centre' (a well-established 'Management Consultant Firm' that shares my last name although there is no relation. See below for a description of their work). I work with an Indian dispatcher who says that India takes a lot of pride in their educuational institutions and 'self-actualization centres'. That is good enough for me as I share these same goals -- with pride -- and am ecstatic to see a well-established Management Consultant Firm continually bringing new philosophical ideas into its midst.
I only hope that I can 'keep the provocative metaphors and ideas' coming so that more and more of you will feel so inspired as to carry my philosophy-psychology-political essays on your particular web or blogsite...
Not to mention, of course, reading my own.
Thank you for your support,
-- david gordon bain, October 17th, 2008, updated October 25th and October 30th,
November 15th, 2008.
Posted by david gordon bain at 5:30 AM 0 comments
....................................................................................
I try in some cases to promote those sites that are carrying and promoting my work.
Below is a copy of my own home page in 'Helium: Where Knowledge Rules'...which has helped me to target a larger reader audience. Thank you, Helium.
................................
From My Helium Home Page...
Good day! My name is David Bain. I write about philosophy, psychology, politics, and more...I have an Honours B.A. in psychology. I live in Newmarket, Ontario, about 30 miles and minutes north of Toronto. I have a classy girlfriend of 9 years - Sharida - who works and lives in Toronto. I have two children from a previous relationship: Michael, 23, living in Newmarket, and Jennifer, 18, living in Nova Scotia.
My life mission is to finish a growing number of linked blogsites on philosophy, psychology, politics and other cultural topics. My perspective is mainly 'integrative, centralist, and multi-dialectical (Post-Hegelian, Humanistic-Existential)' drawing from a whole range of philosophical and psychological influences such as: Hegel, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Anaxamander, Heraclitus, The Han Philosophers, Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Marx, Tom Paine, Diderot, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Korzybski, Foucault, Derrida, Freud, Adler, Jung, Berne, Perls, and many more...The issues and subject matters are extensive as well - pretty well anything and everything is game for discussion.
My network of blogsites is called: 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy (The Dialectics of Mind, Body, and Spirit)' and can be found by simply googling...Hegel's Hotel...or...DGB Philosophy...
- dgb, July 18th, 2008.
...............................................<<
Here are some commendations on Hegel's Hotel...and I thank the readers cited here, most appreciatively, for their most encouraging feedback. It is feeback like this that keeps me motivated, and re-vitalized, helping me to continue writing at a good pace in order to one day finally finish building the metaphorical 'skyscraper' I am calling 'Hegel's Hotel'...
- dgb, Sept. 21st, 2008.
................................................
Hi David Gordon Bain,
That's a great great blog post. I especially like the quotes at the end. I especially like the unfortunately true one by Thomas Paine: "The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes."
I also like your point about the benefit of balancing being strong-willed with being a good listener. I am especially interested with the mix of philosophy with social and political activism.
Also, I want to invite you to join my Philosophy Forum.
Thanks, Scott
May 8, 2008 4:04 AM
.............................................
What a wonderful view and expansion of Hegel you offer!
Please continue to unfold it for us.
Do your offer an E Mail notice lists of new posts? I signed up for the TSS feed,
Thanks
Forrest at// fateanalysis@wordpress.com
radical gene psychology@blogspot.com
December 22, 2007 8:50 AM
.........................................................
Evan said...
Wow. What a fabulous post and project. Wishing you every possible success witht the building of Hegel's hotel.
I love gestalt, especially the theory. I think Perls, Hefferline and Goodman remains unsurpassed.
I've never trained in a formal course - I think I'm too independant and gestalt seems to have very much compromised with the powers that be and sold its birthright for a mess of recognition (and high salaries, let us not forget).
I think the big issue for gestalt to confront is professionalism. I'll be fascinated to see if this turns up in Hegel's hotel.
I also think you are doing what gestalt should be doing, assimilating, integrating and building. Gestalt is so stuck!
So once again heart-felt thanks and wishes for your success.
June 12, 2007 2:57 AM
........................................................< /p>
Dave, you do an excellent job of helping the layperson understand your
philosophies and the historical philosophies that you support or disagree with. - Noreen
Finding Truth.
Wow..You trigger thought and reflection on past and present, personal views.
I guess that is a large part of your intention or maybe your responsibility as a true philosopher.
It's interesting, at some point in the journey, regardless of your upbringing , life forces you to choose your beliefs. The universal question:
Does God and heaven really exist? What is the truth?
Thank you for suggesting that I plough my way through it.
- Noreen
.........................................................
David Gordon Bain is a modern day philosopher with his finger on the integrative, dialectic pulse of life, both past and present! - Noreen
(Noreen, incidently, has become a good friend of mine, and in the relatively short time that I have known her - the last year or so - she has made many important contributions to my writing, and to the ongoing 'dialectical evolution' of Hegel's Hotel. - dgb, Aug. 22nd, 2008.)
.....................................................
Ten Essential DGB Philosophical Principles Pertaining to The 'Multiple-Bi-Polar' Nature of Man and Life
A) Introduction
This is a brand new addition to the continuing evolution of DGB Philosophical Thinking as of today, October 11th, 2008 - this essay deriving from my last essay on this same subject matter exactly one month ago, Sept. 11th, 2008). See my September 11th essay called:
DGB Post-Hegelian 'Sun-Planet Theory' and Sixteen Mythological Idol-Fixations That Lead To One-Dimensional, One-Dominant, Style of Living
......................................................... ...............
B) On The Inter-Relationship Between Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Heroes; Archetypes; Self-Energy Centres or Ego-States; Projection and Introjection
The rationale and logic for this line of philosophical-psychological-political... thinking runs something like this:
1. Gods, idols, heroes, mythological figures, and parental figures are all external projections and symbolizations of 'human ideals' - some relevant and meaningful to a whole culture or society, others relevant and meaningful to some 'subset' of culture or society, and still others that hold only a deeply personal meaning for us, and us alone.
2. 'Archetypes' are subconscious, internalized (or introjected) renditions of externally projected Gods, idols, mythological figures, and parental figures.
3. Thus, 'Gods', etc... and 'archetypes' work hand in hand with each other, dialectically, and ideally democratically, on both an externally projected and an internally introjected level to make up much of the psychological-philosophical-political... dynamics of the human personality...When 'Gods' and 'archetypes' collide and conflict with each other in the battlefield (conflict-zone) of the human personality (much like in the battles of the Ancient Greek Gods, read, for example, Homer and the Iliad - it is up to us - individually and/or collectively - to decide where our value priorities lie, 'which ego-state or self-energy centre' will dominate, and/or how to negotiate an internal and/or external 'settlement' such that our individual personality and/or our and/or the nation and/or the world as a whole can live in 'dialectical-democratic unity and harmony' - or worded otherwise - 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic balance'.
4. In other words, myths and Gods are external reflections of the human personality - much like an artist's completed canvas is an external reflection of his or her own personality; and much too like Government is a reflection of the internal workings of the human personality. Different government dynamics reflect different leader personality dynamics and visa versa. Dictatorships reflect partly different dynamics than democracies - but not really. Everything is connected. Democracies tend to gravitate towards dictatorships, and dictatorships tend to gravitate towards democracies. 'Democracy' and 'dictatorship' together reflect one dialectical polarity, an important one - the 'democratic-dictatorial polarity' - amongst countless similar 'multiple-bi-polarities' that make up: 1. the character (meaning the philosophy and psychology) of man; 2. the biology, chemistry, and physics of man; 3. all aspects of the culture and politics of man; and 4. the essence of life - and the 'life-death'/'health-sickness' bi-polarities.
Based on the above developed logic, and other related DGB Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Post-Spinozian, post-Freudian, post-Cannon principles, here are:
......................................................... ..................
C/10 Essential DGB Philosophy Principles Pertaining to the Multiple-Bi-Polar Nature of Man and Life and the Inter-Related Dynamics:
1. Individual molecules come together through the phenomenon of 'chemical attraction' and unite ('differential unity');
2. 'Differentially unified' molecules break apart and 'individuate' through the combined principles of 'resentment, anger, hate, repulsion, longing for freedom...;
3. Individual molecules 'compete' with each other and/or 'co-operate' with each other with the goal of 'individual and/or group survival' in mind - both often happening to some degree or another at the same time, sometimes, the 'competition' part dominating, other times, the 'co-operation' part dominating, and in effect, engineering both the 'constructive' and/or the 'destructive' (or 'deconstructive') forces of life and/or death, individual separation and/or differential union.
4. Stage 3 sets the stage for either Stage 1 or 2 to go into effect.
5. 'Freedom' and 'determinism' is another human and life 'bi-polarity', and the two dialectically interact with each other, negotiate with each other, and unite with each other, in the ongoing process and psych-philo-chemistry of 'free-determinism' or 'deterministic freedom'.
6. 'Republicanism' and 'Democratism' is another important human bi-polarity as is 'liberalism' and 'conservatism'.
7. 'Capitlism' and 'socialism' make up another important human bi-polarity.
8. 'Apollonianism' (ethics, equality, justice...)and 'Dionyisianism' (sensuality, sexuality, pleasure...See 'The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche, and also Freud and Psychoanalysis...) is another important human bi-polarity.
9. 'Security or safety' vs. 'risk, newness, and excitement' is another important human bi-polarity.
10. All human bi-polarities gravitate towards a position of 'homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance; and when this position gets too boring, too 'status-quo', too routine, too taken for granted, new bio-chemical, philosopical and psychological forces tend to propel a person and/or a society back out towards the edges of one form of 'bi-polar extremism' or another.
I will let you 'chew' on these principles for a while without further elaboration.
Have a great day!
- dgb, October 11th, 2008.
......................................................... .
Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy (The Dialectics of Mind, Body, and Spirit)
Floor(Blog)1: Table of Contents
Floor(Blog)2: Introductions To DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Philosophy
Floor(Blog)3: More On The Dialectic Perspective
Floor(Blog)4: Most Recent Essays
FLoor(Blog)5: Aphorisms, Mini-Essays, and Self-Awarenesses
Floor(Blog)6: Anaxamander vs. Heraclitus: Dialectic Power vs. Dialectic Balance
Floor(Blog)7: Ancient Chinese Philosophy ('Yin' vs.'Yang')
Floor(Blog)8: The Sophists vs. Socrates
Floor(Blog)9: Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle
Floor(Blog)10: Roman Philosophy and The Fall of Rome
Floor(Blog)11: Early Religious (Scholastic) Philosophy
Floor(Blog)12: Early Scientific Philosophy
Floor(Blog)14: The Rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza...)
Floor(Blog)15: Enlightenment Philosophy: The Birth of Capitalism, Industrialism, and Two Revolutions
Floor(Blog)16: 18th and 19th Century Romantic Philosophy
Floor(Blog)17: German Idealism (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel)
Floor(Blog)18: First Counter-Reaction to Hegel: Schopenhauer and Irrationalism
Floor(Blog)19: Second Counter-Reaction to Hegel: Socialism and Communism: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung
Floor(Blog)20: Third Counter-Reaction to Hegel: The Beginning of Existentialism: Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
- dgb, updated October 11th, 2008.
..............................................................................
Posted by david gordon bain at 7:11 AM
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Blog Archive
▼ 2008 (54)
▼ October (16)
DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential P...
Another Theoretical Paper From The DGB Philosophy ...
DGB Editorial Comments on: McCain and Palin vs. Ob...
Blowback
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
From The DGB Archives (2001): Updated Mission Stat...
From The Helium Website: History of Ideas: Hegel's...
From The Helium Website: Where True Freedom Begins...
From The Helium Website: What is Wrong With This W...
A Little Bit of Self-Promotion For DGB Philosophy
The 'Split-Personality' of America: Which America ...
For a Bag of Coal
Ten Essential DGB Philosophical Principles Pertain...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
► September (7)
A Glossary of 21 Important Concepts In DGB Philoso...
On The 'Flip-Side' of 'Flip-Flopping'...Obama vs. ...
Evaluation and Health: Then (1979) and Now (2008),...
The 'Bush-League' Republicans Have About as Much D...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
The Orchestra Played a Love Song
Re-visiting My Honours Thesis in Psychology: Evalu...
► August (13)
Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry... Faceoff: DGB P...
An Updated, Modified, Extended DGB Version of Sir ...
From the internet...google...The Four Idols, Sir F...
From Wikipedia... Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St ...
Feedback From My Latest Kant Essay...and a Call Fo...
Faceoff: Kant vs. DGB Philosophy -- Re-visited
Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 1) -- On The C...
More Thoughts on Narcissism in Relation to Ethics,...
Faceoff: Hegel vs. DGB Philosophy (Part 2): The Co...
Faceoff: Kant Vs. DGB Philosophy: Sorting Out The...
The Pathology of Unbridled (Toxic) Narcissism -- ...
Faceoff: Hegel vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1: On Abso...
On Fairness, Ethics, Narcissism, Power, Money and ...
► July (2)
On God, Religion, False, Good, and Bad Idols, Proj...
Faceoff: Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy -- Part 1...
► June (5)
Free Trade vs. Fair Trade: McCain vs. Obama, War a...
Classification Systems: Hegel and Anti-Hegelians, ...
Dialectic Tensions, The Different Realms of Life -...
Language, Epistemology, Evaluation and Health
Words and Their Meaning: Example -- 'Narcissism'
► May (10)
On My Philosophical Ambitions (Updated Version, Ma...
Part 5: On The 'First' and 'Third' Floors of The D...
The DGB Model of The Human Psyche -- Part 4: On Th...
The DGB Model of The Human Psyche -- Part 3: An Ov...
A DGB Model Of The Human Psyche -- Part 2: The Gen...
A DGB Model Of The Human Psyche: (Part 1)
Prelude To A DGB Integrative Model Of The Human Ps...
► April (1)
About Me
david bain
I am a taxi and mobility dispatcher in York Region, north of Toronto. I live in Newmarket. My interest (or 'obsession' might be more like it) in philosophy evolved out of my similar interest/obsession in psychology. I have an Honours B.A. in psychology from the University of Waterloo (1974-1979). I studied Adlerian Psychology for two years at OISE, associated with the U. of T., 1980-81. I became involved with the Gestalt Institute in Toronto in 1979 and took workshops in Gestalt Therapy, off and on, for 12 years, 1979-1991 (and am thinking of going back). My study of psychology -- particularly Perls, Freud, and Jung -- brought me to the main underlying influence of each of these great psychologists -- Hegel (with due respect to Nietzsche who is the second major influence) -- who then opened up the door to the study of philosophy for me. And I have not looked back since. I have two grown up kids (Mike was born in 1984 and Jennifer in 1989), and a classy girlfriend, Sharida, from Toronto of 9 years and counting... dgb
View my complete profile
I love to write and to philosophize -- it is the culmination of my life's intellectual work. This year the American election has caught my fancy, both because it has been exciting, and because it is of major, major importance to the future of world history, and the well-being of people everywhere in the world.
Now up to this point in my life, I have not made one penny from my writing. My writing is my passion, a labor of love, and I would still look for opportunities to write, even if I was at, or near the poverty line (which I certainly am not now but I have been at a few other different times in my life).
As it is, and right now (everything always being subject to change), I make a nice comfortable, midde-class income on a 50 to 55 hour work week, dispatching for a taxi and wheelchair van company. This is my 'bread and butter'. Philosophy and teaching is my vision for the future.
At one point I was part of a dispatching crew that dispatched to a fleet of 500-600 taxis. Now I dispatch to a much smaller fleet of cars and wheelchair vans, which believe it or not, can be, and indeed, is more stressful, when you don't have enough vehicles to handle the business, and/or enough motivated drivers who want to 'cover the business'.
'Motivation' is an imperative part of any successful business. Sometimes business owners and managers can be so intent on bringing in new contracts and customers -- especially the large ones -- that they can completely disregard and/or not care about the other side of the equation: having enough 'healthy, happy foot soldiers' who are well-rested and well-motivated to properly service the incoming business. 'Top-heavy, narcissistic businesses' that 'over-feed' the top of the organization and 'under-feed' the bottom of the organization leave themselves wide open to the onslaught of superior competitors, and/or to the organization essentially collapsing from the bottom upwards.
Life is one of the best philosophy teachers -- especially when you can combine it with the philosophy of others who can help with the development and evolution of your particular philsophy, either through their agreements and expansions of your ideas, and/or through the ideas of others who may oppose and disagree with you, and in so doing, help you develop, a larger, more 'worldly, bi-partisan, dialectic-democratic perspective.
We must also assume here that you don't generalize your 'life experiences' in an unproductive, self-destructive, pathological fashion. This usually stems from 'over-associating' and/or 'under-differentiating'. See General Semantics and Cognitive Therapy -- or my essays on them. They taught me that.)
I pine for the days in which I may be able to devote my entire working time to building and teaching 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy' -- but that time hasn't come yet, I still have to economically support myself and help my family, so I -- and you -- will have to make do with the amount of time and energy we have together, until, hopefully, that time and energy expands.
I take great pride in my writing and the philosophical 'Grand Narrative' that I am building here. (Yes, for DGB Philosophy, 'grand narrative' is not a 'dirty post-modern, deconstructionist' word).
One day I hope that Hegel's Hotel will be viewed as a significant addition to, and extrapolation on what I perceive to be the most important philosophy book in the history of Western philosophy -- Hegel's masterpiece: 'The Phenomenology of Spirit (Mind)'.
Permit my ego to go a little wild here but one day I would like 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy (Dialectic-Democratics For The Mind, Body, and Soul)' to be viewed as one of the greatest integrative achievements in Western Philosophy. But obviously, I have a long way to go yet -- probably another 3 to 5 years of writing are needed for me to finish the first 25 to 50 'floors' of Hegel's Hotel.
I am shooting to write somewhere close to a thousand essays. I would say I have already written somewhere around 300 essays, some of which you can already find in Hegel's Hotel; others, I still need to bring out of the 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology Archives' if I believe they add significantly to the structure and foundation of Hegel's Hotel. (Evolution-wise, they certainly do belong to Hegel's Hotel; it is just a matter of whether or not I believe that these essays are 'worthy of bringing back to life' for present and future readers, depending on how well or poorly they may have been written.)
I wouldn't be saying any of these things if I wasn't finding more and more of my essays on a greater and greater number of websites throughout the internet: philosophy ones, political ones, psychology ones, business ones...
The increasing popularity of my philosophy work is obviously good for my 'writing and philosophical ego'. The feedback encourages me to keep writing as fast as I possibly can -- ideally, with a maximum amount of possible impact on my potential reader audience.
I don't expect everyone to believe or agree with everything I write -- and I still have a lot to learn along the way -- particularly in politics, business, and economics, but as long as my essays are being read, being provocative, and being reproduced on other websites (with an acknowledgement of my authorship, of course), I am a happy man.
I will keep building 'Hegel's Hotel' higher and higher.
I was excited to see that one of my 'Faceoff': DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party' had been picked up by an Ayn Rand history of philosophy website not too long ago, another essay has been picked up by an Adlerian Psychology website (Gods, Myths, Philosophers -- and 'Self-Energy Centres'). I spent a year and a half studying Adlerian Psychology at the Adlerian Institute in Toronto (taught at OISE, right next to the University of Toronto) before my personal economics pushed me back into the work world. I learned some important ideas from studying Adlerian Psychology ('lifestyle', 'inferiority feelings', 'superiority striving', and the 'metaphorical importance of conscious early recollections'. (See my essay 'Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry...')
My 'Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republic Party, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 seem to be very popular, and have gone to assorted different websites. My 'Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry' essay seems to be popular also, and so too, is my 'DGB Sun-Planet Theory' essay.
A number of my essays have done well on the website 'Helium' (the one which I am particulary proud of is: Classification Systems, Mythological Entities, Post-Hegelian Ideas - and The Multi-Dialectic Force of God').
What I like best is the fact that I seem to be reaching a broad range of readers which is the one thing that I most wanted to do -- to 'bridge the gap' between 'academic circles' and 'pragmatic readers'. Now, I am not sure that my work is being appreciated and/or recognized in the more 'anally-retentive, scholarly philosophy quarters' but that's okay. I do not particularly want to write in these circles anyway -- they are a little too 'stuffy' for my liking -- and if one day, recognition flows my way from these quarters, then great; if not, then not. (That last part was borrowed from Fritz Perls' 'Gestalt Prayer').
Two of my non-political essays have even travelled as far as 'Yahoo, India' to the website of 'The Bain Capability Centre' (a well-established 'Management Consultant Firm' that shares my last name although there is no relation. See below for a description of their work). I work with an Indian dispatcher who says that India takes a lot of pride in their educuational institutions and 'self-actualization centres'. That is good enough for me as I share these same goals -- with pride -- and am ecstatic to see a well-established Management Consultant Firm continually bringing new philosophical ideas into its midst.
I only hope that I can 'keep the provocative metaphors and ideas' coming so that more and more of you will feel so inspired as to carry my philosophy-psychology-political essays on your particular web or blogsite...
Not to mention, of course, reading my own.
Thank you for your support,
-- david gordon bain, October 17th, 2008, updated October 25th and October 30th,
November 15th, 2008.
Posted by david gordon bain at 5:30 AM 0 comments
....................................................................................
I try in some cases to promote those sites that are carrying and promoting my work.
Below is a copy of my own home page in 'Helium: Where Knowledge Rules'...which has helped me to target a larger reader audience. Thank you, Helium.
................................
From My Helium Home Page...
Good day! My name is David Bain. I write about philosophy, psychology, politics, and more...I have an Honours B.A. in psychology. I live in Newmarket, Ontario, about 30 miles and minutes north of Toronto. I have a classy girlfriend of 9 years - Sharida - who works and lives in Toronto. I have two children from a previous relationship: Michael, 23, living in Newmarket, and Jennifer, 18, living in Nova Scotia.
My life mission is to finish a growing number of linked blogsites on philosophy, psychology, politics and other cultural topics. My perspective is mainly 'integrative, centralist, and multi-dialectical (Post-Hegelian, Humanistic-Existential)' drawing from a whole range of philosophical and psychological influences such as: Hegel, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Anaxamander, Heraclitus, The Han Philosophers, Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Marx, Tom Paine, Diderot, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Korzybski, Foucault, Derrida, Freud, Adler, Jung, Berne, Perls, and many more...The issues and subject matters are extensive as well - pretty well anything and everything is game for discussion.
My network of blogsites is called: 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy (The Dialectics of Mind, Body, and Spirit)' and can be found by simply googling...Hegel's Hotel...or...DGB Philosophy...
- dgb, July 18th, 2008.
...............................................<<
Here are some commendations on Hegel's Hotel...and I thank the readers cited here, most appreciatively, for their most encouraging feedback. It is feeback like this that keeps me motivated, and re-vitalized, helping me to continue writing at a good pace in order to one day finally finish building the metaphorical 'skyscraper' I am calling 'Hegel's Hotel'...
- dgb, Sept. 21st, 2008.
................................................
Hi David Gordon Bain,
That's a great great blog post. I especially like the quotes at the end. I especially like the unfortunately true one by Thomas Paine: "The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes."
I also like your point about the benefit of balancing being strong-willed with being a good listener. I am especially interested with the mix of philosophy with social and political activism.
Also, I want to invite you to join my Philosophy Forum.
Thanks, Scott
May 8, 2008 4:04 AM
.............................................
What a wonderful view and expansion of Hegel you offer!
Please continue to unfold it for us.
Do your offer an E Mail notice lists of new posts? I signed up for the TSS feed,
Thanks
Forrest at// fateanalysis@wordpress.com
radical gene psychology@blogspot.com
December 22, 2007 8:50 AM
.........................................................
Evan said...
Wow. What a fabulous post and project. Wishing you every possible success witht the building of Hegel's hotel.
I love gestalt, especially the theory. I think Perls, Hefferline and Goodman remains unsurpassed.
I've never trained in a formal course - I think I'm too independant and gestalt seems to have very much compromised with the powers that be and sold its birthright for a mess of recognition (and high salaries, let us not forget).
I think the big issue for gestalt to confront is professionalism. I'll be fascinated to see if this turns up in Hegel's hotel.
I also think you are doing what gestalt should be doing, assimilating, integrating and building. Gestalt is so stuck!
So once again heart-felt thanks and wishes for your success.
June 12, 2007 2:57 AM
........................................................< /p>
Dave, you do an excellent job of helping the layperson understand your
philosophies and the historical philosophies that you support or disagree with. - Noreen
Finding Truth.
Wow..You trigger thought and reflection on past and present, personal views.
I guess that is a large part of your intention or maybe your responsibility as a true philosopher.
It's interesting, at some point in the journey, regardless of your upbringing , life forces you to choose your beliefs. The universal question:
Does God and heaven really exist? What is the truth?
Thank you for suggesting that I plough my way through it.
- Noreen
.........................................................
David Gordon Bain is a modern day philosopher with his finger on the integrative, dialectic pulse of life, both past and present! - Noreen
(Noreen, incidently, has become a good friend of mine, and in the relatively short time that I have known her - the last year or so - she has made many important contributions to my writing, and to the ongoing 'dialectical evolution' of Hegel's Hotel. - dgb, Aug. 22nd, 2008.)
.....................................................
Ten Essential DGB Philosophical Principles Pertaining to The 'Multiple-Bi-Polar' Nature of Man and Life
A) Introduction
This is a brand new addition to the continuing evolution of DGB Philosophical Thinking as of today, October 11th, 2008 - this essay deriving from my last essay on this same subject matter exactly one month ago, Sept. 11th, 2008). See my September 11th essay called:
DGB Post-Hegelian 'Sun-Planet Theory' and Sixteen Mythological Idol-Fixations That Lead To One-Dimensional, One-Dominant, Style of Living
......................................................... ...............
B) On The Inter-Relationship Between Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Heroes; Archetypes; Self-Energy Centres or Ego-States; Projection and Introjection
The rationale and logic for this line of philosophical-psychological-political... thinking runs something like this:
1. Gods, idols, heroes, mythological figures, and parental figures are all external projections and symbolizations of 'human ideals' - some relevant and meaningful to a whole culture or society, others relevant and meaningful to some 'subset' of culture or society, and still others that hold only a deeply personal meaning for us, and us alone.
2. 'Archetypes' are subconscious, internalized (or introjected) renditions of externally projected Gods, idols, mythological figures, and parental figures.
3. Thus, 'Gods', etc... and 'archetypes' work hand in hand with each other, dialectically, and ideally democratically, on both an externally projected and an internally introjected level to make up much of the psychological-philosophical-political... dynamics of the human personality...When 'Gods' and 'archetypes' collide and conflict with each other in the battlefield (conflict-zone) of the human personality (much like in the battles of the Ancient Greek Gods, read, for example, Homer and the Iliad - it is up to us - individually and/or collectively - to decide where our value priorities lie, 'which ego-state or self-energy centre' will dominate, and/or how to negotiate an internal and/or external 'settlement' such that our individual personality and/or our and/or the nation and/or the world as a whole can live in 'dialectical-democratic unity and harmony' - or worded otherwise - 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic balance'.
4. In other words, myths and Gods are external reflections of the human personality - much like an artist's completed canvas is an external reflection of his or her own personality; and much too like Government is a reflection of the internal workings of the human personality. Different government dynamics reflect different leader personality dynamics and visa versa. Dictatorships reflect partly different dynamics than democracies - but not really. Everything is connected. Democracies tend to gravitate towards dictatorships, and dictatorships tend to gravitate towards democracies. 'Democracy' and 'dictatorship' together reflect one dialectical polarity, an important one - the 'democratic-dictatorial polarity' - amongst countless similar 'multiple-bi-polarities' that make up: 1. the character (meaning the philosophy and psychology) of man; 2. the biology, chemistry, and physics of man; 3. all aspects of the culture and politics of man; and 4. the essence of life - and the 'life-death'/'health-sickness' bi-polarities.
Based on the above developed logic, and other related DGB Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Post-Spinozian, post-Freudian, post-Cannon principles, here are:
......................................................... ..................
C/10 Essential DGB Philosophy Principles Pertaining to the Multiple-Bi-Polar Nature of Man and Life and the Inter-Related Dynamics:
1. Individual molecules come together through the phenomenon of 'chemical attraction' and unite ('differential unity');
2. 'Differentially unified' molecules break apart and 'individuate' through the combined principles of 'resentment, anger, hate, repulsion, longing for freedom...;
3. Individual molecules 'compete' with each other and/or 'co-operate' with each other with the goal of 'individual and/or group survival' in mind - both often happening to some degree or another at the same time, sometimes, the 'competition' part dominating, other times, the 'co-operation' part dominating, and in effect, engineering both the 'constructive' and/or the 'destructive' (or 'deconstructive') forces of life and/or death, individual separation and/or differential union.
4. Stage 3 sets the stage for either Stage 1 or 2 to go into effect.
5. 'Freedom' and 'determinism' is another human and life 'bi-polarity', and the two dialectically interact with each other, negotiate with each other, and unite with each other, in the ongoing process and psych-philo-chemistry of 'free-determinism' or 'deterministic freedom'.
6. 'Republicanism' and 'Democratism' is another important human bi-polarity as is 'liberalism' and 'conservatism'.
7. 'Capitlism' and 'socialism' make up another important human bi-polarity.
8. 'Apollonianism' (ethics, equality, justice...)and 'Dionyisianism' (sensuality, sexuality, pleasure...See 'The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche, and also Freud and Psychoanalysis...) is another important human bi-polarity.
9. 'Security or safety' vs. 'risk, newness, and excitement' is another important human bi-polarity.
10. All human bi-polarities gravitate towards a position of 'homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance; and when this position gets too boring, too 'status-quo', too routine, too taken for granted, new bio-chemical, philosopical and psychological forces tend to propel a person and/or a society back out towards the edges of one form of 'bi-polar extremism' or another.
I will let you 'chew' on these principles for a while without further elaboration.
Have a great day!
- dgb, October 11th, 2008.
......................................................... .
Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy (The Dialectics of Mind, Body, and Spirit)
Floor(Blog)1: Table of Contents
Floor(Blog)2: Introductions To DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Philosophy
Floor(Blog)3: More On The Dialectic Perspective
Floor(Blog)4: Most Recent Essays
FLoor(Blog)5: Aphorisms, Mini-Essays, and Self-Awarenesses
Floor(Blog)6: Anaxamander vs. Heraclitus: Dialectic Power vs. Dialectic Balance
Floor(Blog)7: Ancient Chinese Philosophy ('Yin' vs.'Yang')
Floor(Blog)8: The Sophists vs. Socrates
Floor(Blog)9: Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle
Floor(Blog)10: Roman Philosophy and The Fall of Rome
Floor(Blog)11: Early Religious (Scholastic) Philosophy
Floor(Blog)12: Early Scientific Philosophy
Floor(Blog)14: The Rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza...)
Floor(Blog)15: Enlightenment Philosophy: The Birth of Capitalism, Industrialism, and Two Revolutions
Floor(Blog)16: 18th and 19th Century Romantic Philosophy
Floor(Blog)17: German Idealism (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel)
Floor(Blog)18: First Counter-Reaction to Hegel: Schopenhauer and Irrationalism
Floor(Blog)19: Second Counter-Reaction to Hegel: Socialism and Communism: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung
Floor(Blog)20: Third Counter-Reaction to Hegel: The Beginning of Existentialism: Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
- dgb, updated October 11th, 2008.
..............................................................................
Posted by david gordon bain at 7:11 AM
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Blog Archive
▼ 2008 (54)
▼ October (16)
DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential P...
Another Theoretical Paper From The DGB Philosophy ...
DGB Editorial Comments on: McCain and Palin vs. Ob...
Blowback
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
From The DGB Archives (2001): Updated Mission Stat...
From The Helium Website: History of Ideas: Hegel's...
From The Helium Website: Where True Freedom Begins...
From The Helium Website: What is Wrong With This W...
A Little Bit of Self-Promotion For DGB Philosophy
The 'Split-Personality' of America: Which America ...
For a Bag of Coal
Ten Essential DGB Philosophical Principles Pertain...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
► September (7)
A Glossary of 21 Important Concepts In DGB Philoso...
On The 'Flip-Side' of 'Flip-Flopping'...Obama vs. ...
Evaluation and Health: Then (1979) and Now (2008),...
The 'Bush-League' Republicans Have About as Much D...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republica...
The Orchestra Played a Love Song
Re-visiting My Honours Thesis in Psychology: Evalu...
► August (13)
Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry... Faceoff: DGB P...
An Updated, Modified, Extended DGB Version of Sir ...
From the internet...google...The Four Idols, Sir F...
From Wikipedia... Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St ...
Feedback From My Latest Kant Essay...and a Call Fo...
Faceoff: Kant vs. DGB Philosophy -- Re-visited
Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 1) -- On The C...
More Thoughts on Narcissism in Relation to Ethics,...
Faceoff: Hegel vs. DGB Philosophy (Part 2): The Co...
Faceoff: Kant Vs. DGB Philosophy: Sorting Out The...
The Pathology of Unbridled (Toxic) Narcissism -- ...
Faceoff: Hegel vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1: On Abso...
On Fairness, Ethics, Narcissism, Power, Money and ...
► July (2)
On God, Religion, False, Good, and Bad Idols, Proj...
Faceoff: Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy -- Part 1...
► June (5)
Free Trade vs. Fair Trade: McCain vs. Obama, War a...
Classification Systems: Hegel and Anti-Hegelians, ...
Dialectic Tensions, The Different Realms of Life -...
Language, Epistemology, Evaluation and Health
Words and Their Meaning: Example -- 'Narcissism'
► May (10)
On My Philosophical Ambitions (Updated Version, Ma...
Part 5: On The 'First' and 'Third' Floors of The D...
The DGB Model of The Human Psyche -- Part 4: On Th...
The DGB Model of The Human Psyche -- Part 3: An Ov...
A DGB Model Of The Human Psyche -- Part 2: The Gen...
A DGB Model Of The Human Psyche: (Part 1)
Prelude To A DGB Integrative Model Of The Human Ps...
► April (1)
About Me
david bain
I am a taxi and mobility dispatcher in York Region, north of Toronto. I live in Newmarket. My interest (or 'obsession' might be more like it) in philosophy evolved out of my similar interest/obsession in psychology. I have an Honours B.A. in psychology from the University of Waterloo (1974-1979). I studied Adlerian Psychology for two years at OISE, associated with the U. of T., 1980-81. I became involved with the Gestalt Institute in Toronto in 1979 and took workshops in Gestalt Therapy, off and on, for 12 years, 1979-1991 (and am thinking of going back). My study of psychology -- particularly Perls, Freud, and Jung -- brought me to the main underlying influence of each of these great psychologists -- Hegel (with due respect to Nietzsche who is the second major influence) -- who then opened up the door to the study of philosophy for me. And I have not looked back since. I have two grown up kids (Mike was born in 1984 and Jennifer in 1989), and a classy girlfriend, Sharida, from Toronto of 9 years and counting... dgb
View my complete profile
Sunday, October 26, 2008
DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential Political Philosophy and Capitalism
A) Preface
This is a more 'theoretical' -- as opposed to 'applied' -- DGB political philosophy essay. I believe that it is important for my reader to get at least a gist of the underlying, foundational principles upon which DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Multi-Bi-Polar, Humanistic-Existential, Political Philosophy and Capitalism -- is built.
B) Introduction
This is a brand new, DGB Political Philosophy Theory and the 'tip of the iceberg' of slowly evolving DGB Business-Economic Theory (to which I have a very lot to learn) as of today, October 11th, 2008 -- this essay deriving from my last essay on this subject matter exactly one month ago, Sept. 11th, 2008). See my September 11th essay, just re-named today (Oct. 26th, 2008):
DGB Multi-Bi-Polar 'Sun-Planet Theory' and 'Sixteen God-Archetype-Ego-States' of Human Personality Functioning and Dysfunctoning'
........................................................................
C) Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Heroes; b) Archetypes; c) Self-Energy Centres or Ego-States; and d) The Inter-Relationship Between Projection and Introjection
The rationale and logic for this line of thought runs something like this:
1. Gods, idols, heroes, mythological figures, and parental figures are all external projections and symbolizations of 'human ideals' -- some relevant and meaningful to a whole culture or society, others relevant and meaningful to some 'subset' of culture or society, and still others that hold only a deeply personal meaning for us, and us alone.
2. 'Archetypes' are subconscious, internalized (or introjected) renditions of externally projected Gods, idols, mythological figures, and parental figures.
3. Thus, 'Gods', etc... and 'archetypes' work hand in hand with each other, dialectically, and ideally democratically, on both an externally projected and an internally introjected level to make up much of the psyhological dynamics of the human personality...When 'Gods' and 'archetypes' collide and conflict with each other -- as part of a 'mythological and/or philosophical battlefield (much like in the battles of Ancient Greek Gods, read, for example, Homer and the Iliad -- so too do the forces within our own personlity/personalities; and visa versa.
4. In other words, myths and Gods are external reflections of the human personality -- much like an artist's completed canvas is an external reflection of his or her own personality; and much too like Government is a reflection of the internal workings of the human personality. Different government dynamics reflect different leader personality dynamics and visa versa. Dictatorships reflect partly different dynamics than democracies -- but not really. Everything is connected. Democracies tend to gravitate towards dictatorships, and dictatorships tend to gravitate towards democracies. 'Democracy' and 'dictatorship' together reflect one dialectical polarity, an important one -- the 'democratic-dictatorial polarity' -- amongst countless similar 'multiple-bi-polarities' that make up: 1. the character (meaning the philosophy and psychology) of man; 2. the biology, chemistry, and physics of man; 3. all aspects of the culture and politics of man; and 4. the essence of life -- and the 'life-death'/'health-sickness' bi-polarities.
Based on the above developed logic, and other related DGB Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Post-Spinozian, post-Freudian, post-Cannon principles, here are:
...........................................................................
D/ Eight Essential DGB Philosophy Principles Pertaining To The 'Multiple-Bi-Polar Nature of Man-In-Action:
1. Individual molecules come together and unite ('differential unity');
2. 'Differentially unified' molecules break apart and 'individuate';
3. Individual molecules 'compete' with each other and/or 'co-operate' with each other with the goal of 'individual and/or group survival' in mind -- both often happening to some degree or another at the same time, sometimes, the 'competition' part dominating, other times, the 'co-operation' part dominating, and in effect, engineering both the 'constructive' and/or the 'destructive' (or 'deconstructive') forces of life and/or death, individual separation and/or differential union.
4. 'Freedom' and 'determinism' is another human and life 'bi-polarity', and the two dialectically interact with each other, negotiate with each other, and unite with each other, in the ongoing human mental, psychological, physical, biological, chemical, political, legal, philosophical, and cultural integrative and interactive process of free-will and deteministic forces: in effect, 'free-will determinism' or 'deterministic-free-will'.
5. 'Republicanism' vs. 'Democratism' is an important American political bi-polarity as is its underlying philosophical bi-polarity of 'conservatism' vs. 'liberalism' and or its economic corollary of 'capitalism' vs. 'socialism.
6. 'Apollonianism' (ethics, equality, justice...)and 'Dionyisianism' (sensuality, sexuality, pleasure...See 'The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche, and also Freud and Psychoanalysis...) is another important human bi-polarity.
7. 'Security or safety' vs. 'risk, newness, and excitement' is another important human bi-polarity.
8. All human bi-polarities gravitate towards a position of homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance; and when this position gets too boring, too status-quo, too routine, too taken for granted, new bio-chemical, philosopical and psychological forces tend to propel a person and/or a society back out towards the edges of one form of 'bi-polar extremism' or another. This can be both good and or bed depending on where the bi-polar pendulum is swinging from, and where it is going to.
I will let you 'chew' on these principles for a while without further elaboration.
Have a great day!
-- dgb, October 11th, 2008, updated October 26th, 2008.
This is a more 'theoretical' -- as opposed to 'applied' -- DGB political philosophy essay. I believe that it is important for my reader to get at least a gist of the underlying, foundational principles upon which DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Multi-Bi-Polar, Humanistic-Existential, Political Philosophy and Capitalism -- is built.
B) Introduction
This is a brand new, DGB Political Philosophy Theory and the 'tip of the iceberg' of slowly evolving DGB Business-Economic Theory (to which I have a very lot to learn) as of today, October 11th, 2008 -- this essay deriving from my last essay on this subject matter exactly one month ago, Sept. 11th, 2008). See my September 11th essay, just re-named today (Oct. 26th, 2008):
DGB Multi-Bi-Polar 'Sun-Planet Theory' and 'Sixteen God-Archetype-Ego-States' of Human Personality Functioning and Dysfunctoning'
........................................................................
C) Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Heroes; b) Archetypes; c) Self-Energy Centres or Ego-States; and d) The Inter-Relationship Between Projection and Introjection
The rationale and logic for this line of thought runs something like this:
1. Gods, idols, heroes, mythological figures, and parental figures are all external projections and symbolizations of 'human ideals' -- some relevant and meaningful to a whole culture or society, others relevant and meaningful to some 'subset' of culture or society, and still others that hold only a deeply personal meaning for us, and us alone.
2. 'Archetypes' are subconscious, internalized (or introjected) renditions of externally projected Gods, idols, mythological figures, and parental figures.
3. Thus, 'Gods', etc... and 'archetypes' work hand in hand with each other, dialectically, and ideally democratically, on both an externally projected and an internally introjected level to make up much of the psyhological dynamics of the human personality...When 'Gods' and 'archetypes' collide and conflict with each other -- as part of a 'mythological and/or philosophical battlefield (much like in the battles of Ancient Greek Gods, read, for example, Homer and the Iliad -- so too do the forces within our own personlity/personalities; and visa versa.
4. In other words, myths and Gods are external reflections of the human personality -- much like an artist's completed canvas is an external reflection of his or her own personality; and much too like Government is a reflection of the internal workings of the human personality. Different government dynamics reflect different leader personality dynamics and visa versa. Dictatorships reflect partly different dynamics than democracies -- but not really. Everything is connected. Democracies tend to gravitate towards dictatorships, and dictatorships tend to gravitate towards democracies. 'Democracy' and 'dictatorship' together reflect one dialectical polarity, an important one -- the 'democratic-dictatorial polarity' -- amongst countless similar 'multiple-bi-polarities' that make up: 1. the character (meaning the philosophy and psychology) of man; 2. the biology, chemistry, and physics of man; 3. all aspects of the culture and politics of man; and 4. the essence of life -- and the 'life-death'/'health-sickness' bi-polarities.
Based on the above developed logic, and other related DGB Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Post-Spinozian, post-Freudian, post-Cannon principles, here are:
...........................................................................
D/ Eight Essential DGB Philosophy Principles Pertaining To The 'Multiple-Bi-Polar Nature of Man-In-Action:
1. Individual molecules come together and unite ('differential unity');
2. 'Differentially unified' molecules break apart and 'individuate';
3. Individual molecules 'compete' with each other and/or 'co-operate' with each other with the goal of 'individual and/or group survival' in mind -- both often happening to some degree or another at the same time, sometimes, the 'competition' part dominating, other times, the 'co-operation' part dominating, and in effect, engineering both the 'constructive' and/or the 'destructive' (or 'deconstructive') forces of life and/or death, individual separation and/or differential union.
4. 'Freedom' and 'determinism' is another human and life 'bi-polarity', and the two dialectically interact with each other, negotiate with each other, and unite with each other, in the ongoing human mental, psychological, physical, biological, chemical, political, legal, philosophical, and cultural integrative and interactive process of free-will and deteministic forces: in effect, 'free-will determinism' or 'deterministic-free-will'.
5. 'Republicanism' vs. 'Democratism' is an important American political bi-polarity as is its underlying philosophical bi-polarity of 'conservatism' vs. 'liberalism' and or its economic corollary of 'capitalism' vs. 'socialism.
6. 'Apollonianism' (ethics, equality, justice...)and 'Dionyisianism' (sensuality, sexuality, pleasure...See 'The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche, and also Freud and Psychoanalysis...) is another important human bi-polarity.
7. 'Security or safety' vs. 'risk, newness, and excitement' is another important human bi-polarity.
8. All human bi-polarities gravitate towards a position of homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance; and when this position gets too boring, too status-quo, too routine, too taken for granted, new bio-chemical, philosopical and psychological forces tend to propel a person and/or a society back out towards the edges of one form of 'bi-polar extremism' or another. This can be both good and or bed depending on where the bi-polar pendulum is swinging from, and where it is going to.
I will let you 'chew' on these principles for a while without further elaboration.
Have a great day!
-- dgb, October 11th, 2008, updated October 26th, 2008.
Another Theoretical Paper From The DGB Philosophy Archives: From Hegel to Gap-DGB Philosophy
From Hegel to Gap-DGB Philosophy
Canada Day, July 1st, 2006.
This forum is designed to build philosophical bridges between separate philosophical ideas, opinions, perspectives, lifestyles, organizations, structures, and processes.
For example, the forum aims to build a bridge between academic/historical philosophy and contemporary, pragmatic ‘street’ (home/family/work) philosophy. It aims to bridge the gap between the abstract and the concrete. Between philosophy and psychology. Between Hegel and Nietzsche. Between Anaximander and Hegel. Between religion and science. Between Enlightenment Philosophy and Romantic Philosophy. Between humanism and existentialism. Between conservatism and liberalism. Between capitalism and socialism. Between Freud and the feminists. Between Freud and Adler. Between Freud and Jung. Between Freud and Perls.
Everywhere we go there is going to be a ‘dialectical face-off’ between philosophy A and philosophy B, and there is going to be an underlying assumption that there is a mixture of truth and distortion, value and disvalue, in both philosophy A and Philosophy B, and there is often -- if not always -- creative value in aiming to reach an integrative, ‘homeostatic balance’ between the two competing philosophies/philosophers/perspectives/ideologies/lifestyles...
Thus, you can call this a post-Hegelian school and forum of philosophy. It is built on the Hegelian dialectical evolutionary theory of ‘thesis’, ‘anti-thesis’, and ‘synthesis’ -- and start over again at a different, hopefully better, level. Thus, also, we are trying for the most part to discourage most forms of righteous, narcissistic, , extremist, destructive ‘either/or’ philosophies, religions, organizations, etc. These types of philosophies usually generate ‘wars’ of any and every kind -- intra-psychic, inter-personal, civil, political, international…
However, this is not only a post-Hegelian forum of philosophy but also a post-Anaxamanderian, post-Spinozian, post-Darwinian, post-Nietzschean, post-Kierkegaardian, post-Derridian, post-Freudian, post-Adlerian, post-Jungian, and post-Gestalt forum as well. Call it a ‘Leap-Frog and Link’ forum of philosophy, or Gap Philosophy, or Gap-Bridging Philosophy, or Dialectical-Gap-Bridging (DGB) Philosophy, or Gap Multi-Integrative-Dialectical Philosophy...these names all aim to describe the same basic idea -- linking opposing philosophies and lifestyles together into a more harmonious multi-integrative-dialectical homeostatic balance.
We are looking for creative, integrative conflict resolutions that bring people together in a spirit of ‘dialectical-democratic unity’, appreciating our unique individual differences and multiple different perspectives -- and in fact embracing these differences as a vital part of our human essence, heritage, and future. As the great psychologist, Carl Jung, has written:
‘The greater the contrast, the greater is the potential. Great energy only comes from great tensions between opposites.’
In every case, the possibilities are contained within the opposites. What is required is their (creative, assertive, compassionate, democratic) interaction, so that the dialectic may be permitted to operate” (towards a successful ‘gap-bridging’ creative-integrative solution/resolution to the particular conflict). Joel Latner, The Gestalt Therapy Book, The Julian Press, 1973. (bracketed extensions mine).
In a world that seems to be rushing back towards the brink of nuclear war again, and in a world where friends, family, and foes alike all tend to take righteous, narcissistic, extremist, ‘either/or’ stances against each other, it would seem that this type of philosophy of ‘tolerance and creative evolutionary harmony of differences’ cannot be expounded, promoted, and applied any time too soon -- or too loudly.
-- David Gordon Bain (DGB), July 1st, 2006.
Canada Day, July 1st, 2006.
This forum is designed to build philosophical bridges between separate philosophical ideas, opinions, perspectives, lifestyles, organizations, structures, and processes.
For example, the forum aims to build a bridge between academic/historical philosophy and contemporary, pragmatic ‘street’ (home/family/work) philosophy. It aims to bridge the gap between the abstract and the concrete. Between philosophy and psychology. Between Hegel and Nietzsche. Between Anaximander and Hegel. Between religion and science. Between Enlightenment Philosophy and Romantic Philosophy. Between humanism and existentialism. Between conservatism and liberalism. Between capitalism and socialism. Between Freud and the feminists. Between Freud and Adler. Between Freud and Jung. Between Freud and Perls.
Everywhere we go there is going to be a ‘dialectical face-off’ between philosophy A and philosophy B, and there is going to be an underlying assumption that there is a mixture of truth and distortion, value and disvalue, in both philosophy A and Philosophy B, and there is often -- if not always -- creative value in aiming to reach an integrative, ‘homeostatic balance’ between the two competing philosophies/philosophers/perspectives/ideologies/lifestyles...
Thus, you can call this a post-Hegelian school and forum of philosophy. It is built on the Hegelian dialectical evolutionary theory of ‘thesis’, ‘anti-thesis’, and ‘synthesis’ -- and start over again at a different, hopefully better, level. Thus, also, we are trying for the most part to discourage most forms of righteous, narcissistic, , extremist, destructive ‘either/or’ philosophies, religions, organizations, etc. These types of philosophies usually generate ‘wars’ of any and every kind -- intra-psychic, inter-personal, civil, political, international…
However, this is not only a post-Hegelian forum of philosophy but also a post-Anaxamanderian, post-Spinozian, post-Darwinian, post-Nietzschean, post-Kierkegaardian, post-Derridian, post-Freudian, post-Adlerian, post-Jungian, and post-Gestalt forum as well. Call it a ‘Leap-Frog and Link’ forum of philosophy, or Gap Philosophy, or Gap-Bridging Philosophy, or Dialectical-Gap-Bridging (DGB) Philosophy, or Gap Multi-Integrative-Dialectical Philosophy...these names all aim to describe the same basic idea -- linking opposing philosophies and lifestyles together into a more harmonious multi-integrative-dialectical homeostatic balance.
We are looking for creative, integrative conflict resolutions that bring people together in a spirit of ‘dialectical-democratic unity’, appreciating our unique individual differences and multiple different perspectives -- and in fact embracing these differences as a vital part of our human essence, heritage, and future. As the great psychologist, Carl Jung, has written:
‘The greater the contrast, the greater is the potential. Great energy only comes from great tensions between opposites.’
In every case, the possibilities are contained within the opposites. What is required is their (creative, assertive, compassionate, democratic) interaction, so that the dialectic may be permitted to operate” (towards a successful ‘gap-bridging’ creative-integrative solution/resolution to the particular conflict). Joel Latner, The Gestalt Therapy Book, The Julian Press, 1973. (bracketed extensions mine).
In a world that seems to be rushing back towards the brink of nuclear war again, and in a world where friends, family, and foes alike all tend to take righteous, narcissistic, extremist, ‘either/or’ stances against each other, it would seem that this type of philosophy of ‘tolerance and creative evolutionary harmony of differences’ cannot be expounded, promoted, and applied any time too soon -- or too loudly.
-- David Gordon Bain (DGB), July 1st, 2006.
DGB Editorial Comments on: McCain and Palin vs. Obama and Biden
Last week I heard Joe Biden at his best -- and at his worst -- on the same day.
'Passionate, Down-to-Earth' Joe in one speech. 'Foot in His Mouth' Joe in the next speech. Today I heard 'Passionate, Down-to-Earth Joe' back at his best again. 'Two out of three ain't Bad'. (But -- please, Joe, no more 'foot in mouth' speeches, please, before the election...)
I heard Sarah Palin today also. Sarah Palin still can't seem to distinguish between:
1. 'Narcissistic, Unethical, Top-Heavy, Master-Slave' Capitalism;
2. 'Dialectic-Democratic, Ethical, Win-Win, Top and Bottom Solid' Capitalism;
3. Socialism.
Sarah Palin continues to effectively call Obama a 'socialist' -- instead of an 'Ethical Capitalist' who is trying to 'deconstruct' (dismantle) Top-Heavy, Unethical Capitalism in favor of a more Ethical, Win-Win, Bottom Solid, populist Capitalism where everybody shares a piece of The American Pie more fairly.
That is not 'socialism', Governor Palin. That is ethical, humanistic-existential Capitalism.
Either:
1. You, Governor Palin, do not have the intellect to make this important distinction;
2. And/or you are trying to utilize 'Republican Sophism' (meaning 'smoke and mirrors' -- Obama today used the words 'slash and burn' divisive tactics) to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people -- once again -- in true George Bush-John McCain-Sarah Palin ('GOB' -- Good Old Boy, including one with a lipstick and a skirt on) Exploitive Republican fashion.
Neither possibility makes Sarah Palin look good.
She just keeps churning out the same old, same old, Republican Capitalist stereotypes.
The ones that keep making the richest in America richer,
While impoverishing, manipulating, and exploiting the rest of America.
Sarah Palin and John McCain support Narcissistic, Unethical, Top-Heavy Capitalism at its worst -- the type that leaves the rest of America behind.
Obama and Biden support Ethical, Bottom-Solid, Populist Capitalism at its best.
And that is not Socialism.
And even if Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) trumpeted 'Subsidized, and/or eventual Universal Health Plan' does include some elements of 'humanistic-socialism' in it,
That is still a lot better than Republican Unilateral, Imperialist, Foreign Relations,
And the crash of Narcissistic, Unethical, Top-Heavy Capitalism...
On Wall Street...
With CEOs packing up their multi-million dollar suitcases,
And escaping out the back door.
-- dgb, October 26th, 2008.
'Passionate, Down-to-Earth' Joe in one speech. 'Foot in His Mouth' Joe in the next speech. Today I heard 'Passionate, Down-to-Earth Joe' back at his best again. 'Two out of three ain't Bad'. (But -- please, Joe, no more 'foot in mouth' speeches, please, before the election...)
I heard Sarah Palin today also. Sarah Palin still can't seem to distinguish between:
1. 'Narcissistic, Unethical, Top-Heavy, Master-Slave' Capitalism;
2. 'Dialectic-Democratic, Ethical, Win-Win, Top and Bottom Solid' Capitalism;
3. Socialism.
Sarah Palin continues to effectively call Obama a 'socialist' -- instead of an 'Ethical Capitalist' who is trying to 'deconstruct' (dismantle) Top-Heavy, Unethical Capitalism in favor of a more Ethical, Win-Win, Bottom Solid, populist Capitalism where everybody shares a piece of The American Pie more fairly.
That is not 'socialism', Governor Palin. That is ethical, humanistic-existential Capitalism.
Either:
1. You, Governor Palin, do not have the intellect to make this important distinction;
2. And/or you are trying to utilize 'Republican Sophism' (meaning 'smoke and mirrors' -- Obama today used the words 'slash and burn' divisive tactics) to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people -- once again -- in true George Bush-John McCain-Sarah Palin ('GOB' -- Good Old Boy, including one with a lipstick and a skirt on) Exploitive Republican fashion.
Neither possibility makes Sarah Palin look good.
She just keeps churning out the same old, same old, Republican Capitalist stereotypes.
The ones that keep making the richest in America richer,
While impoverishing, manipulating, and exploiting the rest of America.
Sarah Palin and John McCain support Narcissistic, Unethical, Top-Heavy Capitalism at its worst -- the type that leaves the rest of America behind.
Obama and Biden support Ethical, Bottom-Solid, Populist Capitalism at its best.
And that is not Socialism.
And even if Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) trumpeted 'Subsidized, and/or eventual Universal Health Plan' does include some elements of 'humanistic-socialism' in it,
That is still a lot better than Republican Unilateral, Imperialist, Foreign Relations,
And the crash of Narcissistic, Unethical, Top-Heavy Capitalism...
On Wall Street...
With CEOs packing up their multi-million dollar suitcases,
And escaping out the back door.
-- dgb, October 26th, 2008.
Blowback
I have a number of essays perculating in my head tonight, most of which I hope will surface in the upcoming week. Some deal specifically with American politics. Others are aimed at providing a 'support structure' by which you might better understand my approach to American politics. Perhaps we might distinguish between 'manifest' and 'latent' political essays.
My manifest political essays will deal mainly with Republican, Washington, American, Wall Street, Iraq, and Captalist forensics. I have a certain fascination with the CIA concept of 'blowback' that I have to indulge in, obsess with, twist and turn it until it hurts, cut it out with a scalpal, because I know it is important, and pathological, an unseen cancer or toxic poison growing in the heart of the American Government and the heart of the American people -- it is actually tied up with the American Government 'cheating' on the American people, being dishonest with them, covert about their true intentions, their true activities, what they are doing on distant shores, who they are giving money to and who they are not, who they are giving military arms to, and who they are not -- these kinds of ideas I am pretty darn sure are all tied up to the concept of 'blowback'.
Let no stone be left unturned in your quest for knowledge,
Your demand for truth,
Beware of some people's narcissistic, ulterior motives,
The ones that are not talked about in public,
But that are discussed behind closed doors,
Secret rooms and meeting places,
And then acted upon in private,
You and me won't tell them,
It's very much like 'cheating' on your wife or girlfriend,
Your husband or boyfriend,
One can distinguish between two different 'phases' and/or 'degrees' of 'blowback':
1. 'Tell-tale, warning-sign blowback'; and
2. Collosal, devastating blowback'.
It is easy to call someone 'evil',
But 'evil victimizers' were usually 'victims of evil' first,
Psychoanalysis calls it 'Identification With The Aggressor (The Victimizer),
The logic goes something like this,
'It's better to victimize than to be victimized',
'It's better to be powerful than to be powerless',
The dark side of Nietzsche's 'Will to Power',
From self-empowerment to power over people,
From Democracy to Dictatorship or Unilateralism,
From 'Dialectic-Democracy' back to 'The Master-Slave Relationship',
Calling people 'evil' or 'terrorists' or 'insurgents', or 'extremists',
Eliminates the need to talk about 'blowback',
The American People need to understand blowback,
And what their government is hiding from them,
Democracy -- dialectic-democracy -- between the American Goverment,
And the Amercan People,
Requires Transparency,
Dialectic-Democracy Requires Dialectical Transparency,
Where undemocratic -- collosal -- decisions are not made behind closed doors,
Out of the sight and the ear of the American People,
Military Interventionism into other countries wars,
Where America is not The Peace-Maker,
But the one-sided Military Supplier,
That exasperates already existing wars,
Favoring one nation, while ganging up on the other,
Like a parent that always pampers one child,
While neglecting the other,
This foreign policy tactic needs to be fully and openly discussed,
Debated for its merits -- and potential for pitfalls,
Potential for blowback.
Tell-tale, warning side, blowback,
And then collosal blowback.
9/11.
It is easy to say Bin Laden is evil...
And he is evil,
Bush should never have taken his eye off of Bin Laden,
International law needs to be 'tight' -- and 'right';
Not something that is a 'loose cannon' -- a 'bull in a China Shop' -- and 'wrong'.
Sadaam Hussein didn't 'cause' 9/11.
Iraq didn't 'cause' 9/11.
International law is not something
To be treated by the standard of 'might is right',
International law is not something
For the most powerful to exploit -- on a whim or an impulse,
It's our way or the highway,
'Coalition of the Willing'...
And the rest of you be damned...
International law needs to be 'tight' -- and 'right',
Not invading Iraq
When Bin Laden and the Taliban...
Are in Afghanastan.
Make that 'were' in Afghanastan,
Now in Pakistan.
As U.S. helicopters just today invade Syria.
'Oops, looks like we missed again,
We thought we were still in Iraq,
Or does Bush simply not respect borders...
What is Bush doing now?
From invading Iraq, to invading Pakistan,
And now invading Syria,
When Bin Laden is in Pakistan,
American troops are not respecting borders.
Is there no end to this madness?
Bush is all across the board,
All across the Middle East,
With no focus or international sanity,
All across the board,
Much like McCain's campaign,
Except there are real guns,
And real bombs,
And real missiles,
Going off in different Middle East countries,
With absolutely no international sanction,
The United Nations,
Dismissed on the Unilateral Whim,
Of One Man's Misjudgment,
Or make that the Unilateral Whim,
Of a whole White House gone awry,
A whole Senate gone awry,
Some Covert Philosophical Think Tank's
Thinking Gone Awry,
Bush is now invading Syria,
To get the man,
He should have got in Afghanastan
And who is now in Pakistan,
Before he took his eye off the ball,
And exploited international law,
Exploited International justice.
Iraq was a war crime,
Iraq still is a war crime.
America shouldn't have gone there,
America shouldn't be there.
If Bin Laden didn't go there,
America should never have ever chased him,
Into a country where he wasn't -- there.
America should never have left Afghanastan.
Never left Bin Laden,
Three quarters of the American army,
Disappearing into the Afghanastan dust,
To fight what should be deemed,
An internationally illegal war,
On another distant shore,
Iraq!
And now Syria!
Dr. Strangelove reincarnated!
Take that one to The Supreme Court of America,
And see how far it flies,
Oh, President Bush...
Did you get a 'warrent' to invade Iraq?
How did your logic go again?
Bin Laden, Al Queda, and The Taliban,
All conspired to 'cause' 9/11.
They all live in Afghanastan.
Or at least they all lived in Afghanastan.
Until you chased them into the mountains of Pakistan.
Anybody hear of the word 'containment'?
The most powerful army in the world,
And you couldn't contain Bin Laden?
The mountains of Afghanastan were too intimdating,
To catch the man you were looking for,
You couldn't catch the man who masterminded 9/11,
So you left and chased another man who didn't cause 9/11?
I guess it's easier to catch a man in the deserts of Iraq,
Than it is to catch a man,
In the mountains of Afghanastan.
And now Pakistan.
How did one man ever get so much power?
To just invade new countries at the drop of a hat,
Isn't that how World War ll started?
Creating new wars,
And of course, once we've started a new war,
We will 'stimulate' all sorts of new 'enemies'...
And 'insurgents'...
And 'terrorists'...
To justify the 'new' war.
I call it blowback.
All those innocent American soldiers...
Dead...
All those innocent Iraq civilians...
Dead...
All those mothers and children...
Children who never even had time to lose their innocence...
Dead...
And we won't even talk about the effect of the Iraq war...
On the American economy...
America's enemies are learning how to defeat them?
Just drag them into a long, drawn out war...
Until their economy collapses.
The war that nobody wants to pay for...
The Republican Party wants to have their cake,
And eat it too...
Spend 10 to 20 billion dollars each month in Iraq...
And not raise American taxes...
Who's paying the bill?
Our grandchildren?
And our grandchildren's children?
Assuming the world still exists then...
Who's paying the bill?
Not the Republican Party...
Not the American People...
Just add it to the National Debt.
The Repubican Party says they are going to cut spending...
How about cutting spending in Iraq?
The American People could have had,
All their health care expenses,
Paid for by the American Government...
No, but that would be 'Socialist'...
The American Republican Party has no trouble,
Being Imperialist,
No trouble killing innocent citizens abroad,
No problem raising the death toll of American soldiers,
No trouble raising the national debt load,
No trouble feeding the American...
Military-Industrial Complex,
But they don't want to raise taxes,
Because that kills Republican votes,
They want to spend,
10-20 billion dollars a month in Iraq,
And pretend that nobody has to pay for it,
Just 'Charge it, Please!,
To The American Republican Credit Card,
Or make that The Credit Card of The American People,
Just call it our 'legacy' to the American people,
After we leave...
But don't talk about 'universalizing' subsidized health care,
Cause that would make us look 'Socialist',
That would save lives, and save American misery,
But it's not the 'Republican' thing to do,
We would sooner spend our money in Iraq...
The American Republican Party,
Would sooner spend 10-20 billion dollars,
A month in Iraq...
And call it 'National Security'.
Who created the 'National Insecurity'?
That's like a computer company...
Putting a Trojan Virus into your computer...
And holding a monopoly on the rights,
To the next computer you buy,
They call that sort of stuff,
'Planned Obsolecence'...
This is more like...
'Planned Military Justification'.
For what?
Destroying Sadaam Hussein,
For the man who didn't cause 9/11.
For the man who was supposed to have...
All these 'ready-to-use weapons of mass destruction'...
That never turned out to exist.
What do you call that?
A 'mistake'?
That's a pretty collosal mistake.
That's a lot of blowback.
That's more collosal blowback
Than I hope I will see in the rest of my life.
But somebody's gotta wake up.
Somebody's gotta say 'the king has no clothes on.'
Sadaam Hussein is dead,
But the American Military-Industrial Complex...
Is still rolling on.
Bin Laden is still alive,
One has to start thinking,
If one hasn't already concluded it,
Long before now,
That The American Republican Party,
Wants to keep Bin Laden alive,
Something or someone,
Has to justify...
The American-Military Complex...
Still rolling on...
The Republican Party wants to,
Keep calling it -- 'National Security'...
I call it 'Planned National Insecurity'...
And 'Blowback'.
(For those of you who haven't seen the movie, 'Why We Fight?', I strongly recommend watching it. And then tell me who is talking 'straight'.)
-- dgb, October 25th-26th, 4:28am, modified Sunday afternoon, 4:37pm, October 26th, 2008.
My manifest political essays will deal mainly with Republican, Washington, American, Wall Street, Iraq, and Captalist forensics. I have a certain fascination with the CIA concept of 'blowback' that I have to indulge in, obsess with, twist and turn it until it hurts, cut it out with a scalpal, because I know it is important, and pathological, an unseen cancer or toxic poison growing in the heart of the American Government and the heart of the American people -- it is actually tied up with the American Government 'cheating' on the American people, being dishonest with them, covert about their true intentions, their true activities, what they are doing on distant shores, who they are giving money to and who they are not, who they are giving military arms to, and who they are not -- these kinds of ideas I am pretty darn sure are all tied up to the concept of 'blowback'.
Let no stone be left unturned in your quest for knowledge,
Your demand for truth,
Beware of some people's narcissistic, ulterior motives,
The ones that are not talked about in public,
But that are discussed behind closed doors,
Secret rooms and meeting places,
And then acted upon in private,
You and me won't tell them,
It's very much like 'cheating' on your wife or girlfriend,
Your husband or boyfriend,
One can distinguish between two different 'phases' and/or 'degrees' of 'blowback':
1. 'Tell-tale, warning-sign blowback'; and
2. Collosal, devastating blowback'.
It is easy to call someone 'evil',
But 'evil victimizers' were usually 'victims of evil' first,
Psychoanalysis calls it 'Identification With The Aggressor (The Victimizer),
The logic goes something like this,
'It's better to victimize than to be victimized',
'It's better to be powerful than to be powerless',
The dark side of Nietzsche's 'Will to Power',
From self-empowerment to power over people,
From Democracy to Dictatorship or Unilateralism,
From 'Dialectic-Democracy' back to 'The Master-Slave Relationship',
Calling people 'evil' or 'terrorists' or 'insurgents', or 'extremists',
Eliminates the need to talk about 'blowback',
The American People need to understand blowback,
And what their government is hiding from them,
Democracy -- dialectic-democracy -- between the American Goverment,
And the Amercan People,
Requires Transparency,
Dialectic-Democracy Requires Dialectical Transparency,
Where undemocratic -- collosal -- decisions are not made behind closed doors,
Out of the sight and the ear of the American People,
Military Interventionism into other countries wars,
Where America is not The Peace-Maker,
But the one-sided Military Supplier,
That exasperates already existing wars,
Favoring one nation, while ganging up on the other,
Like a parent that always pampers one child,
While neglecting the other,
This foreign policy tactic needs to be fully and openly discussed,
Debated for its merits -- and potential for pitfalls,
Potential for blowback.
Tell-tale, warning side, blowback,
And then collosal blowback.
9/11.
It is easy to say Bin Laden is evil...
And he is evil,
Bush should never have taken his eye off of Bin Laden,
International law needs to be 'tight' -- and 'right';
Not something that is a 'loose cannon' -- a 'bull in a China Shop' -- and 'wrong'.
Sadaam Hussein didn't 'cause' 9/11.
Iraq didn't 'cause' 9/11.
International law is not something
To be treated by the standard of 'might is right',
International law is not something
For the most powerful to exploit -- on a whim or an impulse,
It's our way or the highway,
'Coalition of the Willing'...
And the rest of you be damned...
International law needs to be 'tight' -- and 'right',
Not invading Iraq
When Bin Laden and the Taliban...
Are in Afghanastan.
Make that 'were' in Afghanastan,
Now in Pakistan.
As U.S. helicopters just today invade Syria.
'Oops, looks like we missed again,
We thought we were still in Iraq,
Or does Bush simply not respect borders...
What is Bush doing now?
From invading Iraq, to invading Pakistan,
And now invading Syria,
When Bin Laden is in Pakistan,
American troops are not respecting borders.
Is there no end to this madness?
Bush is all across the board,
All across the Middle East,
With no focus or international sanity,
All across the board,
Much like McCain's campaign,
Except there are real guns,
And real bombs,
And real missiles,
Going off in different Middle East countries,
With absolutely no international sanction,
The United Nations,
Dismissed on the Unilateral Whim,
Of One Man's Misjudgment,
Or make that the Unilateral Whim,
Of a whole White House gone awry,
A whole Senate gone awry,
Some Covert Philosophical Think Tank's
Thinking Gone Awry,
Bush is now invading Syria,
To get the man,
He should have got in Afghanastan
And who is now in Pakistan,
Before he took his eye off the ball,
And exploited international law,
Exploited International justice.
Iraq was a war crime,
Iraq still is a war crime.
America shouldn't have gone there,
America shouldn't be there.
If Bin Laden didn't go there,
America should never have ever chased him,
Into a country where he wasn't -- there.
America should never have left Afghanastan.
Never left Bin Laden,
Three quarters of the American army,
Disappearing into the Afghanastan dust,
To fight what should be deemed,
An internationally illegal war,
On another distant shore,
Iraq!
And now Syria!
Dr. Strangelove reincarnated!
Take that one to The Supreme Court of America,
And see how far it flies,
Oh, President Bush...
Did you get a 'warrent' to invade Iraq?
How did your logic go again?
Bin Laden, Al Queda, and The Taliban,
All conspired to 'cause' 9/11.
They all live in Afghanastan.
Or at least they all lived in Afghanastan.
Until you chased them into the mountains of Pakistan.
Anybody hear of the word 'containment'?
The most powerful army in the world,
And you couldn't contain Bin Laden?
The mountains of Afghanastan were too intimdating,
To catch the man you were looking for,
You couldn't catch the man who masterminded 9/11,
So you left and chased another man who didn't cause 9/11?
I guess it's easier to catch a man in the deserts of Iraq,
Than it is to catch a man,
In the mountains of Afghanastan.
And now Pakistan.
How did one man ever get so much power?
To just invade new countries at the drop of a hat,
Isn't that how World War ll started?
Creating new wars,
And of course, once we've started a new war,
We will 'stimulate' all sorts of new 'enemies'...
And 'insurgents'...
And 'terrorists'...
To justify the 'new' war.
I call it blowback.
All those innocent American soldiers...
Dead...
All those innocent Iraq civilians...
Dead...
All those mothers and children...
Children who never even had time to lose their innocence...
Dead...
And we won't even talk about the effect of the Iraq war...
On the American economy...
America's enemies are learning how to defeat them?
Just drag them into a long, drawn out war...
Until their economy collapses.
The war that nobody wants to pay for...
The Republican Party wants to have their cake,
And eat it too...
Spend 10 to 20 billion dollars each month in Iraq...
And not raise American taxes...
Who's paying the bill?
Our grandchildren?
And our grandchildren's children?
Assuming the world still exists then...
Who's paying the bill?
Not the Republican Party...
Not the American People...
Just add it to the National Debt.
The Repubican Party says they are going to cut spending...
How about cutting spending in Iraq?
The American People could have had,
All their health care expenses,
Paid for by the American Government...
No, but that would be 'Socialist'...
The American Republican Party has no trouble,
Being Imperialist,
No trouble killing innocent citizens abroad,
No problem raising the death toll of American soldiers,
No trouble raising the national debt load,
No trouble feeding the American...
Military-Industrial Complex,
But they don't want to raise taxes,
Because that kills Republican votes,
They want to spend,
10-20 billion dollars a month in Iraq,
And pretend that nobody has to pay for it,
Just 'Charge it, Please!,
To The American Republican Credit Card,
Or make that The Credit Card of The American People,
Just call it our 'legacy' to the American people,
After we leave...
But don't talk about 'universalizing' subsidized health care,
Cause that would make us look 'Socialist',
That would save lives, and save American misery,
But it's not the 'Republican' thing to do,
We would sooner spend our money in Iraq...
The American Republican Party,
Would sooner spend 10-20 billion dollars,
A month in Iraq...
And call it 'National Security'.
Who created the 'National Insecurity'?
That's like a computer company...
Putting a Trojan Virus into your computer...
And holding a monopoly on the rights,
To the next computer you buy,
They call that sort of stuff,
'Planned Obsolecence'...
This is more like...
'Planned Military Justification'.
For what?
Destroying Sadaam Hussein,
For the man who didn't cause 9/11.
For the man who was supposed to have...
All these 'ready-to-use weapons of mass destruction'...
That never turned out to exist.
What do you call that?
A 'mistake'?
That's a pretty collosal mistake.
That's a lot of blowback.
That's more collosal blowback
Than I hope I will see in the rest of my life.
But somebody's gotta wake up.
Somebody's gotta say 'the king has no clothes on.'
Sadaam Hussein is dead,
But the American Military-Industrial Complex...
Is still rolling on.
Bin Laden is still alive,
One has to start thinking,
If one hasn't already concluded it,
Long before now,
That The American Republican Party,
Wants to keep Bin Laden alive,
Something or someone,
Has to justify...
The American-Military Complex...
Still rolling on...
The Republican Party wants to,
Keep calling it -- 'National Security'...
I call it 'Planned National Insecurity'...
And 'Blowback'.
(For those of you who haven't seen the movie, 'Why We Fight?', I strongly recommend watching it. And then tell me who is talking 'straight'.)
-- dgb, October 25th-26th, 4:28am, modified Sunday afternoon, 4:37pm, October 26th, 2008.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party: Part 5: The Inherent 'Pathology' in McCain's Republican Campaign and 'Idealistic' Vision
A) Preface: Email Feedback From One of My Most Dedicated, Appreciated, and Inspiring Readers Relative to Parts 4 and 5 of 'Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party'
.............................................................
Dave,
'Part 4 starts off great with the detailed descriptions of how you view
yourself as a political philosopher.
This is a great statement..."My biggest disappointment with this election
has been the lack of profound and compelling philosophical substance in the
Republican idealism, and rhetorical ideology." Then when you tell us about a
movie that is available, that offers the wisdom of the Eisenhower dedication
and experiences'. Wilton Seker's shifted realization from within the eyes of
grief is a powerful example of the Bush deceit and destruction. It's also
interesting to hear that McCain seems to have changed, this brings a person
to think about how easy it is for us, as humans, to get caught up in the
race and go so far as sacrificing our core values, beliefs and compassion in
an effort to achieve a particular status or climb higher up the present
ladder...
I smile at your opener for part 5... It's great to read your take on the
Republican campaign errors--- very detailed, clear and what would seem to be
very accurate. I also like how you've listed the four pillar foundations
more clearly. Your morning improvements are noted. It's great how you've
included Eisenhower's farewell speech and the list of credible political
names to support your investigation, although very long, it seems that
you've done your research in order to support your thoughts and opinions.
Feels like a couple more essays that are about to take flight on the web or
beyond.'
-- Noreen, October 24th, 2008.
..............................................................................
B) Introduction
I thought that Part 4 of this series of political 'Faceoff' essays -- Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party would be my last 'kick' at the Republican Party, the Republican 'Can' if you will, before the election.
However, obviously I was mistaken as, within 24 hours, I had 'gushed out' another sequence of thoughts and feelings relative to my overall current 'Anti-Republican sentiment'.
I partly apologize for the length of this essay. However, I wanted the essay to be well supported by other credible, reasonable, insightful, and provocative high-ranking sources. Thus, I have included about 6 outside references from the internet to back up my editorial thesis here.
So, here we go again. I am certainly not against Republican Ideology (Idealism) at its best. If my Republican leader is Dwight Eisenhower, his son John, or John's daughter Susan -- then I am right there in the middle of their particular brand of Republican Ideology and Idealism.
However, I certainly am against Republican Ideology ('Idealism') at its worst -- and this leads us both to Bush's pathological form of Republican Ideology and to McCain's newer 'brand of lipstick' on the 'old Bush Republican Brand'. (Notice, I had to refrain myself from over-using the infamous 'lipstick on a pig' metaphor and, obviously, I only partly succeeded.)
In my mind, it is too late for the McCain-Palin Republicans to recover in this election -- they blew their opportunities, plain and simple. Too much negative and negative-stereotyping pathological political philosophy vs. not enough 'responsible-accountable-ethical' Republican political philosophy. Healthy Republican Idealism can still be found but not on this 2008 corpse of the American Republican Party.
In this essay, we will explore the roots of current 'Pathological Republican Ideology'. This essay is not for the weak of mind, reason, truth, awareness, and 'philosophical digging' -- which might also be called 'philosophical-political forensics'.
Before we start, there is a relationship between 'philosophical-political forensics' and 'blowback' that needs to be fully clarified and understood here.
.......................................................................
Blowback (intelligence)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Manchurian blowback)
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback is a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.[1]
In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informative only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts. In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations.
The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the harmful effects to friendly forces when some weapons are used under certain conditions (for example nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc. used upwind from friendly troops or assets, or a torpedo circling and hitting the firing vessel, etc.). The word is believed to have appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état titled "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953."[2][3]
In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while covert support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.
Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.
......................................................................
Blowback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback may refer to one of the following.
Blowback (intelligence)
Blowback (arms)
Blowback (military) - Negative effects suffered from one's own weapons, such as nuclear fallout blown onto one's own troops or civilian population.
Blowback (book) - a 2000 book on American Empire by Chalmers Johnson ISBN 0805075593.
..............................................................
I heard the term 'blowback' for the first time by Chalmers Johnson (the inspirational CIA analyst) as I tried to digest the full content, quality, substance, and implications of the movie, 'Why We Fight' which I just finished watching. A quick DGB editorial: I saw a 'better' John McCain in this movie than anything I have seen from him on his Repubican campaign -- except perhaps for his Al Smith Dinner Roast Party Comedy Speech where his comedy speech was actually significantly better than Obama's. But that was only one speech.
.................................................................
I am like the 'old fashioned, underdog Lieutenant Columbo' on the old detective series 'Columbo'. In this context, there are many, many political, economic, and military things that I do not understand. However, once I hear or read something, and i deem it to be important, then I will grab it and twist it and tear it to pieces -- not unlike a bulldog or a pitbull or Columbo himself -- until I fully understand the implications, applications, ramifications, and consequences of what i have read or hear. Such is the case here, relative to the term 'blowback' and my current beginning understanding of the term.
Based mainly on what I heard and interpreted Chalmers Johnson as saying, and from their experience relative to the war in Vietnam -- 'too many body bags and imagery of people being blown up, especially women and children, being shown on television and fed back to the American people can be viewed as 'political blowback'. Political blowback is not going to usually be good for the politicians in office who want to continue an ongoing war. If you continue to feed 'war propaganda' to the American people, you are less likely to have the American people 'fall' for this manipulation and exploitation of their fear, because they can see some real, hard-line pictures of what is happening in the war in front of their very faces on tv. If some military-political person tells the American people that war technology has advanced to the stage that we now have 'precision bombing' that hits very precise military targets 100 percent of the time -- and then we see on tv with our own eyes that those supposed military targets were clearly missed, and innocent civilians were killed instead of 'pathological terrorists, insurgents, and/or dictators' -- then how does the American Government look in this kind of an instance?
It's similar to a politician having a sexual affair with a woman (or man) outside of his marriage, and then one day pictures of the affair land on the front page of the National Inquiry, or The New York Times -- this after the politician has been continually denying for days, weeks, or even months, that no such affair every happened....This might be called 'Political-Sexual Blowback'.
I think we all now have an idea of what the term 'Blowback' means...
Philosophical-political forensics investigations may dig up 'political blowback' that the American Government has been hiding from the American people for obvious political reasons. If the American people knew about this 'Blowback', they would not be very happy with their American politicians. This is very much what has happened with Bush and his claims of definitely observed 'weapons of mass destruction'.
On with the essay at hand...
................................................................
C) Ten Inherent Pathologies in McCain's Republican Campaign and 'Idealistic' Vision
1. The first thing that the McCain-led 'New Republicans' did wrong is that they did not separate themselves enough from George Bush, and Bush's Unilateral, Unethical Republican Capitalism and Political Ideology.
2. The second thing that they did wrong is that they focused too much on negative campaigning against Obama.
3. The third thing that they did wrong is that they nominated Governor Sarah Palin as vice-president on the McCain ticket.
4. The fourth thing that they did wrong was that did not create a compelling 21st Century Populist-Ethical Brand and Vision of American Capitalism.
5. The fifth thing that they did wrong is that they -- meaning McCain -- did not separate himself/themselves enough from the American downfalls of Global Capitalism, and a free trade vision that is killing the American manufacturing industry. There is a reason why tariffs are important -- otherwise, all the other countries in the world with very cheap labour forces -- China, India, Mexico...-- are going to conspire to seduce American manufacturing industries away from America and kill the American manufacturing industry -- and thousands and thousands of jobs -- in the process. Cheap foreign labour might be great for corporate profits and great for buyers -- until the 'quality' and even the 'toxicity' of the product comes into question. Not to mention that thousands of American workers are left at home twiddling their thumbs and wondering where there next paycheque is coming.
6. McCain may say that he is a 'maverick' and an 'anti-lobbyist' but that is downright plagerism from Obama's Democratic Capitalist Idealism. The shoe doesn't fit Senator McCain so don't wear it. Maybe you voted to try to stop these 'sub-prime' mortgages, maybe you didn't. The news I heard is that you did -- perhaps even when Obama didn't. Obama is not perfect. He is not quite the 'Messiah' of those first Martin Luther King-like speeches. Obama is a politician too and knows the full voting value of 'political expedience'. Politicians 'flip-flop' -- case closed. Both McCain and Obama have flip-flopped when the 'political weather changed'. Sometimes this is 'philosophical and political evolution'. Sometimes, it is 'moving closer to the votes' -- like in the 'off-shore drilling' example. Still, I give Obama higher marks than you Senator McCain for poltical ethics, integrity, vision, clarity of purpose, rhetorical eloguence, philosophical substance, peaceful foreign relations, and differential unity, harmony, and integrationism. Have I missed anything?
7. Senator McCain, your idealistic view of Capitalism is skewered. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand would both be disgusted by what just happened on Wall Street and to the American people. What you offer to the American people as a whole -- meaning primarily, middle class, working class, America -- is rice and porridge when your unethical -- corrupt -- friends in the Senate and on Wall Steet are dining on Steak and Lobster -- at expensive spa retreats. These CEOs who are completely detached and alienated from the American working class are still the same people (meaning CEOs and lobbyists for CEOs) that pour many thousands if not millions of dollars into your campaign fund. Enough perhaps to make you turn the other way when they 'transgress' on Wall Street while Main Street is financially defrauded, manipulated, exploited, gouged, trashed... Did I leave anything out? Yeah, for sure, Obama is not entirely clean of this debacle as well. But still, I will lay my money on Obama cleaning up this Wall Street debacle and thisSenate-White House-Wall Street Collusion faster and better than either you or your supposed 'anti-lobbyist, Good Old Boy in a Pant Suit maverick' Palin will. Palin has enough trouble keeping her own personal ethics clean let alone America's. Palin may have some rhetorical and charasmatic features to her character but she is in way over her head. Alaska is calling...
8. Let me try briefly to explain a new DGB term: 'Quadra-Dialectic-Democratic Capitalism'
There needs to be a strong working homeostatic and double-dialectic balance between four different sets of people:
1. the American Government;
2. Corporate Leaders and Investors (CEOs, Investors, Wall Street, Management);
3. Corporate Employees (often with the support of Unions);
4. Consuming Customers.
Call these the four pillar foundations of American Capitalism.
If any one of these four groups of American people are unhappy -- and worse, unstable -- then American Capitalism is likely to become destablized or unstablized as a whole. We need all four quadrants of American Capitalism to be strong in order to keep the Capitalist Infrastructure alive, functioning, and stable. If two of these quadrants are 'colluding' -- such as the American Senate, the White House, a particular political party in the goverment, and the lobbyists and/or CEOs for a very powerful mortgaging or banking company -- splitting 90 percent of the American Pie between themselves and leaving only 10 percent left over for the remainin two sectors -- then American Capitalism is going to crumble over a 'bankruptcy' where the CEOs of the company still get very rich, take their money home,and have much, much more than enough to start as many more companies as they want to -- again, at the expense of the middle class and lower class American people. McCain is not my man to fix this problem. Obama is.
9. Regarding alleged Republican 'tax cuts' and 'spending cuts' this is a joke. The McCain Republican Party claims that 'raising taxes' in a 'recession' is not the right thing to do. 'Cutting spending' is. So here is the joke. Money that needs to be poured into American infrastructure and services -- building roads and bridges, building new forms of viable energy supplies, building new schools, building new hospitals, helping to pay for massive medical expenses, helping to subsidize post-secondary education, helping to form 'social safety nets for the elderly, the war veterans, the special needs childen, day care, single mothers and/or dads, the unemployed, the physically and/or mentally and/or pschologically challenged -- all of these badly needed American services and resources, are going to more or less get 'pissed out of the window' because the Republican Party wants to continue to spend 10 to 20 billion dollars a month in Iraq -- a war that America should have never entered into in the first place because even President Bush has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- nor as it turned out -- did they have any 'weapons of mass destruction' that were 'imminanently effecting America's national security. So -- in effect -- the war in Iraq was, and still is, a national fraud played out by the American government on the American people.
In this context, Pastor Jeremy Wright's 'loose-lipped political sermon rampages -- going over the edge and over-associating to be sure, by saying, 'God Damn America' when what he was really trying to say (and please excuse the continuation of the profanity in this context) was 'God Damn The American Imperialist Government That Keeps Making All These Very Nasty Foreign Policy Decisions Abroad and Then Comes Back To The American People Preaching Its Own Brand of Political-Religious Dermons In Which It Makes Its Best Effort To Convince The American People That It's Philosophy Is Perfectly In Line With The Philosophy Of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or Adam Smith or Martin Luther King' -- then and only then, can we perhaps put Jeremy Wright's 'deconstructive' political-religious sermons into their proper context in a spirit that is not 'Anti-American' but rather 'Anti-American-Imperialism'...
The same goes with Madonna's concert imagery comparison of the Republican Party ith German Nazi Imperialism. As Bob Dylan wrote in one of his songs that you can hear in the movie, 'Why We Fight' -- 'It's Not Dark Yet, But Its Getting There...'
Let's see how many politically credible names I can add to support the logistics of the type of 'forensic political-philosophical investigation' we need to undergo -- meaning all of the American people who are brave enough and democratic enough to go here with me in order to unearth the full extent of American Goverment Psycho- and Socio-Pathology:
i. Dwight Eisenhower and his Prophetic Farewell Address that keeps coming back to haunt us like a 'Freddy Krueger Nightmare in Iraq and on Wall Street';
.................................................................
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So was Ike a 60s leftist like Oliver Stone? Note some key elements of Ike's thinking:
Eisenhower didn't believe the Military Industrial Complex was to blame for the Cold War. He laid the blame on communism: "a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method."
Eisenhower felt the Military Industrial Complex was necessary.
Eisenhower felt the influence of the Military Industrial Complex might be "sought or unsought." For 60s leftists, "unsought" power for the Military Industrial Complex was inconceivable.
A principled Republican, Ike was also skeptical of agricultural and research programs fostered by the federal government. He did not consider military industrial interests uniquely insidious, but rather he distrusted government expansion generally.
............................................................
ii. John Eisenhower (son of Dwight Eisenhower)
.......................................................
Eisenhower's son endorses Kerry (2004)
A commentary by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- and another good reminder that some Republicans still believe in age-old principles.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By John Eisenhower
The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3 years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we always have. We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration�s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's Republican Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word Republican has always been synonymous with the word responsibility, which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance. ...
October 3, 2004 at 10:06 PM in Politics | Permalink
............................................................................
iii. Susan Eisenhower (Dwight Eisenhower's grandaughter) (dgb editorial comment: Sound, reasonable thinking seems to be at least partly in the genes...dgb, Oct. 24th, 2008)
................................................................
Susan Eisenhower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan Elaine Eisenhower (born December 31, 1951 in Fort Knox, Kentucky) is a consultant, author, and expert on international security and the relationship between the United States and Russia. She is the daughter of John Eisenhower, and the granddaughter of President Dwight Eisenhower.[1][2] She was married to space scientist Roald Sagdeev,[3] formerly the director of the Russian Space Research Institute. Despite the end of the marriage several years ago, they remain friends and business partners.[4]
Contents
1 Career
2 Publications
3 Endorsement of Barack Obama
4 References
5 External links
6 See also
Career
Susan Eisenhower is President of the Eisenhower Group, Inc, which provides strategic counsel on political, business and public affairs projects. She has consulted for Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies doing business in the emerging markets of the former Soviet Union and for a number of major institutions engaged in the energy field.
She is the Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs & Chairman Emeritus of the Eisenhower Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. and in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania associated with Gettysburg College. Eisenhower served as the president of the Eisenhower Institute twice, and later as Chairman. During that time, she became known for her work in the former Soviet Union and in the energy field.
Eisenhower testified before the Senate Armed Services and Senate Budget Committees on policy toward the region. She was also appointed to the National Academy of Sciences' standing Committee on International Security and Arms Control, where she served for eight years.
In 2000, she was appointed by the United States Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson to the Baker-Cutler Commission, to evaluate U.S.-funded nonproliferation programs in Russia, and since that time she has also served as an advisor to another United States Department of Energy study. She currently sits on the Nuclear Threat Initiative board, co-chaired by Senator Sam Nunn and Ted Turner, the Energy Future Coalition and the US Chamber of Commerce's new Institute for 21st Century Energy. She also serves as an Academic Fellow of the International Peace and Security program of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. She has co-chaired Save America’s Treasures, first with Founding Chair Hillary Rodham Clinton and now with First Lady Laura Bush.
She has provided analysis for CNN International, MSNBC, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, FOX News, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Hardball with Chris Matthews, One on One with John McLaughlin, the BBC, and all three network morning programs. Over the years she has appeared on many other programs including Nightline, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, This Week with David Brinkley, and CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Kuralt.
Eisenhower has also been seen as a "talking head" on many TV programs and documentaries, including Oliver North's War Stories, Sony Pictures Why We Fight (2005 film) and, most recently, Sputnik Mania.
She has received four honorary doctorates, most recently from the Monterey Institute, where she was cited for her work on nuclear non-proliferation. Ms. Eisenhower received the 2008 Dolibois History Prize from Miami University.[5]
Publications
Eisenhower has written extensively on nuclear and space issues and in 2000, she co-edited a book, Islam and Central Asia, which carried the prescient subtitle, An Enduring Legacy or an Evolving Threat?[5] She is the author of three books: Breaking Free, Mrs. Ike, and Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War. She has also edited four collected volumes on regional security issues - the most recent - Partners in Space (2004), which was also published in Russia by Nayuk, the publishing house of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She has written chapters for a number of collected volumes and penned hundreds of op-eds and articles on foreign and domestic policy for publications such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, United States Naval Institute's Proceedings, The Spectator, and Gannett Newspapers, as well as the National Interest and Politique Americaine.[5]
Endorsement of Barack Obama
Although a lifelong member of the Republican Party, Eisenhower endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States in 2008.[6][7][8] Eisenhower announced on August 21, 2008 that she was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent.[9]
She spoke on the final day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Her speech was delivered at INVESCO Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado, and began with, "I stand before you tonight not as a Republican or a Democrat, but as an American." [10] The full transcript of her remarks as delivered [11] are on her official website www.SusanEisenhower.com,as well as video of her remarks at the Convention. [12]
[edit] References
^ Biography of Susan Eisenhower. - Save America's Treasures
^ Susan Eisenhower. - National Public Radio
^ "Leadership in Conflict". - Samford University
^ [1]--Susan Eisenhower's official website.
^ a b c Susan Eisenhower, Chairman Emeritus. - The Eisenhower Institute
^ Susan Eisenhower - Why I'm Backing Obama. - Washington Post
^ Julie Nixon and Susan Eisenhower back Barack Obama. - Daily Telegraph
^ Ike's Granddaughter Calls Obama 'Future of America'. - Washington Independent
^ Reflections on Leaving the Party. - The National Interest
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Video of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
External links
The Official Website of Susan Eisenhower
..........................................................................
iv. Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karen Kwiatkowski
24 Sept 1960-
Kwiatkowski during an interview in Honor Betrayed
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Air Force
Years of service 1978–2003
Rank Lieutenant Colonel
Unit Near East/South Asia and Special Plans
Other work A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine.
Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Colonel Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard and an MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska. She has a PhD in World Politics from Catholic University; her thesis was on overt and covert war in Angola, A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine. She has also published two books about U.S. policy towards Africa: African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001).[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Career
2 Quotations
3 Articles
4 Books
5 Anonymous essays 2002-2003
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
Career
Raised in western North Carolina, Kwiatkowski began her military career in 1982 as a second lieutenant. She served at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, providing logistical support to missions along the Chinese and Russian coasts. She also served in Spain and Italy. Kwiatkowski was then assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually becoming a speechwriter for the agency's director. After leaving the NSA in 1998 she became an analyst on sub-Saharan Africa policy for the Pentagon. Kwiatkowski was in her office in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. From May 2002 to February 2003 she served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia directorate (NESA).[2] While at NESA, she wrote a series of anonymous articles, Insider Notes from the Pentagon which appeared on the website of David Hackworth.[3]
Kwiatkowski left NESA in February 2003 and retired from the Air Force the following month. In April 2003 she began writing a series of articles for the libertarian website LewRockwell.com. In June of that year she published an article in the Ohio Beacon Journal, "Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon,"[4] which attracted additional notice. Since February 2004 she has written a biweekly column ("Without Reservations") for the website MilitaryWeek.
Her most comprehensive writings on the subject of a corrupting influence of the Pentagon on intelligence analysis leading up to the Iraq War appeared in a series of articles in The American Conservative magazine in December 2003 and in a March 2004 article on Salon.com. In the latter piece ("The New Pentagon Papers") she wrote:
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
Kwiatkowski described how a clique of officers led by retired Navy Captain Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA and former aide to Dick Cheney when the latter was Secretary of Defense, took control of military intelligence and how the "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) grew and eventually turned into a censorship and disinformation organism controlling the NESA.[5]
Following the American Conservative and Salon articles, Kwiatkowski began to receive criticism from several conservative sources that supported President Bush's policies. Michael Rubin of the National Review argued she had exaggerated her knowledge of the OSP's workings and claimed she had ties to Lyndon LaRouche.[6] Republican U.S. Senator John Kyl criticized her in a speech on the Senate floor.[7] On a Fox News program, host John Gibson and former Republican National Committee communications director Clifford May described her as an anarchist.[8] Kwiatkowski responded by saying, among other points, that she had never supported or dealt with LaRouche.[9] She requested and received a written apology from Senator John Kyl for his false statements about her.[citation needed]
In addition to her writings Kwiatkowski has appeared as a commentator in the documentaries Hijacking Catastrophe, Honor Betrayed and Why We Fight. She has been a registered member of the U.S. Libertarian Party since 1994 and spoke at the party's national convention in 2004.[10] She is also a member of the Liberty and Power group weblog at the History News Network. Kwiatkowski currently lives with her family in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and works part-time as a farmer.
Kwiatkowski has been widely seen as an attractive Libertarian presidential candidate,[11][12] especially given her military background and outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. In April 2006, Kwiatkowski received the New Hampshire Libertarian Party's 2008 vice-presidential nomination (the Libertarian Party chooses presidential and vice-presidential nominees on separate ballot, and campaigns for the two positions are often independent).[13][14] In 2007, she announced her support for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. [15]
[edit] Quotations
"I came to share with many NSA colleagues a kind of unease, a sense that something was awry. What seemed out of place was the strong and open pro-Israel and anti-Arab orientation in an ostensibly apolitical policy-generation staff within the Pentagon."[16]
"Why we fight? I think we fight 'cause too many people are not standing up, saying 'I'm not doing this any more.'"
"If you join the United States military now, you are not defending the United States of America; you are helping certain policy-makers pursue an imperial agenda."
"At the end of the summer of 2002, new space had been found upstairs on the fifth floor for an "expanded Iraq desk." It would be called the Office of Special Plans. We were instructed at a staff meeting that this office was not to be discussed or explained, and if people in the Joint Staff, among others, asked, we were to offer no comment. We were also told that one of the products of this office would be talking points that all desk officers would use verbatim in the preparation of their background documents."
"By August, only the Pollyannas at the Pentagon felt that the decision to invade Iraq, storm Baghdad, and take over the place (or give it to Ahmad Chalabi) was reversible."
"It wasn't intelligence — it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."[17]
"Interestingly, the Downing Street memo is actually being reported by CNN and FOX News. It is being discussed in the major papers. Congress intends to examine it. Hearing it mentioned on the half hour by CNN Headline News has not dispossessed me of the belief that a state suicide is impossible. Thus, my gentle thoughts are increasingly turning to murder. Murder of the state. In self-defense, of course!"[18]
"We have a Congress that failed in every way to ask the right questions, to hold the President to account. Our Congress failed us miserably, and that's because many in Congress are beholden to the Military Industrial Complex."
"The reason we're in Iraq first off has not honestly been told to the American people; it certainly had nothing to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was never part of the agenda and it's not part of the agenda now."
Articles
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2007-01-15). "Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine". LewRockwell.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18.
Books
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2000). African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) past, present, and future?. Peacekeeping Institute, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College.
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2001-10-01). Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions. ISBN 978-1585661008.
Griffin, David Ray; Peter Dale Scott (2006-08-23). 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1. Karen Kwiatkowski: Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-1566566599.
Anonymous essays 2002-2003
Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski's anonymous essays while still at the Pentagon. (Anonymous essays number 1 to 39)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Ready to go to war?, January 31, 2003. (Anonymous essay number 40)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Fear of God, February 3, 2003. (No.41)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Life is Tough All Over, February 8, 2003. (No.42)
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love CBW, March 10, 2003. (No.47)
The Souffle has Fallen, March 29, 2003. (No.49)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Those Awful Turks, May 28, 2003. (No.51)
References
^ militaryweek.com
^ mcsweeneys.net
^ lewrockwell.com
^ mindfully.org
^ commondreams.org
^ nationalreview.com
^ rpc.senate.gov
^ defenddemocracy.org
^ nathancallahan.com
^ lp.org
^ knappster.blogspot.com
^ politics1.com politics1.com
^ smallgov.org
^ phillies2008.org
^ Academics for Ron Paul
^ amconmag.com
^ motherjones.com
^ lewrockwell.com
See also
The Oil Factor
[edit] External links
Liberty and Power Group Blog
Karen Kwiatkowski, entry on SourceWatch
Center for Cooperative Research Profile of Karen Kwiatkowski
The New Pentagon Papers, an article by Kwiatkowski that appeared on Salon.Com
Archive of articles by Karen Kwiatkowski on LewRockwell.Com
List of articles on militaryweek.com
"Conscientious Objector", an article by Kwiatkowski, originally appearing in The American Conservative
Honor Betrayed page on veteransforpeace.org
The Pentagon Insider Who Spread Rumors that Sounded Anti-Semitic by Edwin Black appearing on History News Network
Web of Conspiracies by Michael Rubin appearing on National Review Online
Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear, and the Selling of American Empire
Democracy Now, September 10, 2004 Hijacking Catastrophe
Democracy Now, October 22, 2004 The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
Karen Kwiatkowski's 2002-2003 archives Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon
Knight Ridder News, July 31, 2003 Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon
Inter Press Service, August 5, 2003 War Critics Zero In on Pentagon Office
Inter Press Service, August 7, 2003 Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network
If Americans Knew, December 1, 2003 Israelis walked through the Pentagon to Feith's office like they owned the place
Interhemispheric Resource Center, February 12, 2004 Office of Special Plans
Inter Press Service, October 28, 2005 A Formidable Hawk Goes Down
Mother Jones, January 2004 The Lie Factory
Democracy Now, December 18, 2003 The Lie Factory - Neocons & the OSP Pushed Disinformation and Bogus Intelligence
In These Times, April 12, 2004 Outside the Inside
In These Times, October 24, 2004 The Bush team’s foreign policy disregarded reality and ignored actuality
Democracy Now, August 8, 2003 Ex-Pentagon Official Suggests Bush Administration Should Face War Crimes Tribunal
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, November 2, 2003 Pentagon Whistle Blower
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, May 22, 2004 An Insider's Look at the March to War
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, September 21, 2004 Timothy McSweeney
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, June 16, 2005 Daily Kos
Ten questions and answers, with Karen Kwiatkowski, October 25, 2005 Unknown News
Daily Kos Karen Kwiatkowski
After Downing Street, June 16, 2005 Written Testimony of Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski's video interview California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Democracy Now, June 29, 2005 Former Pentagon Insider Blasts Bush's Iraq Speech and Repeated References to 9/11
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews on The Charles Goyette Show
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews The Weekend Interview Show with Scott Horton
Brian Lamb. Karen discusses her service in the Air Force, Pentagon & more C-SPAN, April 2, 2006.
Karen Kwiatkowski's radio show American Forum
Interview With Kwiatkowski: Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski on Liberty Cap Talk Live with Todd Andrew Barnett
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski"
Categories: 1960 births | Living people | American columnists | American foreign policy writers | American libertarians | American anti-Iraq War activists | Harvard University alumni | People from North Carolina | United States Air Force officers | Women in the United States Air Force | Members of the Libertarian Party (United States) | Anarcho-capitalists | American anti-war activists | American whistleblowers
This page was last modified on 18 September 2008, at 19:14. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.......................................................................
v. Chalmers Johnson
...................................................
Chalmers Johnson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chalmers Ashby Johnson (born 1931) is an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He is also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia. He has written numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 The Blowback trilogy
3 Bibliography
4 Footnotes
5 External links
Biography
Johnson was born in 1931 in Phoenix, Arizona. He earned a B.A. degree in Economics in 1953 and a M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science in 1957 and 1961 respectively. All of his degrees were from the University of California, Berkeley. During the Korean War, Johnson served as a naval officer in Japan. He taught political science at the University of California from 1962 until he retired from teaching in 1992. He was best known early in his career for scholarship about China and Japan.
Johnson set the agenda for ten or fifteen years in social science scholarship on China with his book on peasant nationalism. His book MITI and the Japanese Miracle, on the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry was the preeminent study of the country's development and created the bustling subfield of what could be called the political economy of development. He coined the term "developmental state." As a public intellectual, he first led the "Japan revisionists" who critiqued American neoliberal economics with Japan as a model, but also attacked Japan for protectionism. During this period, Johnson acted as a consultant for the Office of National Estimates, part of the CIA, contributing to analysis of China and Maoism.[1]
Johnson was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1976. He served as Director of the Center for Chinese Studies and Chair of the Political Science Department at Berkeley, and held a number of important academic posts in area studies. He was a strong believer in the importance of language and historical training for doing serious research. Late in his career he became well known as a critic of "rational choice" approaches, particularly in the study of Japanese politics and political economy.
Johnson is today best known as a sharp critic of American imperialism. His book Blowback won a prize in 2001 from the Before Columbus Foundation, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment and Nemesis concludes the trilogy. Johnson was featured in the Eugene Jarecki-directed film Why We Fight, which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In the past, Johnson has also written for the Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, Harper’s Magazine, and The Nation
The Blowback trilogy
Johnson believes the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, Johnson experienced a political awakening after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy.
Bibliography
Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (1962) (ISBN 0-8047-0074-5)
An Instance of Treason: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring (1964; expanded in 1990)
Change in Communist Systems (1970), By Jeremy R. Azrael, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-8047-0723-5
Conspiracy at Matsukawa (1972)
Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China (1973) By John Israel, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-2959-5247-4
Japan's Public Policy Companies (1978) ISBN 0-8447-3272-9
Revolutionary Change (1982) ISBN 0-316-46730-8
MITI and the Japanese Miracle (1982)
The Industrial Policy Debate (1984) ISBN 0-9176-1665-0
Politics and productivity: the real story of why Japan works (1989) By Chalmers A. Johnson, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, ISBN 0-8873-0350-1
Japan: Who Governs? -- The Rise of the Developmental State (1995)
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000, rev. 2004) ISBN 0-8050-6239-4
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (2004) ISBN 0-8050-7004-4
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2007) ISBN 0-8050-7911-4
Footnotes
^ Nic Paget-Clarke, 2004, "Interview with Chalmers Johnson Part 2. From CIA Analyst to Best-Selling Scholar" (In Motion Magazine). Access date: December 5, 2007.
External links
A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States by Chalmers Johnson (from Harper's Magazine)
Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door by Chalmers Johnson
Blowback Chalmers Johnson essay from The Nation
Cold Warrior in a Strange Land Tom Engelhardt interviews Chalmers Johnson
Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson on Democracy Now! February 27 2007
Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?
Audio: Our Own Worst Enemy
Audio: Is America on the brink of destruction through imperial over-reach?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson"
........................................................................
Chalmers Johnson: “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic”
In his new book, CIA analyst, distinguished scholar, and best-selling author Chalmers Johnson argues that US military and economic overreach may actually lead to the nation’s collapse as a constitutional republic. It’s the last volume in his Blowback trilogy, following the best-selling “Blowback” and “The Sorrows of Empire.” In those two, Johnson argued American clandestine and military activity has led to un-intended, but direct disaster here in the United States.
.........................................................................
vi. Michael Moore
....................................................................
Michael Moore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other persons named Michael Moore, see Michael Moore (disambiguation).
Michael Moore
Michael Moore in 2004
Born Michael Francis Moore
April 23, 1954 (1954-04-23) (age 54)
Davison, Michigan[1][2]
Occupation director, screenwriter, producer, actor
Years active 1989 - present
Spouse(s) Kathleen Glynn (1991-)
Official website
[show]Awards won
Academy Awards
Best Documentary Feature
2002 Bowling for Columbine
César Awards
Best Foreign Film
2002 Bowling for Columbine
Emmy Awards
Outstanding Informational Series
1995 TV Nation
Other awards
Golden Palm (Palme d'Or)
2004 Fahrenheit 9/11
Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an Academy Award-winning American filmmaker, author, and liberal political commentator. He is the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, three of the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time.[3][4] In September 2008, he released his first free movie on the Internet, Slacker Uprising, documenting his personal crusade to encourage more Americans to vote in presidential elections. [5] He has also written and starred in the TV shows TV Nation and The Awful Truth, both of which continue his trademark style of presenting serious documentaries in humorous ways.
Moore is a self-described liberal[6] who has explored globalization, large corporations, gun ownership, the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[7] In 2005, Moore started the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. In 2008, he closed his Manhattan office and moved it to Traverse City, where he is working on his new film.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Early life
1.2 Post-school career
1.3 2004
1.4 Acting career
1.5 Marriage
1.6 Religion
2 Directing
2.1 Films and awards
2.2 Television shows
2.3 Music videos
2.4 Appearances in other documentaries
3 Writings and political views
4 Controversy
5 Published work
5.1 Bibliography
5.2 Filmography
5.3 Television
6 References
7 External links
Biography
Early life
Moore was born in Davison[1] a suburb of Flint, Michigan to parents Veronica, a secretary, and Frank Moore, an automotive assembly-line worker.[9] At that time, the city of Flint was home to many General Motors factories, where his parents and grandfather worked. His uncle was one of the founders of the United Automobile Workers labor union and participated in the Flint Sit-Down Strike. Moore has described his parents as "Irish Catholic Democrats, basic liberal good people."[10]
Moore was brought up Roman Catholic and attended St. John's Elementary School for primary school.[11][12] He then attended Davison High School, where he was active in both drama and debate,[13] graduating in 1972. At the age of 18, he was elected to the Davison school board.[14]
Post-school career
After dropping out of the University of Michigan-Flint (where he wrote for the student newspaper The Michigan Times) and working for a day at the General Motors plant,[15] at 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The Flint Voice, which soon changed its name to The Michigan Voice as it expanded to cover the entire state, which Moore later regretted[citation needed]. In 1986, when Moore became the editor of Mother Jones, a liberal political magazine, he moved to California and The Michigan Voice was shut down.
After four months at Mother Jones, Moore was fired. Matt Labash claims this was for refusing to print an article by Paul Berman that was critical of the Sandinista human rights record in Nicaragua. According to the story, Moore stated that he would not run the article because Ronald Reagan "could easily hold it up, saying, 'See, even Mother Jones agrees with me.'"[16] Berman described Moore as a "very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy" when asked about the incident.[17] Moore claims that Mother Jones actually fired him because of the publisher's refusal to allow him to cover a story on the GM plant closings in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. He responded by putting laid-off GM worker Ben Hamper (who was also writing for the same magazine at the time) on the magazine's cover, leading to his termination. Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger & Me.[18]
2004
Moore was a high-profile guest at both the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the 2004 Republican National Convention, chronicling his impressions in USA Today. He was criticized in a speech by Republican Senator John McCain as "a disingenuous film-maker." Moore laughed and waved as Republican attendees jeered, later chanting "Four more years." Moore gestured his thumb and finger at the crowd, which translates into "loser."[19]
During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to young people who promised to vote. This provoked public denunciations from the Michigan Republican Party and attempts to convince the government that Moore should be arrested for buying votes, but since Moore did not tell the "slackers" involved for whom to vote, just to vote, district attorneys refused to get involved. The "Underwear" tour was a popular success. Quite possibly the most controversial stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah. A fight for his right to speak ensued and resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. Death threats, bribes and lawsuits followed. The event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[20]
Acting career
He has also dabbled in acting, following a 2000 supporting role in Lucky Numbers as the cousin of Lisa Kudrow's character, who agrees to be part of the scheme concocted by John Travolta's character. He also had a cameo in his Canadian Bacon as an anti-Canada activist. In 2004, he did a cameo, as a news journalist, in The Fever, starring Vanessa Redgrave in the lead.
Marriage
Since 1990, Moore has been married to producer Kathleen Glynn,[21] with whom he has a stepdaughter named Natalie. They live in New York City and spend quite a bit of time in Traverse City, Michigan.
Religion
Moore describes himself as a Catholic.[22][23]
Directing
Films and awards
Moore's most recent film, Sicko, released in 2007.
At the Cannes Film Festival Roger & Me
Moore first became famous for his controversial 1989 film, Roger & Me, a documentary about what happened to Flint, Michigan after General Motors closed its factories and opened new ones in Mexico, where the workers were paid much less. Since then Moore has been known as a critic of the neoliberal view of globalization. "Roger" is Roger B. Smith, former CEO and president of General Motors.
Canadian Bacon
In 1995, Moore released a satirical film, Canadian Bacon, which features a fictional US president (played by Alan Alda) engineering a fake war with Canada in order to boost his popularity. It is noted for containing a number of Canadian and American stereotypes, and for being Moore's only non-documentary film. The film is also one of the last featuring Canadian-born actor John Candy, and also features a number of cameos by other Canadian actors. In the film, several potential enemies for America's next great campaign are discussed by the president and his cabinet. (The scene was strongly influenced by the Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove.) The President comments that declaring war on Canada was as ridiculous as declaring war on international terrorism. His military adviser, played by Rip Torn, quickly rebuffs this idea, saying that no one would care about "...a bunch of guys driving around blowing up rent-a-cars".
The Big One
In 1997, Moore directed The Big One, which documents the tour publicizing his book Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American, in which he criticizes mass layoffs despite record corporate profits. Among others, he targets Nike for outsourcing shoe production to Indonesia.
Bowling for Columbine
Moore's 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, probes the culture of guns and violence in the United States, taking as a starting point the Columbine High School massacre of 1999. Bowling for Columbine won the Anniversary Prize at the Cannes Film Festival and France's Cesar Award as the Best Foreign Film. In the United States, it won the 2002 Academy Award for Documentary Feature. It also enjoyed great commercial and critical success for a film of its type and became, at the time, the highest-grossing mainstream-released documentary (a record later held by Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11). It was praised by some for illuminating a subject slighted by the mainstream media, but it was attacked by others who claim it is inaccurate and misleading in its presentations and suggested interpretations of events.
Fahrenheit 9/11
Fahrenheit 9/11 examines America in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, particularly the record of the Bush administration and alleged links between the families of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Fahrenheit was awarded the Palme d'Or, the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival; it was the first documentary film to win the prize since 1956. Moore later announced that Fahrenheit 9/11 would not be in consideration for the 2005 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, but instead for the Academy Award for Best Picture. He stated he wanted the movie to be seen by a few million more people, preferably on television, by election day. Since November 2 was less than nine months after the film's release, it would be disqualified for the Documentary Oscar. Moore also said he wanted to be supportive of his "teammates in non-fiction film." However, Fahrenheit received no Oscar nomination for Best Picture. The title of the film alludes to the classic book Fahrenheit 451 about a future totalitarian state in which books are banned; according to the book, paper begins to burn at 451 degrees Fahrenheit. The pre-release subtitle of the film confirms the allusion: "The temperature at which freedom burns." At the box office, Fahrenheit 9/11 remains the highest-grossing documentary of all time, taking in close to US$200 million worldwide, including United States box office revenue of US$120 million.
Sicko
Moore directed this film about the American health care system, focusing particularly on the managed-care and pharmaceutical industries. At least four major pharmaceutical companies—Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline—ordered their employees not to grant any interviews to Moore.[24][25][26] According to Moore on a letter at his website, "roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas – and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with have caused some minor delays." The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on 19 May 2007, receiving a lengthy standing ovation, and was released in the U.S. and Canada on 29 June 2007.[27] The film was the subject of some controversy when it became known that Moore went to Cuba with chronically ill September 11th rescue workers to shoot parts of the film. The United States is looking into whether this violates the trade embargo. The film is currently ranked the third highest grossing documentary of all time[28] and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.[29]
Captain Mike Across America [30]
Moore takes a look at the politics of college students in what he calls "Bush Administration America" with this film shot during Moore's 60-city college campus tour in the months leading up to the 2004 election.[31][32] The film was later re-edited by Moore into Slacker Uprising.
Television shows
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
Between 1994 and 1995, he directed and hosted the BBC television series TV Nation, which followed the format of news magazine shows but covered topics they avoid. The series aired on BBC2 in the UK. The series was also aired in the US on NBC in 1994 for 9 episodes and again for 8 episodes on FOX in 1995.
His other major series was The Awful Truth, which satirized actions by big corporations and politicians. It aired on Channel 4 in the UK, and the Bravo network in the US, in 1999 and 2000.
Another 1999 series, Michael Moore Live, was aired in the UK only on Channel 4, though it was broadcast from New York. This show had a similar format to The Awful Truth, but also incorporated phone-ins and a live stunt each week.
In 1999 Moore won the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in Arts and Entertainment, for being the executive producer and host of The Awful Truth, where he was also described as "muckraker, author and documentary filmmaker".
Music videos
Moore has directed several music videos, including two for Rage Against the Machine for songs from "The Battle of Los Angeles": "Sleep Now in the Fire" and "Testify". He was threatened with arrest during the shooting of "Sleep Now in the Fire", which was filmed on Wall Street; the city of New York had denied the band permission to play there, although the band and Moore had secured a federal permit to perform.[33]
He also directed video for "R.E.M." single "All the Way to Reno (You're Gonna Be a Star)" in 2001. In 2003 Moore directed a video for "System of a Down" song "Boom!".
Appearances in other documentaries
Moore appeared in The Drugging of Our Children,[34] a 2005 documentary about over-prescription of psychiatric medication to children and teenagers, directed by Gary Null a proponent of Alternative Medicine. In the film Moore agrees with Gary Null that Ritalin and other similar drugs are over-prescribed, saying that they are seen as a "pacifier".
Moore appeared on fellow Flint natives Grand Funk Railroad's edition of Behind The Music.
Moore appeared as an off-camera interviewer in Blood in the Face, a 1991 documentary about white supremacy groups. The film centers around a neo-Nazi gathering in Michigan.[35]
Moore appeared in The Yes Men, a 2003 documentary about two men who pose as the World Trade Organization. He appears during a segment concerning working conditions in Mexico and Latin America.
Moore was interviewed for the 2004 documentary, The Corporation. One of his highlighted quotes was: "The problem is the profit motive: for corporations, there's no such thing as 'enough'".[36]
Moore appeared briefly in Alex Jones's 2005 film Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State. Jones asks Moore why he did not mention some of the information regarding the September 11 attacks in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, in particular, why he did not explain why NORAD stood down on that day. Moore replied, "Because it would be Un-American."
Moore featured prominently in the 2005 documentary This Divided State, which followed the heated level of controversy surrounding his visit to a conservative city in the United States two weeks before the 2004 election.
Moore appeared in the 2006 documentary I'm Going to Tell You a Secret, which chronicles Madonna during her 2004 Re-Invention World Tour. Moore attended her show in New York City at Madison Square Garden.
Writings and political views
Though Moore rejects the label "political activist,"[37] he has been active in promoting his political views. According to John Flesher of the Associated Press, Moore is known for his "fiery left-wing populism."[38]
Moore has authored three best-selling books:
Downsize This! (1996), about politics and corporate crime in the United States,
Stupid White Men (2001), ostensibly a critique of American domestic and foreign policy but, by Moore's own admission, "a book of political humor,"[39] and
Dude, Where's My Country? (2003), an examination of the Bush family's relationships with Saudi royalty, the Bin Laden family, and the energy industry, and a call-to-action for liberals in the 2004 election.
Despite having supported Ralph Nader in 2000, Moore urged Nader not to run in the 2004 election so as not to split the left vote. (Moore joined Bill Maher on the latter's television show in kneeling before Nader to plead with him to stay out of the race.) In June 2004, Moore claimed he is not a member of the Democratic party. Although Moore endorsed General Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination on January 14, Clark withdrew from the primary race on February 11. Moore drew attention when charging publicly that Bush was AWOL during his service in the National Guard (see George W. Bush military service controversy).
With the 2004 election over, Moore continues to collect information on the war in Iraq and the Bush administration in addition to his film projects. On several occasions during 2007, he called for Al Gore to run for President.
On April 21, 2008, Moore endorsed Barack Obama for President, claiming that Clinton's recent actions had been "disgusting."[40]
Controversy
Main article: Michael Moore controversies
Moore has been at the center of several controversies, mostly as a result of his political views and directing style.
Published work
Bibliography
Moore, Michael (1996). Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060977337.
Moore, Michael; Glynn, Kathleen (1998). Adventures In A TV Nation. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060988096.
Moore, Michael (2002). Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!. New York: Regan Books. ISBN 0060392452.
Moore, Michael (2003). Dude, Where's My Country?. New York: Warner Books. ISBN 0446532231.
Moore, Michael (2004). Will They Ever Trust Us Again?. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743271521.
Moore, Michael (2004). The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743272927.
Moore, Michael (2008). Mike's Election Guide 2008. New York: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0446546275.
Filmography
Roger & Me (1989)
Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint (1992) (TV)
Canadian Bacon (1995)
The Big One (1997)
And Justice for All (1998) (TV)
Lucky Numbers (2000) (as actor)
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) "Palme d'Or" in Cannes
Sicko (2007)
Captain Mike Across America (2007)
Slacker Uprising (2008)
Television
TV Nation (1994)
The Awful Truth (1999)
Michael Moore Live (1999)
References
^ a b New York Times profile
^ Michael Moore - MSN Encarta
^ Allmovie (2007). "Michael Moore filmography". Allmovie. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ "Documentary Movies". Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-12.
^ "Michael Moore releases Slacker Uprising for free on Net". www.meeja.com.au (2008-09-24). Retrieved on 2008-09-24.
^ Michael Moore (2006-11-14). "A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives". Michael Moore.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-21.
^ Joel Stein. "Michael Moore: The Angry Filmmaker", Time. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Rick Coates (2008). "Northern Michigan's film industry from Michael Moore's perspective". Northern Express. Retrieved on 2008-07-21.
^ "Michael Moore Biography (1954-)". Film Reference. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Ron Sheldon (23 September 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation", People's Weekly World. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Richard Knight, Jr. (2007-06-27). "To Your Health: A Talk with Sicko's Michael Moore", Windy City Media Group. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
^ Primeau, François. American Dissident, Lulu Press, 2007.
^ Gary Strauss (June 20, 2004). "The truth about Michael Moore". USA Today. Retrieved on 2006–07–09.
^ MichaelMoore.com: The Day I Was To be Tarred and Feathered
^ Ron Sheldon (September 23, 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation". People's Weekly World.
^ Emily Schultz, Michael Moore: A Biography, Ecw Press, 2005. Pg 47-54.
^ Paul Mulshine. "A Stupid White Man and a Smart One". Newark Star Ledger, March 3, 2003
^ Matt Labash. "Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony". The Weekly Standard. June 8, 1998
^ Delegates relish McCain jab at filmmaker Moore CNN.com. 31 August 2006.
^ This Divided State official website. Accessed 9 July 2006.
^ IMDb, Kathleen Glynn
^ Rahner, Mark (2007-06-26). ""Sicko," new Michael Moore film, takes on the health-care system", The Seattle Times. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ Elliott, David (2007-06-29). "Moral outrage, humor make up Michael Moore's one-two punch", SignOnSanDiego. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ The Philadelphia Inquirer: Inqlings | Michael Moore takes on Glaxo. Michael Klein, 30 September 2005. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ Common Dreams News Center: Drug Firms are on the Defense as Filmmaker Michael Moore Plans to Dissect Their Industry. Original Article - Elaine Dutka, L.A. Times, December 22, 2004. Archive accessed August 09, 2006
^ Chicago Tribune: Michael Moore turns camera onto health care industry. Bruce Japsen, 3 October 2004. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ CBC Sicko to have unofficial premiere at Democratic fundraiser May 26, 2007. URL accessed October 14, 2007.
^ "Documentary Movies". Genres. Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ "Shortlist for docu Oscar unveiled". The Hollywood Reporter (2007-11-20). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ Captain Mike at the Internet Movie Database
^ "Toronto International Film Festival". Retrieved on 2007–09–07.
^ Captain Mike Across America (2007)
^ Green Left Weekly: Rage against Wall Street. Michael Moore, via MichaelMoore.com, date unspecified. URL accessed 9 July 2006.
^ "The Drugging of Our Children". at the Internet Movie Database
^ Blood in the Face at the Internet Movie Database Moore details his involvement in the audio commentary on the Roger & Me DVD.
^ "Who's Who". The Corporation Film.
^ "'I am the balance', says Moore". Minneapolis Star Tribune. South Florida Sun-Sentinel (4 July 2007). Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "Moore rejects the label "political activist"; as a citizen of a democracy, Moore insists, such a description is redundant."
^ Flesher, John (16 June 2007). "Hollywood meets Bellaire as Moore gives sneak peek of "Sicko"". Associated Press. MichaelMoore.com. Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "But the filmmaker, known for his fiery left-wing populism and polemical films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," told the audience "Sicko" would appeal across the political spectrum."
^ Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal: Unmoored from Reality. John Fund's Political Diary, 21 March 2003. URL accessed 29 August 2006.
^ My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore April 21, 2008
External links
Michael Moore Official website
Michael Moore at the Internet Movie Database
Michael Moore on YouTube
Works by or about Michael Moore in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
A 2007 NOW on PBS interview with Michael Moore What makes him tick, and why our health care system ticks him off
[show]v • d • eFilms directed by Michael Moore
Roger & Me • Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint • Canadian Bacon • The Big One • Bowling for Columbine • Fahrenheit 9/11 • Sicko • Captain Mike Across America • Slacker Uprising
Persondata
NAME Moore, Michael Francis
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Moore, Michael
SHORT DESCRIPTION American film director, author, and social commentator
DATE OF BIRTH April 23, 1954
PLACE OF BIRTH Davison, Michigan
DATE OF DEATH
PLACE OF DEATH
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore"
Categories: Michael Moore | 1954 births | Alternative journalists | Michigan Democrats | American anti-war activists | American anti-Iraq War activists | American film actors | American film directors | American documentary filmmakers | University of Michigan alumni | American political writers | American Roman Catholics | Americans of Irish descent | César Award winners | Documentary film directors | Emmy Award winners | Health activists | American liberal activists | Living people | Irish-American writers | Michigan actors | Michigan writers | National Rifle Association members | Best Documentary Feature Academy Award winners | Roman Catholic writers | People from Detroit, Michigan | People from Flint, Michigan | Eagle Scouts
Hidden categories: Semi-protected against vandalism | Template computed age | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since June 2008 | Articles needing additional references from August 2007ViewsArticle Discussion View source History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
This page was last modified on 21 October 2008, at 11:19. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.........................................................................
10. Who has been more of a righteous extremist in this election campaign: McCain or Obama. For the most part, Obama has been the voice of reason and integrationism, while McCain has been the voice of the past: righteous/religous/political intolerance, divisionism, and hate. McCain has for the most part used negative campaign tactics that have worked well for the Republican Party in the past in terms of negatively stereotyping and blackballing 'potential Democratic President Hopefuls'. This election things are going to be different: the American people and Obama have evolved; McCain, Palin, and the rest of the negative campaigners in this year's Republican Party -- have't. The Republican Party needs to be re-created, re-invented. It needs to rise like the Phoenix. Today it is dead. And I hope -- I truly hope -- the American people understand that. I think they do. Obama will be the next President of the United States of America -- and I think a potentially exciting one if he sticks to his dreams, his vision, his priorities, his mandate.
I am not particlarly religious but I do not mind religion, politics, economics, and ethics all working in the same direction for a better America - and a better world.
So I will say this for the first and only time to compensate for the negative force of the Jeremy Wright rant quoted earlier:
God Bless America -- and the harmonious integration and peaceful harmony of America with the rest of the world. (From here after, refer to the Dylan song 'With God on My Side' to underline my more regular feelings about the use of the name 'God' to add 'religious force' to any kind of political ideology, particularly when that ideology is 'pathologically destructive and/or self-destructive').
Hate, unbridled greed, selfishness, narcissism, righteous/religous/political intolerance and civil divisionism are all self-destructive to the human race. These are all characteristics that mark the humn race at its worst. They are all characteristics that are 'anti-evolutionary'. They will lead us the same way as the dinosaur -- to extinction.
How many more American soldiers and foreign soldiers, American civilians and foreign civilians have to come home in body bags or lay rotting in the fields or in blown up buildings that CNN cameramen have to relay to the American people and to the rest of the world before everyone on both sides of this brutally savage and ridiculous war will finally come to their senses and say, 'Enough is enough'. Winning the war isn't the answer here. Because we are all big-time losers -- on both sides of the political and relgious and economic fence that divides us -- and kills us and maims us and povertizes us -- as long as we continue to embrace this tragic farce we call 'war', and the radical, righteous, religious, and/or economic extremism that continues to propogandize and support it.
"Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets a greater toughness. ...I believe Martin Luther King Junior said that...but i think it has even older philosophical roots.
The point is: When will it ever stop?
Never?
I think we have evolved better than this. Or have we?
-- dgb, October 23rd-24th, 2008.
Introduction
I thought that Part 4 of this series of political 'Faceoff' essays -- Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party would be my last 'kick' at the Republican Party, the Republican 'Can' if you will, before the election.
However, obviously I was mistaken as, within 24 hours, I had 'gushed out' another sequence of thoughts and feelings relative to my overall current 'Anti-Republican sentiment'.
So, here we go again. I am certainly not against Republican Ideology (Idealism) at its best. If my Republican leader is Dwight Eisenhower, his son John, or John's daughter Susan -- then I am right there in the middle of their particular brand of Republican Ideology and Idealism.
However, I certainly am against Republican Ideology ('Idealism') at its worst -- and this leads us both to Bush's pathological form of Republican Ideology and to McCain's newer 'brand of lipstick' on the 'old Bush Republican Brand'. (Notice, I had to refrain myself from over-using the infamous 'lipstick on a pig' metaphor and, obviously, I only partly succeeded.)
In my mind, it is too late for the McCain-Palin Republicans to recover in this election -- they blew their opportunities, plain and simple. Too much negative and negative-stereotyping pathological political philosophy vs. not enough 'responsible-accountable-ethical' Republican political philosophy. Healthy Republican Idealism can still be found but not on this 2008 corpse of the American Republican Party.
In this essay, we will explore the roots of current 'Pathological Republican Ideology'. This essay is not for the weak of mind, reason, truth, awareness, and 'philosophical digging' -- which might also be called 'philosophical-political forensics'.
Before we start, there is a relationship between 'philosophical-political forensics' and 'blowback' that needs to be fully clarified and understood here.
.......................................................................
Blowback (intelligence)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Manchurian blowback)
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback is a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.[1]
In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informative only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts. In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations.
The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the harmful effects to friendly forces when some weapons are used under certain conditions (for example nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc. used upwind from friendly troops or assets, or a torpedo circling and hitting the firing vessel, etc.). The word is believed to have appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état titled "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953."[2][3]
In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while covert support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.
Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.
......................................................................
Blowback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback may refer to one of the following.
Blowback (intelligence)
Blowback (arms)
Blowback (military) - Negative effects suffered from one's own weapons, such as nuclear fallout blown onto one's own troops or civilian population.
Blowback (book) - a 2000 book on American Empire by Chalmers Johnson ISBN 0805075593.
..............................................................
I heard the term 'blowback' for the first time by Chalmers Johnson (the inspirational CIA analyst) as I tried to digest the full content, quality, substance, and implications of the movie, 'Why We Fight' which I just finished watching. A quick DGB editorial: I saw a 'better' John McCain in this movie than anything I have seen from him on his Repubican campaign -- except perhaps for his Al Smith Dinner Roast Party Comedy Speech where his comedy speech was actually significantly better than Obama's. But that was only one speech.
.................................................................
I am like the 'old fashioned, underdog Lieutenant Columbo' on the old detective series 'Columbo'. In this context, there are many, many political, economic, and military things that I do not understand. However, once I hear or read something, and i deem it to be important, then I will grab it and twist it and tear it to pieces -- not unlike a bulldog or a pitbull or Columbo himself -- until I fully understand the implications, applications, ramifications, and consequences of what i have read or hear. Such is the case here, relative to the term 'blowback' and my current beginning understanding of the term.
Based mainly on what I heard and interpreted Chalmers Johnson as saying, and from their experience relative to the war in Vietnam -- 'too many body bags and imagery of people being blown up, especially women and children, being shown on television and fed back to the American people can be viewed as 'political blowback'. Political blowback is not going to usually be good for the politicians in office who want to continue an ongoing war. If you continue to feed 'war propaganda' to the American people, you are less likely to have the American people 'fall' for this manipulation and exploitation of their fear, because they can see some real, hard-line pictures of what is happening in the war in front of their very faces on tv. If some military-political person tells the American people that war technology has advanced to the stage that we now have 'precision bombing' that hits very precise military targets 100 percent of the time -- and then we see on tv with our own eyes that those supposed military targets were clearly missed, and innocent civilians were killed instead of 'pathological terrorists, insurgents, and/or dictators' -- then how does the American Government look in this kind of an instance?
It's similar to a politician having a sexual affair with a woman (or man) outside of his marriage, and then one day pictures of the affair land on the front page of the National Inquiry, or The New York Times -- this after the politician has been continually denying for days, weeks, or even months, that no such affair every happened....This might be called 'Political-Sexual Blowback'.
I think we all now have an idea of what the term 'Blowback' means...
Philosophical-political forensics investigations may dig up 'political blowback' that the American Government has been hiding from the American people for obvious political reasons. If the American people knew about this 'Blowback', they would not be very happy with their American politicians. This is very much what has happened with Bush and his claims of definitely observed 'weapons of mass destruction'.
On with the essay at hand...
................................................................
B) Ten Inherent Pathologies in McCain's Republican Campaign and 'Idealistic' Vision
1. The first thing that the McCain-led 'New Republicans' did wrong is that they did not separate themselves enough from George Bush, and Bush's Unilateral, Unethical Republican Capitalism and Political Ideology.
2. The second thing that they did wrong is that they focused too much on negative campaigning against Obama.
3. The third thing that they did wrong is that they nominated Governor Sarah Palin as vice-president on the McCain ticket.
4. The fourth thing that they did wrong was that did not create a compelling 21st Century Populist-Ethical Brand and Vision of American Capitalism.
5. The fifth thing that they did wrong is that they -- meaning McCain -- did not separate himself/themselves enough from the American downfalls of Global Capitalism, and a free trade vision that is killing the American manufacturing industry. There is a reason why tariffs are important -- otherwise, all the other countries in the world with very cheap labour forces -- China, India, Mexico...-- are going to conspire to seduce American manufacturing industries away from America and kill the American manufacturing industry -- and thousands and thousands of jobs -- in the process. Cheap foreign labour might be great for corporate profits and great for buyers -- until the 'quality' and even the 'toxicity' of the product comes into question. Not to mention that thousands of American workers are left at home twiddling their thumbs and wondering where there next paycheque is coming.
6. McCain may say that he is a 'maverick' and an 'anti-lobbyist' but that is downright plagerism from Obama's Democratic Capitalist Idealism. The shoe doesn't fit Senator McCain so don't wear it. Maybe you voted to try to stop these 'sub-prime' mortgages, maybe you didn't. The news I heard is that you did -- perhaps even when Obama didn't. Obama is not perfect. He is not quite the 'Messiah' of those first Martin Luther King-like speeches. Obama is a politician too and knows the full voting value of 'political expedience'. Politicians 'flip-flop' -- case closed. Both McCain and Obama have flip-flopped when the 'political weather changed'. Sometimes this is 'philosophical and political evolution'. Sometimes, it is 'moving closer to the votes' -- like in the 'off-shore drilling' example. Still, I give Obama higher marks than you Senator McCain for poltical ethics, integrity, vision, clarity of purpose, rhetorical eloguence, philosophical substance, peaceful foreign relations, and differential unity, harmony, and integrationism. Have I missed anything?
7. Senator McCain, your idealistic view of Capitalism is skewered. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand would both be disgusted by what just happened on Wall Street and to the American people. What you offer to the American people as a whole -- meaning primarily, middle class, working class, America -- is rice and porridge when your unethical -- corrupt -- friends in the Senate and on Wall Steet are dining on Steak and Lobster -- at expensive spa retreats. These CEOs who are completely detached and alienated from the American working class are still the same people (meaning CEOs and lobbyists for CEOs) that pour many thousands if not millions of dollars into your campaign fund. Enough perhaps to make you turn the other way when they 'transgress' on Wall Street while Main Street is financially defrauded, manipulated, exploited, gouged, trashed... Did I leave anything out? Yeah, for sure, Obama is not entirely clean of this debacle as well. But still, I will lay my money on Obama cleaning up this Wall Street debacle and thisSenate-White House-Wall Street Collusion faster and better than either you or your supposed 'anti-lobbyist, Good Old Boy in a Pant Suit maverick' Palin will. Palin has enough trouble keeping her own personal ethics clean let alone America's. Palin may have some rhetorical and charasmatic features to her character but she is in way over her head. Alaska is calling...
8. Let me try briefly to explain a new DGB term: 'Quadra-Dialectic-Democratic Capitalism'
There needs to be a strong working homeostatic and double-dialectic balance between four different sets of people:
1. the American Government;
2. Corporate Leaders and Investors (CEOs, Investors, Wall Street, Management);
3. Corporate Employees (often with the support of Unions);
4. Consuming Customers.
Call these the four pillar foundations of American Capitalism.
If any one of these four groups of American people are unhappy -- and worse, unstable -- then American Capitalism is likely to become destablized or unstablized as a whole. We need all four quadrants of American Capitalism to be strong in order to keep the Capitalist Infrastructure alive, functioning, and stable. If two of these quadrants are 'colluding' -- such as the American Senate, the White House, a particular political party in the goverment, and the lobbyists and/or CEOs for a very powerful mortgaging or banking company -- splitting 90 percent of the American Pie between themselves and leaving only 10 percent left over for the remainin two sectors -- then American Capitalism is going to crumble over a 'bankruptcy' where the CEOs of the company still get very rich, take their money home,and have much, much more than enough to start as many more companies as they want to -- again, at the expense of the middle class and lower class American people. McCain is not my man to fix this problem. Obama is.
9. Regarding alleged Republican 'tax cuts' and 'spending cuts' this is a joke. The McCain Republican Party claims that 'raising taxes' in a 'recession' is not the right thing to do. 'Cutting spending' is. So here is the joke. Money that needs to be poured into American infrastructure and services -- building roads and bridges, building new forms of viable energy supplies, building new schools, building new hospitals, helping to pay for massive medical expenses, helping to subsidize post-secondary education, helping to form 'social safety nets for the elderly, the war veterans, the special needs childen, day care, single mothers and/or dads, the unemployed, the physically and/or mentally and/or pschologically challenged -- all of these badly needed American services and resources, are going to more or less get 'pissed out of the window' because the Republican Party wants to continue to spend 10 to 20 billion dollars a month in Iraq -- a war that America should have never entered into in the first place because even President Bush has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- nor as it turned out -- did they have any 'weapons of mass destruction' that were 'imminanently effecting America's national security. So -- in effect -- the war in Iraq was, and still is, a national fraud played out by the American government on the American people.
In this context, Pastor Jeremy Wright's 'loose-lipped political sermon rampages -- going over the edge and over-associating to be sure, by saying, 'God Damn America' when what he was really trying to say (and please excuse the continuation of the profanity in this context) was 'God Damn The American Imperialist Government That Keeps Making All These Very Nasty Foreign Policy Decisions Abroad and Then Comes Back To The American People Preaching Its Own Brand of Political-Religious Dermons In Which It Makes Its Best Effort To Convince The American People That It's Philosophy Is Perfectly In Line With The Philosophy Of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or Adam Smith or Martin Luther King' -- then and only then, can we perhaps put Jeremy Wright's 'deconstructive' political-religious sermons into their proper context in a spirit that is not 'Anti-American' but rather 'Anti-American-Imperialism'...
The same goes with Madonna's concert imagery comparison of the Republican Party ith German Nazi Imperialism. As Bob Dylan wrote in one of his songs that you can hear in the movie, 'Why We Fight' -- 'It's Not Dark Yet, But Its Getting There...'
Let's see how many politically credible names I can add to support the logistics of the type of 'forensic political-philosophical investigation' we need to undergo -- meaning all of the American people who are brave enough and democratic enough to go here with me in order to unearth the full extent of American Goverment Psycho- and Socio-Pathology:
i. Dwight Eisenhower and his Prophetic Farewell Address that keeps coming back to haunt us like a 'Freddy Krueger Nightmare in Iraq and on Wall Street';
.................................................................
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So was Ike a 60s leftist like Oliver Stone? Note some key elements of Ike's thinking:
Eisenhower didn't believe the Military Industrial Complex was to blame for the Cold War. He laid the blame on communism: "a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method."
Eisenhower felt the Military Industrial Complex was necessary.
Eisenhower felt the influence of the Military Industrial Complex might be "sought or unsought." For 60s leftists, "unsought" power for the Military Industrial Complex was inconceivable.
A principled Republican, Ike was also skeptical of agricultural and research programs fostered by the federal government. He did not consider military industrial interests uniquely insidious, but rather he distrusted government expansion generally.
............................................................
ii. John Eisenhower (son of Dwight Eisenhower)
.......................................................
Eisenhower's son endorses Kerry (2004)
A commentary by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- and another good reminder that some Republicans still believe in age-old principles.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By John Eisenhower
The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3 years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we always have. We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration�s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's Republican Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word Republican has always been synonymous with the word responsibility, which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance. ...
October 3, 2004 at 10:06 PM in Politics | Permalink
............................................................................
iii. Susan Eisenhower (Dwight Eisenhower's grandaughter) (dgb editorial comment: Sound, reasonable thinking seems to be at least partly in the genes...dgb, Oct. 24th, 2008)
................................................................
Susan Eisenhower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan Elaine Eisenhower (born December 31, 1951 in Fort Knox, Kentucky) is a consultant, author, and expert on international security and the relationship between the United States and Russia. She is the daughter of John Eisenhower, and the granddaughter of President Dwight Eisenhower.[1][2] She was married to space scientist Roald Sagdeev,[3] formerly the director of the Russian Space Research Institute. Despite the end of the marriage several years ago, they remain friends and business partners.[4]
Contents
1 Career
2 Publications
3 Endorsement of Barack Obama
4 References
5 External links
6 See also
Career
Susan Eisenhower is President of the Eisenhower Group, Inc, which provides strategic counsel on political, business and public affairs projects. She has consulted for Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies doing business in the emerging markets of the former Soviet Union and for a number of major institutions engaged in the energy field.
She is the Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs & Chairman Emeritus of the Eisenhower Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. and in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania associated with Gettysburg College. Eisenhower served as the president of the Eisenhower Institute twice, and later as Chairman. During that time, she became known for her work in the former Soviet Union and in the energy field.
Eisenhower testified before the Senate Armed Services and Senate Budget Committees on policy toward the region. She was also appointed to the National Academy of Sciences' standing Committee on International Security and Arms Control, where she served for eight years.
In 2000, she was appointed by the United States Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson to the Baker-Cutler Commission, to evaluate U.S.-funded nonproliferation programs in Russia, and since that time she has also served as an advisor to another United States Department of Energy study. She currently sits on the Nuclear Threat Initiative board, co-chaired by Senator Sam Nunn and Ted Turner, the Energy Future Coalition and the US Chamber of Commerce's new Institute for 21st Century Energy. She also serves as an Academic Fellow of the International Peace and Security program of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. She has co-chaired Save America’s Treasures, first with Founding Chair Hillary Rodham Clinton and now with First Lady Laura Bush.
She has provided analysis for CNN International, MSNBC, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, FOX News, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Hardball with Chris Matthews, One on One with John McLaughlin, the BBC, and all three network morning programs. Over the years she has appeared on many other programs including Nightline, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, This Week with David Brinkley, and CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Kuralt.
Eisenhower has also been seen as a "talking head" on many TV programs and documentaries, including Oliver North's War Stories, Sony Pictures Why We Fight (2005 film) and, most recently, Sputnik Mania.
She has received four honorary doctorates, most recently from the Monterey Institute, where she was cited for her work on nuclear non-proliferation. Ms. Eisenhower received the 2008 Dolibois History Prize from Miami University.[5]
Publications
Eisenhower has written extensively on nuclear and space issues and in 2000, she co-edited a book, Islam and Central Asia, which carried the prescient subtitle, An Enduring Legacy or an Evolving Threat?[5] She is the author of three books: Breaking Free, Mrs. Ike, and Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War. She has also edited four collected volumes on regional security issues - the most recent - Partners in Space (2004), which was also published in Russia by Nayuk, the publishing house of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She has written chapters for a number of collected volumes and penned hundreds of op-eds and articles on foreign and domestic policy for publications such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, United States Naval Institute's Proceedings, The Spectator, and Gannett Newspapers, as well as the National Interest and Politique Americaine.[5]
Endorsement of Barack Obama
Although a lifelong member of the Republican Party, Eisenhower endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States in 2008.[6][7][8] Eisenhower announced on August 21, 2008 that she was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent.[9]
She spoke on the final day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Her speech was delivered at INVESCO Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado, and began with, "I stand before you tonight not as a Republican or a Democrat, but as an American." [10] The full transcript of her remarks as delivered [11] are on her official website www.SusanEisenhower.com,as well as video of her remarks at the Convention. [12]
[edit] References
^ Biography of Susan Eisenhower. - Save America's Treasures
^ Susan Eisenhower. - National Public Radio
^ "Leadership in Conflict". - Samford University
^ [1]--Susan Eisenhower's official website.
^ a b c Susan Eisenhower, Chairman Emeritus. - The Eisenhower Institute
^ Susan Eisenhower - Why I'm Backing Obama. - Washington Post
^ Julie Nixon and Susan Eisenhower back Barack Obama. - Daily Telegraph
^ Ike's Granddaughter Calls Obama 'Future of America'. - Washington Independent
^ Reflections on Leaving the Party. - The National Interest
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Video of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
External links
The Official Website of Susan Eisenhower
..........................................................................
iv. Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karen Kwiatkowski
24 Sept 1960-
Kwiatkowski during an interview in Honor Betrayed
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Air Force
Years of service 1978–2003
Rank Lieutenant Colonel
Unit Near East/South Asia and Special Plans
Other work A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine.
Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Colonel Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard and an MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska. She has a PhD in World Politics from Catholic University; her thesis was on overt and covert war in Angola, A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine. She has also published two books about U.S. policy towards Africa: African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001).[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Career
2 Quotations
3 Articles
4 Books
5 Anonymous essays 2002-2003
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
Career
Raised in western North Carolina, Kwiatkowski began her military career in 1982 as a second lieutenant. She served at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, providing logistical support to missions along the Chinese and Russian coasts. She also served in Spain and Italy. Kwiatkowski was then assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually becoming a speechwriter for the agency's director. After leaving the NSA in 1998 she became an analyst on sub-Saharan Africa policy for the Pentagon. Kwiatkowski was in her office in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. From May 2002 to February 2003 she served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia directorate (NESA).[2] While at NESA, she wrote a series of anonymous articles, Insider Notes from the Pentagon which appeared on the website of David Hackworth.[3]
Kwiatkowski left NESA in February 2003 and retired from the Air Force the following month. In April 2003 she began writing a series of articles for the libertarian website LewRockwell.com. In June of that year she published an article in the Ohio Beacon Journal, "Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon,"[4] which attracted additional notice. Since February 2004 she has written a biweekly column ("Without Reservations") for the website MilitaryWeek.
Her most comprehensive writings on the subject of a corrupting influence of the Pentagon on intelligence analysis leading up to the Iraq War appeared in a series of articles in The American Conservative magazine in December 2003 and in a March 2004 article on Salon.com. In the latter piece ("The New Pentagon Papers") she wrote:
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
Kwiatkowski described how a clique of officers led by retired Navy Captain Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA and former aide to Dick Cheney when the latter was Secretary of Defense, took control of military intelligence and how the "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) grew and eventually turned into a censorship and disinformation organism controlling the NESA.[5]
Following the American Conservative and Salon articles, Kwiatkowski began to receive criticism from several conservative sources that supported President Bush's policies. Michael Rubin of the National Review argued she had exaggerated her knowledge of the OSP's workings and claimed she had ties to Lyndon LaRouche.[6] Republican U.S. Senator John Kyl criticized her in a speech on the Senate floor.[7] On a Fox News program, host John Gibson and former Republican National Committee communications director Clifford May described her as an anarchist.[8] Kwiatkowski responded by saying, among other points, that she had never supported or dealt with LaRouche.[9] She requested and received a written apology from Senator John Kyl for his false statements about her.[citation needed]
In addition to her writings Kwiatkowski has appeared as a commentator in the documentaries Hijacking Catastrophe, Honor Betrayed and Why We Fight. She has been a registered member of the U.S. Libertarian Party since 1994 and spoke at the party's national convention in 2004.[10] She is also a member of the Liberty and Power group weblog at the History News Network. Kwiatkowski currently lives with her family in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and works part-time as a farmer.
Kwiatkowski has been widely seen as an attractive Libertarian presidential candidate,[11][12] especially given her military background and outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. In April 2006, Kwiatkowski received the New Hampshire Libertarian Party's 2008 vice-presidential nomination (the Libertarian Party chooses presidential and vice-presidential nominees on separate ballot, and campaigns for the two positions are often independent).[13][14] In 2007, she announced her support for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. [15]
[edit] Quotations
"I came to share with many NSA colleagues a kind of unease, a sense that something was awry. What seemed out of place was the strong and open pro-Israel and anti-Arab orientation in an ostensibly apolitical policy-generation staff within the Pentagon."[16]
"Why we fight? I think we fight 'cause too many people are not standing up, saying 'I'm not doing this any more.'"
"If you join the United States military now, you are not defending the United States of America; you are helping certain policy-makers pursue an imperial agenda."
"At the end of the summer of 2002, new space had been found upstairs on the fifth floor for an "expanded Iraq desk." It would be called the Office of Special Plans. We were instructed at a staff meeting that this office was not to be discussed or explained, and if people in the Joint Staff, among others, asked, we were to offer no comment. We were also told that one of the products of this office would be talking points that all desk officers would use verbatim in the preparation of their background documents."
"By August, only the Pollyannas at the Pentagon felt that the decision to invade Iraq, storm Baghdad, and take over the place (or give it to Ahmad Chalabi) was reversible."
"It wasn't intelligence — it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."[17]
"Interestingly, the Downing Street memo is actually being reported by CNN and FOX News. It is being discussed in the major papers. Congress intends to examine it. Hearing it mentioned on the half hour by CNN Headline News has not dispossessed me of the belief that a state suicide is impossible. Thus, my gentle thoughts are increasingly turning to murder. Murder of the state. In self-defense, of course!"[18]
"We have a Congress that failed in every way to ask the right questions, to hold the President to account. Our Congress failed us miserably, and that's because many in Congress are beholden to the Military Industrial Complex."
"The reason we're in Iraq first off has not honestly been told to the American people; it certainly had nothing to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was never part of the agenda and it's not part of the agenda now."
Articles
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2007-01-15). "Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine". LewRockwell.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18.
Books
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2000). African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) past, present, and future?. Peacekeeping Institute, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College.
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2001-10-01). Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions. ISBN 978-1585661008.
Griffin, David Ray; Peter Dale Scott (2006-08-23). 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1. Karen Kwiatkowski: Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-1566566599.
Anonymous essays 2002-2003
Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski's anonymous essays while still at the Pentagon. (Anonymous essays number 1 to 39)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Ready to go to war?, January 31, 2003. (Anonymous essay number 40)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Fear of God, February 3, 2003. (No.41)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Life is Tough All Over, February 8, 2003. (No.42)
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love CBW, March 10, 2003. (No.47)
The Souffle has Fallen, March 29, 2003. (No.49)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Those Awful Turks, May 28, 2003. (No.51)
References
^ militaryweek.com
^ mcsweeneys.net
^ lewrockwell.com
^ mindfully.org
^ commondreams.org
^ nationalreview.com
^ rpc.senate.gov
^ defenddemocracy.org
^ nathancallahan.com
^ lp.org
^ knappster.blogspot.com
^ politics1.com politics1.com
^ smallgov.org
^ phillies2008.org
^ Academics for Ron Paul
^ amconmag.com
^ motherjones.com
^ lewrockwell.com
See also
The Oil Factor
[edit] External links
Liberty and Power Group Blog
Karen Kwiatkowski, entry on SourceWatch
Center for Cooperative Research Profile of Karen Kwiatkowski
The New Pentagon Papers, an article by Kwiatkowski that appeared on Salon.Com
Archive of articles by Karen Kwiatkowski on LewRockwell.Com
List of articles on militaryweek.com
"Conscientious Objector", an article by Kwiatkowski, originally appearing in The American Conservative
Honor Betrayed page on veteransforpeace.org
The Pentagon Insider Who Spread Rumors that Sounded Anti-Semitic by Edwin Black appearing on History News Network
Web of Conspiracies by Michael Rubin appearing on National Review Online
Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear, and the Selling of American Empire
Democracy Now, September 10, 2004 Hijacking Catastrophe
Democracy Now, October 22, 2004 The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
Karen Kwiatkowski's 2002-2003 archives Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon
Knight Ridder News, July 31, 2003 Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon
Inter Press Service, August 5, 2003 War Critics Zero In on Pentagon Office
Inter Press Service, August 7, 2003 Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network
If Americans Knew, December 1, 2003 Israelis walked through the Pentagon to Feith's office like they owned the place
Interhemispheric Resource Center, February 12, 2004 Office of Special Plans
Inter Press Service, October 28, 2005 A Formidable Hawk Goes Down
Mother Jones, January 2004 The Lie Factory
Democracy Now, December 18, 2003 The Lie Factory - Neocons & the OSP Pushed Disinformation and Bogus Intelligence
In These Times, April 12, 2004 Outside the Inside
In These Times, October 24, 2004 The Bush team’s foreign policy disregarded reality and ignored actuality
Democracy Now, August 8, 2003 Ex-Pentagon Official Suggests Bush Administration Should Face War Crimes Tribunal
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, November 2, 2003 Pentagon Whistle Blower
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, May 22, 2004 An Insider's Look at the March to War
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, September 21, 2004 Timothy McSweeney
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, June 16, 2005 Daily Kos
Ten questions and answers, with Karen Kwiatkowski, October 25, 2005 Unknown News
Daily Kos Karen Kwiatkowski
After Downing Street, June 16, 2005 Written Testimony of Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski's video interview California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Democracy Now, June 29, 2005 Former Pentagon Insider Blasts Bush's Iraq Speech and Repeated References to 9/11
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews on The Charles Goyette Show
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews The Weekend Interview Show with Scott Horton
Brian Lamb. Karen discusses her service in the Air Force, Pentagon & more C-SPAN, April 2, 2006.
Karen Kwiatkowski's radio show American Forum
Interview With Kwiatkowski: Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski on Liberty Cap Talk Live with Todd Andrew Barnett
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski"
Categories: 1960 births | Living people | American columnists | American foreign policy writers | American libertarians | American anti-Iraq War activists | Harvard University alumni | People from North Carolina | United States Air Force officers | Women in the United States Air Force | Members of the Libertarian Party (United States) | Anarcho-capitalists | American anti-war activists | American whistleblowers
This page was last modified on 18 September 2008, at 19:14. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.......................................................................
v. Chalmers Johnson
...................................................
Chalmers Johnson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chalmers Ashby Johnson (born 1931) is an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He is also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia. He has written numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 The Blowback trilogy
3 Bibliography
4 Footnotes
5 External links
Biography
Johnson was born in 1931 in Phoenix, Arizona. He earned a B.A. degree in Economics in 1953 and a M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science in 1957 and 1961 respectively. All of his degrees were from the University of California, Berkeley. During the Korean War, Johnson served as a naval officer in Japan. He taught political science at the University of California from 1962 until he retired from teaching in 1992. He was best known early in his career for scholarship about China and Japan.
Johnson set the agenda for ten or fifteen years in social science scholarship on China with his book on peasant nationalism. His book MITI and the Japanese Miracle, on the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry was the preeminent study of the country's development and created the bustling subfield of what could be called the political economy of development. He coined the term "developmental state." As a public intellectual, he first led the "Japan revisionists" who critiqued American neoliberal economics with Japan as a model, but also attacked Japan for protectionism. During this period, Johnson acted as a consultant for the Office of National Estimates, part of the CIA, contributing to analysis of China and Maoism.[1]
Johnson was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1976. He served as Director of the Center for Chinese Studies and Chair of the Political Science Department at Berkeley, and held a number of important academic posts in area studies. He was a strong believer in the importance of language and historical training for doing serious research. Late in his career he became well known as a critic of "rational choice" approaches, particularly in the study of Japanese politics and political economy.
Johnson is today best known as a sharp critic of American imperialism. His book Blowback won a prize in 2001 from the Before Columbus Foundation, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment and Nemesis concludes the trilogy. Johnson was featured in the Eugene Jarecki-directed film Why We Fight, which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In the past, Johnson has also written for the Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, Harper’s Magazine, and The Nation
The Blowback trilogy
Johnson believes the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, Johnson experienced a political awakening after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy.
Bibliography
Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (1962) (ISBN 0-8047-0074-5)
An Instance of Treason: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring (1964; expanded in 1990)
Change in Communist Systems (1970), By Jeremy R. Azrael, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-8047-0723-5
Conspiracy at Matsukawa (1972)
Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China (1973) By John Israel, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-2959-5247-4
Japan's Public Policy Companies (1978) ISBN 0-8447-3272-9
Revolutionary Change (1982) ISBN 0-316-46730-8
MITI and the Japanese Miracle (1982)
The Industrial Policy Debate (1984) ISBN 0-9176-1665-0
Politics and productivity: the real story of why Japan works (1989) By Chalmers A. Johnson, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, ISBN 0-8873-0350-1
Japan: Who Governs? -- The Rise of the Developmental State (1995)
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000, rev. 2004) ISBN 0-8050-6239-4
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (2004) ISBN 0-8050-7004-4
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2007) ISBN 0-8050-7911-4
Footnotes
^ Nic Paget-Clarke, 2004, "Interview with Chalmers Johnson Part 2. From CIA Analyst to Best-Selling Scholar" (In Motion Magazine). Access date: December 5, 2007.
External links
A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States by Chalmers Johnson (from Harper's Magazine)
Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door by Chalmers Johnson
Blowback Chalmers Johnson essay from The Nation
Cold Warrior in a Strange Land Tom Engelhardt interviews Chalmers Johnson
Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson on Democracy Now! February 27 2007
Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?
Audio: Our Own Worst Enemy
Audio: Is America on the brink of destruction through imperial over-reach?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson"
........................................................................
Chalmers Johnson: “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic”
In his new book, CIA analyst, distinguished scholar, and best-selling author Chalmers Johnson argues that US military and economic overreach may actually lead to the nation’s collapse as a constitutional republic. It’s the last volume in his Blowback trilogy, following the best-selling “Blowback” and “The Sorrows of Empire.” In those two, Johnson argued American clandestine and military activity has led to un-intended, but direct disaster here in the United States.
..............................................
vi. Michael Moore
....................................................................
Michael Moore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other persons named Michael Moore, see Michael Moore (disambiguation).
Michael Moore
Michael Moore in 2004
Born Michael Francis Moore
April 23, 1954 (1954-04-23) (age 54)
Davison, Michigan[1][2]
Occupation director, screenwriter, producer, actor
Years active 1989 - present
Spouse(s) Kathleen Glynn (1991-)
Official website
[show]Awards won
Academy Awards
Best Documentary Feature
2002 Bowling for Columbine
César Awards
Best Foreign Film
2002 Bowling for Columbine
Emmy Awards
Outstanding Informational Series
1995 TV Nation
Other awards
Golden Palm (Palme d'Or)
2004 Fahrenheit 9/11
Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an Academy Award-winning American filmmaker, author, and liberal political commentator. He is the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, three of the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time.[3][4] In September 2008, he released his first free movie on the Internet, Slacker Uprising, documenting his personal crusade to encourage more Americans to vote in presidential elections. [5] He has also written and starred in the TV shows TV Nation and The Awful Truth, both of which continue his trademark style of presenting serious documentaries in humorous ways.
Moore is a self-described liberal[6] who has explored globalization, large corporations, gun ownership, the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[7] In 2005, Moore started the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. In 2008, he closed his Manhattan office and moved it to Traverse City, where he is working on his new film.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Early life
1.2 Post-school career
1.3 2004
1.4 Acting career
1.5 Marriage
1.6 Religion
2 Directing
2.1 Films and awards
2.2 Television shows
2.3 Music videos
2.4 Appearances in other documentaries
3 Writings and political views
4 Controversy
5 Published work
5.1 Bibliography
5.2 Filmography
5.3 Television
6 References
7 External links
Biography
Early life
Moore was born in Davison[1] a suburb of Flint, Michigan to parents Veronica, a secretary, and Frank Moore, an automotive assembly-line worker.[9] At that time, the city of Flint was home to many General Motors factories, where his parents and grandfather worked. His uncle was one of the founders of the United Automobile Workers labor union and participated in the Flint Sit-Down Strike. Moore has described his parents as "Irish Catholic Democrats, basic liberal good people."[10]
Moore was brought up Roman Catholic and attended St. John's Elementary School for primary school.[11][12] He then attended Davison High School, where he was active in both drama and debate,[13] graduating in 1972. At the age of 18, he was elected to the Davison school board.[14]
Post-school career
After dropping out of the University of Michigan-Flint (where he wrote for the student newspaper The Michigan Times) and working for a day at the General Motors plant,[15] at 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The Flint Voice, which soon changed its name to The Michigan Voice as it expanded to cover the entire state, which Moore later regretted[citation needed]. In 1986, when Moore became the editor of Mother Jones, a liberal political magazine, he moved to California and The Michigan Voice was shut down.
After four months at Mother Jones, Moore was fired. Matt Labash claims this was for refusing to print an article by Paul Berman that was critical of the Sandinista human rights record in Nicaragua. According to the story, Moore stated that he would not run the article because Ronald Reagan "could easily hold it up, saying, 'See, even Mother Jones agrees with me.'"[16] Berman described Moore as a "very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy" when asked about the incident.[17] Moore claims that Mother Jones actually fired him because of the publisher's refusal to allow him to cover a story on the GM plant closings in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. He responded by putting laid-off GM worker Ben Hamper (who was also writing for the same magazine at the time) on the magazine's cover, leading to his termination. Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger & Me.[18]
2004
Moore was a high-profile guest at both the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the 2004 Republican National Convention, chronicling his impressions in USA Today. He was criticized in a speech by Republican Senator John McCain as "a disingenuous film-maker." Moore laughed and waved as Republican attendees jeered, later chanting "Four more years." Moore gestured his thumb and finger at the crowd, which translates into "loser."[19]
During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to young people who promised to vote. This provoked public denunciations from the Michigan Republican Party and attempts to convince the government that Moore should be arrested for buying votes, but since Moore did not tell the "slackers" involved for whom to vote, just to vote, district attorneys refused to get involved. The "Underwear" tour was a popular success. Quite possibly the most controversial stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah. A fight for his right to speak ensued and resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. Death threats, bribes and lawsuits followed. The event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[20]
Acting career
He has also dabbled in acting, following a 2000 supporting role in Lucky Numbers as the cousin of Lisa Kudrow's character, who agrees to be part of the scheme concocted by John Travolta's character. He also had a cameo in his Canadian Bacon as an anti-Canada activist. In 2004, he did a cameo, as a news journalist, in The Fever, starring Vanessa Redgrave in the lead.
Marriage
Since 1990, Moore has been married to producer Kathleen Glynn,[21] with whom he has a stepdaughter named Natalie. They live in New York City and spend quite a bit of time in Traverse City, Michigan.
Religion
Moore describes himself as a Catholic.[22][23]
Directing
Films and awards
Moore's most recent film, Sicko, released in 2007.
At the Cannes Film Festival Roger & Me
Moore first became famous for his controversial 1989 film, Roger & Me, a documentary about what happened to Flint, Michigan after General Motors closed its factories and opened new ones in Mexico, where the workers were paid much less. Since then Moore has been known as a critic of the neoliberal view of globalization. "Roger" is Roger B. Smith, former CEO and president of General Motors.
Canadian Bacon
In 1995, Moore released a satirical film, Canadian Bacon, which features a fictional US president (played by Alan Alda) engineering a fake war with Canada in order to boost his popularity. It is noted for containing a number of Canadian and American stereotypes, and for being Moore's only non-documentary film. The film is also one of the last featuring Canadian-born actor John Candy, and also features a number of cameos by other Canadian actors. In the film, several potential enemies for America's next great campaign are discussed by the president and his cabinet. (The scene was strongly influenced by the Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove.) The President comments that declaring war on Canada was as ridiculous as declaring war on international terrorism. His military adviser, played by Rip Torn, quickly rebuffs this idea, saying that no one would care about "...a bunch of guys driving around blowing up rent-a-cars".
The Big One
In 1997, Moore directed The Big One, which documents the tour publicizing his book Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American, in which he criticizes mass layoffs despite record corporate profits. Among others, he targets Nike for outsourcing shoe production to Indonesia.
Bowling for Columbine
Moore's 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, probes the culture of guns and violence in the United States, taking as a starting point the Columbine High School massacre of 1999. Bowling for Columbine won the Anniversary Prize at the Cannes Film Festival and France's Cesar Award as the Best Foreign Film. In the United States, it won the 2002 Academy Award for Documentary Feature. It also enjoyed great commercial and critical success for a film of its type and became, at the time, the highest-grossing mainstream-released documentary (a record later held by Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11). It was praised by some for illuminating a subject slighted by the mainstream media, but it was attacked by others who claim it is inaccurate and misleading in its presentations and suggested interpretations of events.
Fahrenheit 9/11
Fahrenheit 9/11 examines America in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, particularly the record of the Bush administration and alleged links between the families of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Fahrenheit was awarded the Palme d'Or, the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival; it was the first documentary film to win the prize since 1956. Moore later announced that Fahrenheit 9/11 would not be in consideration for the 2005 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, but instead for the Academy Award for Best Picture. He stated he wanted the movie to be seen by a few million more people, preferably on television, by election day. Since November 2 was less than nine months after the film's release, it would be disqualified for the Documentary Oscar. Moore also said he wanted to be supportive of his "teammates in non-fiction film." However, Fahrenheit received no Oscar nomination for Best Picture. The title of the film alludes to the classic book Fahrenheit 451 about a future totalitarian state in which books are banned; according to the book, paper begins to burn at 451 degrees Fahrenheit. The pre-release subtitle of the film confirms the allusion: "The temperature at which freedom burns." At the box office, Fahrenheit 9/11 remains the highest-grossing documentary of all time, taking in close to US$200 million worldwide, including United States box office revenue of US$120 million.
Sicko
Moore directed this film about the American health care system, focusing particularly on the managed-care and pharmaceutical industries. At least four major pharmaceutical companies—Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline—ordered their employees not to grant any interviews to Moore.[24][25][26] According to Moore on a letter at his website, "roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas – and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with have caused some minor delays." The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on 19 May 2007, receiving a lengthy standing ovation, and was released in the U.S. and Canada on 29 June 2007.[27] The film was the subject of some controversy when it became known that Moore went to Cuba with chronically ill September 11th rescue workers to shoot parts of the film. The United States is looking into whether this violates the trade embargo. The film is currently ranked the third highest grossing documentary of all time[28] and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.[29]
Captain Mike Across America [30]
Moore takes a look at the politics of college students in what he calls "Bush Administration America" with this film shot during Moore's 60-city college campus tour in the months leading up to the 2004 election.[31][32] The film was later re-edited by Moore into Slacker Uprising.
Television shows
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
Between 1994 and 1995, he directed and hosted the BBC television series TV Nation, which followed the format of news magazine shows but covered topics they avoid. The series aired on BBC2 in the UK. The series was also aired in the US on NBC in 1994 for 9 episodes and again for 8 episodes on FOX in 1995.
His other major series was The Awful Truth, which satirized actions by big corporations and politicians. It aired on Channel 4 in the UK, and the Bravo network in the US, in 1999 and 2000.
Another 1999 series, Michael Moore Live, was aired in the UK only on Channel 4, though it was broadcast from New York. This show had a similar format to The Awful Truth, but also incorporated phone-ins and a live stunt each week.
In 1999 Moore won the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in Arts and Entertainment, for being the executive producer and host of The Awful Truth, where he was also described as "muckraker, author and documentary filmmaker".
Music videos
Moore has directed several music videos, including two for Rage Against the Machine for songs from "The Battle of Los Angeles": "Sleep Now in the Fire" and "Testify". He was threatened with arrest during the shooting of "Sleep Now in the Fire", which was filmed on Wall Street; the city of New York had denied the band permission to play there, although the band and Moore had secured a federal permit to perform.[33]
He also directed video for "R.E.M." single "All the Way to Reno (You're Gonna Be a Star)" in 2001. In 2003 Moore directed a video for "System of a Down" song "Boom!".
Appearances in other documentaries
Moore appeared in The Drugging of Our Children,[34] a 2005 documentary about over-prescription of psychiatric medication to children and teenagers, directed by Gary Null a proponent of Alternative Medicine. In the film Moore agrees with Gary Null that Ritalin and other similar drugs are over-prescribed, saying that they are seen as a "pacifier".
Moore appeared on fellow Flint natives Grand Funk Railroad's edition of Behind The Music.
Moore appeared as an off-camera interviewer in Blood in the Face, a 1991 documentary about white supremacy groups. The film centers around a neo-Nazi gathering in Michigan.[35]
Moore appeared in The Yes Men, a 2003 documentary about two men who pose as the World Trade Organization. He appears during a segment concerning working conditions in Mexico and Latin America.
Moore was interviewed for the 2004 documentary, The Corporation. One of his highlighted quotes was: "The problem is the profit motive: for corporations, there's no such thing as 'enough'".[36]
Moore appeared briefly in Alex Jones's 2005 film Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State. Jones asks Moore why he did not mention some of the information regarding the September 11 attacks in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, in particular, why he did not explain why NORAD stood down on that day. Moore replied, "Because it would be Un-American."
Moore featured prominently in the 2005 documentary This Divided State, which followed the heated level of controversy surrounding his visit to a conservative city in the United States two weeks before the 2004 election.
Moore appeared in the 2006 documentary I'm Going to Tell You a Secret, which chronicles Madonna during her 2004 Re-Invention World Tour. Moore attended her show in New York City at Madison Square Garden.
Writings and political views
Though Moore rejects the label "political activist,"[37] he has been active in promoting his political views. According to John Flesher of the Associated Press, Moore is known for his "fiery left-wing populism."[38]
Moore has authored three best-selling books:
Downsize This! (1996), about politics and corporate crime in the United States,
Stupid White Men (2001), ostensibly a critique of American domestic and foreign policy but, by Moore's own admission, "a book of political humor,"[39] and
Dude, Where's My Country? (2003), an examination of the Bush family's relationships with Saudi royalty, the Bin Laden family, and the energy industry, and a call-to-action for liberals in the 2004 election.
Despite having supported Ralph Nader in 2000, Moore urged Nader not to run in the 2004 election so as not to split the left vote. (Moore joined Bill Maher on the latter's television show in kneeling before Nader to plead with him to stay out of the race.) In June 2004, Moore claimed he is not a member of the Democratic party. Although Moore endorsed General Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination on January 14, Clark withdrew from the primary race on February 11. Moore drew attention when charging publicly that Bush was AWOL during his service in the National Guard (see George W. Bush military service controversy).
With the 2004 election over, Moore continues to collect information on the war in Iraq and the Bush administration in addition to his film projects. On several occasions during 2007, he called for Al Gore to run for President.
On April 21, 2008, Moore endorsed Barack Obama for President, claiming that Clinton's recent actions had been "disgusting."[40]
Controversy
Main article: Michael Moore controversies
Moore has been at the center of several controversies, mostly as a result of his political views and directing style.
Published work
Bibliography
Moore, Michael (1996). Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060977337.
Moore, Michael; Glynn, Kathleen (1998). Adventures In A TV Nation. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060988096.
Moore, Michael (2002). Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!. New York: Regan Books. ISBN 0060392452.
Moore, Michael (2003). Dude, Where's My Country?. New York: Warner Books. ISBN 0446532231.
Moore, Michael (2004). Will They Ever Trust Us Again?. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743271521.
Moore, Michael (2004). The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743272927.
Moore, Michael (2008). Mike's Election Guide 2008. New York: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0446546275.
Filmography
Roger & Me (1989)
Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint (1992) (TV)
Canadian Bacon (1995)
The Big One (1997)
And Justice for All (1998) (TV)
Lucky Numbers (2000) (as actor)
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) "Palme d'Or" in Cannes
Sicko (2007)
Captain Mike Across America (2007)
Slacker Uprising (2008)
Television
TV Nation (1994)
The Awful Truth (1999)
Michael Moore Live (1999)
References
^ a b New York Times profile
^ Michael Moore - MSN Encarta
^ Allmovie (2007). "Michael Moore filmography". Allmovie. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ "Documentary Movies". Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-12.
^ "Michael Moore releases Slacker Uprising for free on Net". www.meeja.com.au (2008-09-24). Retrieved on 2008-09-24.
^ Michael Moore (2006-11-14). "A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives". Michael Moore.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-21.
^ Joel Stein. "Michael Moore: The Angry Filmmaker", Time. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Rick Coates (2008). "Northern Michigan's film industry from Michael Moore's perspective". Northern Express. Retrieved on 2008-07-21.
^ "Michael Moore Biography (1954-)". Film Reference. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Ron Sheldon (23 September 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation", People's Weekly World. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Richard Knight, Jr. (2007-06-27). "To Your Health: A Talk with Sicko's Michael Moore", Windy City Media Group. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
^ Primeau, François. American Dissident, Lulu Press, 2007.
^ Gary Strauss (June 20, 2004). "The truth about Michael Moore". USA Today. Retrieved on 2006–07–09.
^ MichaelMoore.com: The Day I Was To be Tarred and Feathered
^ Ron Sheldon (September 23, 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation". People's Weekly World.
^ Emily Schultz, Michael Moore: A Biography, Ecw Press, 2005. Pg 47-54.
^ Paul Mulshine. "A Stupid White Man and a Smart One". Newark Star Ledger, March 3, 2003
^ Matt Labash. "Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony". The Weekly Standard. June 8, 1998
^ Delegates relish McCain jab at filmmaker Moore CNN.com. 31 August 2006.
^ This Divided State official website. Accessed 9 July 2006.
^ IMDb, Kathleen Glynn
^ Rahner, Mark (2007-06-26). ""Sicko," new Michael Moore film, takes on the health-care system", The Seattle Times. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ Elliott, David (2007-06-29). "Moral outrage, humor make up Michael Moore's one-two punch", SignOnSanDiego. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ The Philadelphia Inquirer: Inqlings | Michael Moore takes on Glaxo. Michael Klein, 30 September 2005. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ Common Dreams News Center: Drug Firms are on the Defense as Filmmaker Michael Moore Plans to Dissect Their Industry. Original Article - Elaine Dutka, L.A. Times, December 22, 2004. Archive accessed August 09, 2006
^ Chicago Tribune: Michael Moore turns camera onto health care industry. Bruce Japsen, 3 October 2004. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ CBC Sicko to have unofficial premiere at Democratic fundraiser May 26, 2007. URL accessed October 14, 2007.
^ "Documentary Movies". Genres. Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ "Shortlist for docu Oscar unveiled". The Hollywood Reporter (2007-11-20). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ Captain Mike at the Internet Movie Database
^ "Toronto International Film Festival". Retrieved on 2007–09–07.
^ Captain Mike Across America (2007)
^ Green Left Weekly: Rage against Wall Street. Michael Moore, via MichaelMoore.com, date unspecified. URL accessed 9 July 2006.
^ "The Drugging of Our Children". at the Internet Movie Database
^ Blood in the Face at the Internet Movie Database Moore details his involvement in the audio commentary on the Roger & Me DVD.
^ "Who's Who". The Corporation Film.
^ "'I am the balance', says Moore". Minneapolis Star Tribune. South Florida Sun-Sentinel (4 July 2007). Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "Moore rejects the label "political activist"; as a citizen of a democracy, Moore insists, such a description is redundant."
^ Flesher, John (16 June 2007). "Hollywood meets Bellaire as Moore gives sneak peek of "Sicko"". Associated Press. MichaelMoore.com. Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "But the filmmaker, known for his fiery left-wing populism and polemical films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," told the audience "Sicko" would appeal across the political spectrum."
^ Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal: Unmoored from Reality. John Fund's Political Diary, 21 March 2003. URL accessed 29 August 2006.
^ My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore April 21, 2008
External links
Michael Moore Official website
Michael Moore at the Internet Movie Database
Michael Moore on YouTube
Works by or about Michael Moore in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
A 2007 NOW on PBS interview with Michael Moore What makes him tick, and why our health care system ticks him off
[show]v • d • eFilms directed by Michael Moore
Roger & Me • Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint • Canadian Bacon • The Big One • Bowling for Columbine • Fahrenheit 9/11 • Sicko • Captain Mike Across America • Slacker Uprising
Persondata
NAME Moore, Michael Francis
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Moore, Michael
SHORT DESCRIPTION American film director, author, and social commentator
DATE OF BIRTH April 23, 1954
PLACE OF BIRTH Davison, Michigan
DATE OF DEATH
PLACE OF DEATH
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore"
Categories: Michael Moore | 1954 births | Alternative journalists | Michigan Democrats | American anti-war activists | American anti-Iraq War activists | American film actors | American film directors | American documentary filmmakers | University of Michigan alumni | American political writers | American Roman Catholics | Americans of Irish descent | César Award winners | Documentary film directors | Emmy Award winners | Health activists | American liberal activists | Living people | Irish-American writers | Michigan actors | Michigan writers | National Rifle Association members | Best Documentary Feature Academy Award winners | Roman Catholic writers | People from Detroit, Michigan | People from Flint, Michigan | Eagle Scouts
Hidden categories: Semi-protected against vandalism | Template computed age | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since June 2008 | Articles needing additional references from August 2007ViewsArticle Discussion View source History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
This page was last modified on 21 October 2008, at 11:19. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.........................................................................
vii) Five Former Secretaries of State Cite Key Issues for Next President
Posted Tuesday, September 16 2008 12:53:29 am
Amanpour and Sesno moderated the round table discussion, scheduled to air on CNN.
Photos by Shameek Patel
By Marissa Moran
Co-Editor-in-Chief
Five former U.S. secretaries of state agreed that the next president should work to better engage America in the global community at a televised panel in Lisner Auditorium on Monday afternoon.
CNN’s Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour and GW Professor Frank Sesno, a CNN special correspondent and former Washington bureau chief moderated the round table discussion of Madeleine K. Albright, James A. Baker III, Warren Christopher, Henry A. Kissinger, and Colin L. Powell for a CNN broadcast entitled “The Next President: A World of Challenges.”
In an extremely competitive presidential election season, and one highly scrutinized by the press, Amanpour and Sesno looked for substantial, issue-based conversation among the secretaries instead of partisan debate. Amanpour opened by telling the secretaries that they should give “candid, robust, meat and potatoes advice for the next president, whoever that may be.”
Colin Powell responded first by saying that in his first duty as commander in chief, the president must “restore a sense of confidence in the U.S.”
“We must let friends and allies around the world know we are supporting their work in unison,” said Powell, who served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005 under President George W. Bush. He said that, as Americans, we “should have confidence in ourselves and in the rest of the world” and that we must convey this strong image to the global community, a large part of which currently views America less than favorably because of interventionist policies abroad.
Madeleine Albright drew laughs from the audience at the beginning of the discussion, saying that if she greeted the newly elected president at his Inaugural Ball, she would say, “Remember that you wanted this job.”
Albright, secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, stressed that the international problems facing the world can only be solved by cooperation between the U.S. and other countries.
“To work with other countries is a sign of strength,” she said.
Though the secretaries agreed that restoration of America's image abroad is essential, some differed on what the next president's top priority will be. Christopher, who served immediately before Albright under President Clinton, said that the primary issue that the new president must work on is the economy, while Baker, President George H.W. Bush's secretary of state, argued that the president must "structure the national security apparatus," making clear the lines of its responsibility. Baker also encouraged "strengthening the elements of American soft power" for the new president's foreign policy.
However, for the U.S. to effectively interact with the rest of the world, Kissinger stressed that the next president should reach a consensus among his principle advisers so as to avoid the "jockeying of position among various advisers." According to Kissinger, who was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and also assistant to the president for national security affairs from 1969 to 1975, once there is unity in the next administration then the U.S. could invite the rest of the world to partake in foreign policy.
The five former secretaries walked on stage to a standing ovation from a sold-out audience of 1,400, which included GW students, members of the press, and more than 80 foreign dignitaries. Tickets for the event sold out within an hour of their release nearly two weeks ago, according to GW Media Relations.
When Amanpour asked for three key points that the president must do to regain the American image abroad, Baker said that he must use American diplomatic, political, and economic elements to the country’s advantage. Albright said that there is “generally a sense that the U.S. is on the wrong side” in world politics, and that many think that the “growing gap between the rich and the poor” is in part due to the U.S.
“We have to have confidence and also humility,” said Albright, who is presently the principle of The Albright Group, LLC, a global strategy firm. “It’s not easy in that office, admitting to the American people that he needs help….He needs to realize that when he’s talking to the American people, he’s (also) talking to a foreign audience.”
Christopher said that his suggestions for the president to regain respect would be to outlaw torture and become a global leader in the climate change crisis. His colleagues agreed with him about outlawing torture and further suggested the shut down of Guantanamo Bay.
When Sesno asked if the current U.S. economic problems would lead to a global recession, Baker said that the situation “will affect the global economy negatively.” Albright said that on an international level, “it doesn’t matter if we’re popular but it does matter if we’re respected and whether other countries want to work with us.”
Powell, who contributed a great deal to the discussion, said in response to Sesno’s inquiry about American policy toward “this” Russia that the new administration must “deal with the Russians in a straightforward, candid way, not emotionally. We have to treat Russia as a proud country with popular political leadership.”
As for relations with Iran, Kissinger also said that the U.S. must be upfront and honest.
“I always believe the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and the outcome you’re trying to achieve.”
The conversation covered issues of foreign aid, the war in Afghanistan, relations with Pakistan, and a Middle East peace agreement. On the question of U.S. engagement or isolation with the rest of the world, all the secretaries agreed that engagement is the best route. As for the war in Iraq, both Christopher and Powell agreed that the number one priority of the new president will be to encourage the Iraqi government to reach a political reconciliation.
At the end of the event, several GW students from the audience asked questions of the former secretaries of state. The first student, from Greenwich, Conn., asked what message they thought the potential election of the first African-American president would send to the rest of the world. Albright said that she thought it would send a great message abroad, and she was thus supporting Sen. Barack Obama as the presidential nominee.
Sesno then asked Colin Powell, the first African-American secretary of state, what he thought.
“I am an American first and foremost,” said Powell, eliciting a wild cheer from the audience. But he declared that he is “neutral” right now, knowing both the democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama and the republican candidate, Sen. John McCain very well.
“We have to get off this ‘lipstick on a pig’ stuff and get to the serious issues,” he said, criticizing the media’s “celebrity” hype surrounding the campaigns. Powell said he is waiting to watch the upcoming debates to make his final decision of whom to support.
“I’m not going to vote for McCain because he’s a friend. I’m not going to vote for Obama because he’s black,” he continued. “Who’s going to keep us safer? Who brings the best judgment and experience to the task?”
The broadcast of the roundtable discussion will air on CNN on Saturday, September 20 at 9 p.m. and on Sunday, September 21 at 2 p.m. EST.
............................................................................
10. Who has been more of a righteous extremist in this election campaign: McCain or Obama. For the most part, Obama has been the voice of reason and integrationism, while McCain has been the voice of the past: righteous/religous/political intolerance, divisionism, and hate. McCain has for the most part used negative campaign tactics that have worked well for the Republican Party in the past in terms of negatively stereotyping and blackballing 'potential Democratic President Hopefuls'. This election things are going to be different: the American people and Obama have evolved; McCain, Palin, and the rest of the negative campaigners in this year's Republican Party -- have't. The Republican Party needs to be re-created, re-invented. It needs to rise like the Phoenix. Today it is dead. And I hope -- I truly hope -- the American people understand that. I think they do. Obama will be the next President of the United States of America -- and I think a potentially exciting one if he sticks to his dreams, his vision, his priorities, his mandate.
I am not particlarly religious but I do not mind religion, politics, economics, and ethics all working in the same direction for a better America - and a better world.
So I will say this for the first and only time to compensate for the negative force of the Jeremy Wright rant quoted earlier:
God Bless America -- and the harmonious integration and peaceful harmony of America with the rest of the world. (From here after, refer to the Dylan song 'With God on My Side' to underline my more regular feelings about the use of the name 'God' to add 'religious force' to any kind of political ideology, particularly when that ideology is 'pathologically destructive and/or self-destructive').
Hate, unbridled greed, selfishness, narcissism, righteous/religous/political intolerance and civil divisionism are all self-destructive to the human race. These are all characteristics that mark the humn race at its worst. They are all characteristics that are 'anti-evolutionary'. They will lead us the same way as the dinosaur -- to extinction.
How many more American soldiers and foreign soldiers, American civilians and foreign civilians have to come home in body bags or lay rotting in the fields or in blown up buildings that CNN cameramen have to relay to the American people and to the rest of the world before everyone on both sides of this brutally savage and ridiculous war will finally come to their senses and say, 'Enough is enough'. Winning the war isn't the answer here. Because we are all big-time losers -- on both sides of the political and relgious and economic fence that divides us -- and kills us and maims us and povertizes us -- as long as we continue to embrace this tragic farce we call 'war', and the radical, righteous, religious, and/or economic extremism that continues to propogandize and support it.
"Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets a greater toughness. ...I believe Martin Luther King Junior said that...but i think it has even older philosophical roots.
I finally found the older quote I was looking for.
'Victory breeds hatred for the conquered is unhappy.' -- Gautama Buddha
The point is: When will the madness of war and violence ever stop?
The point is: When will it ever stop?
Never?
I think we have evolved better than this. Or have we?
-- dgb, October 23rd-24th, 2008.
.............................................................
Dave,
'Part 4 starts off great with the detailed descriptions of how you view
yourself as a political philosopher.
This is a great statement..."My biggest disappointment with this election
has been the lack of profound and compelling philosophical substance in the
Republican idealism, and rhetorical ideology." Then when you tell us about a
movie that is available, that offers the wisdom of the Eisenhower dedication
and experiences'. Wilton Seker's shifted realization from within the eyes of
grief is a powerful example of the Bush deceit and destruction. It's also
interesting to hear that McCain seems to have changed, this brings a person
to think about how easy it is for us, as humans, to get caught up in the
race and go so far as sacrificing our core values, beliefs and compassion in
an effort to achieve a particular status or climb higher up the present
ladder...
I smile at your opener for part 5... It's great to read your take on the
Republican campaign errors--- very detailed, clear and what would seem to be
very accurate. I also like how you've listed the four pillar foundations
more clearly. Your morning improvements are noted. It's great how you've
included Eisenhower's farewell speech and the list of credible political
names to support your investigation, although very long, it seems that
you've done your research in order to support your thoughts and opinions.
Feels like a couple more essays that are about to take flight on the web or
beyond.'
-- Noreen, October 24th, 2008.
..............................................................................
B) Introduction
I thought that Part 4 of this series of political 'Faceoff' essays -- Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party would be my last 'kick' at the Republican Party, the Republican 'Can' if you will, before the election.
However, obviously I was mistaken as, within 24 hours, I had 'gushed out' another sequence of thoughts and feelings relative to my overall current 'Anti-Republican sentiment'.
I partly apologize for the length of this essay. However, I wanted the essay to be well supported by other credible, reasonable, insightful, and provocative high-ranking sources. Thus, I have included about 6 outside references from the internet to back up my editorial thesis here.
So, here we go again. I am certainly not against Republican Ideology (Idealism) at its best. If my Republican leader is Dwight Eisenhower, his son John, or John's daughter Susan -- then I am right there in the middle of their particular brand of Republican Ideology and Idealism.
However, I certainly am against Republican Ideology ('Idealism') at its worst -- and this leads us both to Bush's pathological form of Republican Ideology and to McCain's newer 'brand of lipstick' on the 'old Bush Republican Brand'. (Notice, I had to refrain myself from over-using the infamous 'lipstick on a pig' metaphor and, obviously, I only partly succeeded.)
In my mind, it is too late for the McCain-Palin Republicans to recover in this election -- they blew their opportunities, plain and simple. Too much negative and negative-stereotyping pathological political philosophy vs. not enough 'responsible-accountable-ethical' Republican political philosophy. Healthy Republican Idealism can still be found but not on this 2008 corpse of the American Republican Party.
In this essay, we will explore the roots of current 'Pathological Republican Ideology'. This essay is not for the weak of mind, reason, truth, awareness, and 'philosophical digging' -- which might also be called 'philosophical-political forensics'.
Before we start, there is a relationship between 'philosophical-political forensics' and 'blowback' that needs to be fully clarified and understood here.
.......................................................................
Blowback (intelligence)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Manchurian blowback)
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback is a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.[1]
In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informative only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts. In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations.
The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the harmful effects to friendly forces when some weapons are used under certain conditions (for example nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc. used upwind from friendly troops or assets, or a torpedo circling and hitting the firing vessel, etc.). The word is believed to have appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état titled "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953."[2][3]
In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while covert support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.
Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.
......................................................................
Blowback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback may refer to one of the following.
Blowback (intelligence)
Blowback (arms)
Blowback (military) - Negative effects suffered from one's own weapons, such as nuclear fallout blown onto one's own troops or civilian population.
Blowback (book) - a 2000 book on American Empire by Chalmers Johnson ISBN 0805075593.
..............................................................
I heard the term 'blowback' for the first time by Chalmers Johnson (the inspirational CIA analyst) as I tried to digest the full content, quality, substance, and implications of the movie, 'Why We Fight' which I just finished watching. A quick DGB editorial: I saw a 'better' John McCain in this movie than anything I have seen from him on his Repubican campaign -- except perhaps for his Al Smith Dinner Roast Party Comedy Speech where his comedy speech was actually significantly better than Obama's. But that was only one speech.
.................................................................
I am like the 'old fashioned, underdog Lieutenant Columbo' on the old detective series 'Columbo'. In this context, there are many, many political, economic, and military things that I do not understand. However, once I hear or read something, and i deem it to be important, then I will grab it and twist it and tear it to pieces -- not unlike a bulldog or a pitbull or Columbo himself -- until I fully understand the implications, applications, ramifications, and consequences of what i have read or hear. Such is the case here, relative to the term 'blowback' and my current beginning understanding of the term.
Based mainly on what I heard and interpreted Chalmers Johnson as saying, and from their experience relative to the war in Vietnam -- 'too many body bags and imagery of people being blown up, especially women and children, being shown on television and fed back to the American people can be viewed as 'political blowback'. Political blowback is not going to usually be good for the politicians in office who want to continue an ongoing war. If you continue to feed 'war propaganda' to the American people, you are less likely to have the American people 'fall' for this manipulation and exploitation of their fear, because they can see some real, hard-line pictures of what is happening in the war in front of their very faces on tv. If some military-political person tells the American people that war technology has advanced to the stage that we now have 'precision bombing' that hits very precise military targets 100 percent of the time -- and then we see on tv with our own eyes that those supposed military targets were clearly missed, and innocent civilians were killed instead of 'pathological terrorists, insurgents, and/or dictators' -- then how does the American Government look in this kind of an instance?
It's similar to a politician having a sexual affair with a woman (or man) outside of his marriage, and then one day pictures of the affair land on the front page of the National Inquiry, or The New York Times -- this after the politician has been continually denying for days, weeks, or even months, that no such affair every happened....This might be called 'Political-Sexual Blowback'.
I think we all now have an idea of what the term 'Blowback' means...
Philosophical-political forensics investigations may dig up 'political blowback' that the American Government has been hiding from the American people for obvious political reasons. If the American people knew about this 'Blowback', they would not be very happy with their American politicians. This is very much what has happened with Bush and his claims of definitely observed 'weapons of mass destruction'.
On with the essay at hand...
................................................................
C) Ten Inherent Pathologies in McCain's Republican Campaign and 'Idealistic' Vision
1. The first thing that the McCain-led 'New Republicans' did wrong is that they did not separate themselves enough from George Bush, and Bush's Unilateral, Unethical Republican Capitalism and Political Ideology.
2. The second thing that they did wrong is that they focused too much on negative campaigning against Obama.
3. The third thing that they did wrong is that they nominated Governor Sarah Palin as vice-president on the McCain ticket.
4. The fourth thing that they did wrong was that did not create a compelling 21st Century Populist-Ethical Brand and Vision of American Capitalism.
5. The fifth thing that they did wrong is that they -- meaning McCain -- did not separate himself/themselves enough from the American downfalls of Global Capitalism, and a free trade vision that is killing the American manufacturing industry. There is a reason why tariffs are important -- otherwise, all the other countries in the world with very cheap labour forces -- China, India, Mexico...-- are going to conspire to seduce American manufacturing industries away from America and kill the American manufacturing industry -- and thousands and thousands of jobs -- in the process. Cheap foreign labour might be great for corporate profits and great for buyers -- until the 'quality' and even the 'toxicity' of the product comes into question. Not to mention that thousands of American workers are left at home twiddling their thumbs and wondering where there next paycheque is coming.
6. McCain may say that he is a 'maverick' and an 'anti-lobbyist' but that is downright plagerism from Obama's Democratic Capitalist Idealism. The shoe doesn't fit Senator McCain so don't wear it. Maybe you voted to try to stop these 'sub-prime' mortgages, maybe you didn't. The news I heard is that you did -- perhaps even when Obama didn't. Obama is not perfect. He is not quite the 'Messiah' of those first Martin Luther King-like speeches. Obama is a politician too and knows the full voting value of 'political expedience'. Politicians 'flip-flop' -- case closed. Both McCain and Obama have flip-flopped when the 'political weather changed'. Sometimes this is 'philosophical and political evolution'. Sometimes, it is 'moving closer to the votes' -- like in the 'off-shore drilling' example. Still, I give Obama higher marks than you Senator McCain for poltical ethics, integrity, vision, clarity of purpose, rhetorical eloguence, philosophical substance, peaceful foreign relations, and differential unity, harmony, and integrationism. Have I missed anything?
7. Senator McCain, your idealistic view of Capitalism is skewered. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand would both be disgusted by what just happened on Wall Street and to the American people. What you offer to the American people as a whole -- meaning primarily, middle class, working class, America -- is rice and porridge when your unethical -- corrupt -- friends in the Senate and on Wall Steet are dining on Steak and Lobster -- at expensive spa retreats. These CEOs who are completely detached and alienated from the American working class are still the same people (meaning CEOs and lobbyists for CEOs) that pour many thousands if not millions of dollars into your campaign fund. Enough perhaps to make you turn the other way when they 'transgress' on Wall Street while Main Street is financially defrauded, manipulated, exploited, gouged, trashed... Did I leave anything out? Yeah, for sure, Obama is not entirely clean of this debacle as well. But still, I will lay my money on Obama cleaning up this Wall Street debacle and thisSenate-White House-Wall Street Collusion faster and better than either you or your supposed 'anti-lobbyist, Good Old Boy in a Pant Suit maverick' Palin will. Palin has enough trouble keeping her own personal ethics clean let alone America's. Palin may have some rhetorical and charasmatic features to her character but she is in way over her head. Alaska is calling...
8. Let me try briefly to explain a new DGB term: 'Quadra-Dialectic-Democratic Capitalism'
There needs to be a strong working homeostatic and double-dialectic balance between four different sets of people:
1. the American Government;
2. Corporate Leaders and Investors (CEOs, Investors, Wall Street, Management);
3. Corporate Employees (often with the support of Unions);
4. Consuming Customers.
Call these the four pillar foundations of American Capitalism.
If any one of these four groups of American people are unhappy -- and worse, unstable -- then American Capitalism is likely to become destablized or unstablized as a whole. We need all four quadrants of American Capitalism to be strong in order to keep the Capitalist Infrastructure alive, functioning, and stable. If two of these quadrants are 'colluding' -- such as the American Senate, the White House, a particular political party in the goverment, and the lobbyists and/or CEOs for a very powerful mortgaging or banking company -- splitting 90 percent of the American Pie between themselves and leaving only 10 percent left over for the remainin two sectors -- then American Capitalism is going to crumble over a 'bankruptcy' where the CEOs of the company still get very rich, take their money home,and have much, much more than enough to start as many more companies as they want to -- again, at the expense of the middle class and lower class American people. McCain is not my man to fix this problem. Obama is.
9. Regarding alleged Republican 'tax cuts' and 'spending cuts' this is a joke. The McCain Republican Party claims that 'raising taxes' in a 'recession' is not the right thing to do. 'Cutting spending' is. So here is the joke. Money that needs to be poured into American infrastructure and services -- building roads and bridges, building new forms of viable energy supplies, building new schools, building new hospitals, helping to pay for massive medical expenses, helping to subsidize post-secondary education, helping to form 'social safety nets for the elderly, the war veterans, the special needs childen, day care, single mothers and/or dads, the unemployed, the physically and/or mentally and/or pschologically challenged -- all of these badly needed American services and resources, are going to more or less get 'pissed out of the window' because the Republican Party wants to continue to spend 10 to 20 billion dollars a month in Iraq -- a war that America should have never entered into in the first place because even President Bush has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- nor as it turned out -- did they have any 'weapons of mass destruction' that were 'imminanently effecting America's national security. So -- in effect -- the war in Iraq was, and still is, a national fraud played out by the American government on the American people.
In this context, Pastor Jeremy Wright's 'loose-lipped political sermon rampages -- going over the edge and over-associating to be sure, by saying, 'God Damn America' when what he was really trying to say (and please excuse the continuation of the profanity in this context) was 'God Damn The American Imperialist Government That Keeps Making All These Very Nasty Foreign Policy Decisions Abroad and Then Comes Back To The American People Preaching Its Own Brand of Political-Religious Dermons In Which It Makes Its Best Effort To Convince The American People That It's Philosophy Is Perfectly In Line With The Philosophy Of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or Adam Smith or Martin Luther King' -- then and only then, can we perhaps put Jeremy Wright's 'deconstructive' political-religious sermons into their proper context in a spirit that is not 'Anti-American' but rather 'Anti-American-Imperialism'...
The same goes with Madonna's concert imagery comparison of the Republican Party ith German Nazi Imperialism. As Bob Dylan wrote in one of his songs that you can hear in the movie, 'Why We Fight' -- 'It's Not Dark Yet, But Its Getting There...'
Let's see how many politically credible names I can add to support the logistics of the type of 'forensic political-philosophical investigation' we need to undergo -- meaning all of the American people who are brave enough and democratic enough to go here with me in order to unearth the full extent of American Goverment Psycho- and Socio-Pathology:
i. Dwight Eisenhower and his Prophetic Farewell Address that keeps coming back to haunt us like a 'Freddy Krueger Nightmare in Iraq and on Wall Street';
.................................................................
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So was Ike a 60s leftist like Oliver Stone? Note some key elements of Ike's thinking:
Eisenhower didn't believe the Military Industrial Complex was to blame for the Cold War. He laid the blame on communism: "a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method."
Eisenhower felt the Military Industrial Complex was necessary.
Eisenhower felt the influence of the Military Industrial Complex might be "sought or unsought." For 60s leftists, "unsought" power for the Military Industrial Complex was inconceivable.
A principled Republican, Ike was also skeptical of agricultural and research programs fostered by the federal government. He did not consider military industrial interests uniquely insidious, but rather he distrusted government expansion generally.
............................................................
ii. John Eisenhower (son of Dwight Eisenhower)
.......................................................
Eisenhower's son endorses Kerry (2004)
A commentary by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- and another good reminder that some Republicans still believe in age-old principles.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By John Eisenhower
The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3 years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we always have. We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration�s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's Republican Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word Republican has always been synonymous with the word responsibility, which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance. ...
October 3, 2004 at 10:06 PM in Politics | Permalink
............................................................................
iii. Susan Eisenhower (Dwight Eisenhower's grandaughter) (dgb editorial comment: Sound, reasonable thinking seems to be at least partly in the genes...dgb, Oct. 24th, 2008)
................................................................
Susan Eisenhower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan Elaine Eisenhower (born December 31, 1951 in Fort Knox, Kentucky) is a consultant, author, and expert on international security and the relationship between the United States and Russia. She is the daughter of John Eisenhower, and the granddaughter of President Dwight Eisenhower.[1][2] She was married to space scientist Roald Sagdeev,[3] formerly the director of the Russian Space Research Institute. Despite the end of the marriage several years ago, they remain friends and business partners.[4]
Contents
1 Career
2 Publications
3 Endorsement of Barack Obama
4 References
5 External links
6 See also
Career
Susan Eisenhower is President of the Eisenhower Group, Inc, which provides strategic counsel on political, business and public affairs projects. She has consulted for Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies doing business in the emerging markets of the former Soviet Union and for a number of major institutions engaged in the energy field.
She is the Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs & Chairman Emeritus of the Eisenhower Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. and in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania associated with Gettysburg College. Eisenhower served as the president of the Eisenhower Institute twice, and later as Chairman. During that time, she became known for her work in the former Soviet Union and in the energy field.
Eisenhower testified before the Senate Armed Services and Senate Budget Committees on policy toward the region. She was also appointed to the National Academy of Sciences' standing Committee on International Security and Arms Control, where she served for eight years.
In 2000, she was appointed by the United States Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson to the Baker-Cutler Commission, to evaluate U.S.-funded nonproliferation programs in Russia, and since that time she has also served as an advisor to another United States Department of Energy study. She currently sits on the Nuclear Threat Initiative board, co-chaired by Senator Sam Nunn and Ted Turner, the Energy Future Coalition and the US Chamber of Commerce's new Institute for 21st Century Energy. She also serves as an Academic Fellow of the International Peace and Security program of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. She has co-chaired Save America’s Treasures, first with Founding Chair Hillary Rodham Clinton and now with First Lady Laura Bush.
She has provided analysis for CNN International, MSNBC, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, FOX News, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Hardball with Chris Matthews, One on One with John McLaughlin, the BBC, and all three network morning programs. Over the years she has appeared on many other programs including Nightline, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, This Week with David Brinkley, and CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Kuralt.
Eisenhower has also been seen as a "talking head" on many TV programs and documentaries, including Oliver North's War Stories, Sony Pictures Why We Fight (2005 film) and, most recently, Sputnik Mania.
She has received four honorary doctorates, most recently from the Monterey Institute, where she was cited for her work on nuclear non-proliferation. Ms. Eisenhower received the 2008 Dolibois History Prize from Miami University.[5]
Publications
Eisenhower has written extensively on nuclear and space issues and in 2000, she co-edited a book, Islam and Central Asia, which carried the prescient subtitle, An Enduring Legacy or an Evolving Threat?[5] She is the author of three books: Breaking Free, Mrs. Ike, and Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War. She has also edited four collected volumes on regional security issues - the most recent - Partners in Space (2004), which was also published in Russia by Nayuk, the publishing house of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She has written chapters for a number of collected volumes and penned hundreds of op-eds and articles on foreign and domestic policy for publications such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, United States Naval Institute's Proceedings, The Spectator, and Gannett Newspapers, as well as the National Interest and Politique Americaine.[5]
Endorsement of Barack Obama
Although a lifelong member of the Republican Party, Eisenhower endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States in 2008.[6][7][8] Eisenhower announced on August 21, 2008 that she was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent.[9]
She spoke on the final day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Her speech was delivered at INVESCO Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado, and began with, "I stand before you tonight not as a Republican or a Democrat, but as an American." [10] The full transcript of her remarks as delivered [11] are on her official website www.SusanEisenhower.com,as well as video of her remarks at the Convention. [12]
[edit] References
^ Biography of Susan Eisenhower. - Save America's Treasures
^ Susan Eisenhower. - National Public Radio
^ "Leadership in Conflict". - Samford University
^ [1]--Susan Eisenhower's official website.
^ a b c Susan Eisenhower, Chairman Emeritus. - The Eisenhower Institute
^ Susan Eisenhower - Why I'm Backing Obama. - Washington Post
^ Julie Nixon and Susan Eisenhower back Barack Obama. - Daily Telegraph
^ Ike's Granddaughter Calls Obama 'Future of America'. - Washington Independent
^ Reflections on Leaving the Party. - The National Interest
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Video of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
External links
The Official Website of Susan Eisenhower
..........................................................................
iv. Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karen Kwiatkowski
24 Sept 1960-
Kwiatkowski during an interview in Honor Betrayed
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Air Force
Years of service 1978–2003
Rank Lieutenant Colonel
Unit Near East/South Asia and Special Plans
Other work A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine.
Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Colonel Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard and an MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska. She has a PhD in World Politics from Catholic University; her thesis was on overt and covert war in Angola, A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine. She has also published two books about U.S. policy towards Africa: African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001).[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Career
2 Quotations
3 Articles
4 Books
5 Anonymous essays 2002-2003
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
Career
Raised in western North Carolina, Kwiatkowski began her military career in 1982 as a second lieutenant. She served at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, providing logistical support to missions along the Chinese and Russian coasts. She also served in Spain and Italy. Kwiatkowski was then assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually becoming a speechwriter for the agency's director. After leaving the NSA in 1998 she became an analyst on sub-Saharan Africa policy for the Pentagon. Kwiatkowski was in her office in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. From May 2002 to February 2003 she served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia directorate (NESA).[2] While at NESA, she wrote a series of anonymous articles, Insider Notes from the Pentagon which appeared on the website of David Hackworth.[3]
Kwiatkowski left NESA in February 2003 and retired from the Air Force the following month. In April 2003 she began writing a series of articles for the libertarian website LewRockwell.com. In June of that year she published an article in the Ohio Beacon Journal, "Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon,"[4] which attracted additional notice. Since February 2004 she has written a biweekly column ("Without Reservations") for the website MilitaryWeek.
Her most comprehensive writings on the subject of a corrupting influence of the Pentagon on intelligence analysis leading up to the Iraq War appeared in a series of articles in The American Conservative magazine in December 2003 and in a March 2004 article on Salon.com. In the latter piece ("The New Pentagon Papers") she wrote:
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
Kwiatkowski described how a clique of officers led by retired Navy Captain Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA and former aide to Dick Cheney when the latter was Secretary of Defense, took control of military intelligence and how the "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) grew and eventually turned into a censorship and disinformation organism controlling the NESA.[5]
Following the American Conservative and Salon articles, Kwiatkowski began to receive criticism from several conservative sources that supported President Bush's policies. Michael Rubin of the National Review argued she had exaggerated her knowledge of the OSP's workings and claimed she had ties to Lyndon LaRouche.[6] Republican U.S. Senator John Kyl criticized her in a speech on the Senate floor.[7] On a Fox News program, host John Gibson and former Republican National Committee communications director Clifford May described her as an anarchist.[8] Kwiatkowski responded by saying, among other points, that she had never supported or dealt with LaRouche.[9] She requested and received a written apology from Senator John Kyl for his false statements about her.[citation needed]
In addition to her writings Kwiatkowski has appeared as a commentator in the documentaries Hijacking Catastrophe, Honor Betrayed and Why We Fight. She has been a registered member of the U.S. Libertarian Party since 1994 and spoke at the party's national convention in 2004.[10] She is also a member of the Liberty and Power group weblog at the History News Network. Kwiatkowski currently lives with her family in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and works part-time as a farmer.
Kwiatkowski has been widely seen as an attractive Libertarian presidential candidate,[11][12] especially given her military background and outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. In April 2006, Kwiatkowski received the New Hampshire Libertarian Party's 2008 vice-presidential nomination (the Libertarian Party chooses presidential and vice-presidential nominees on separate ballot, and campaigns for the two positions are often independent).[13][14] In 2007, she announced her support for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. [15]
[edit] Quotations
"I came to share with many NSA colleagues a kind of unease, a sense that something was awry. What seemed out of place was the strong and open pro-Israel and anti-Arab orientation in an ostensibly apolitical policy-generation staff within the Pentagon."[16]
"Why we fight? I think we fight 'cause too many people are not standing up, saying 'I'm not doing this any more.'"
"If you join the United States military now, you are not defending the United States of America; you are helping certain policy-makers pursue an imperial agenda."
"At the end of the summer of 2002, new space had been found upstairs on the fifth floor for an "expanded Iraq desk." It would be called the Office of Special Plans. We were instructed at a staff meeting that this office was not to be discussed or explained, and if people in the Joint Staff, among others, asked, we were to offer no comment. We were also told that one of the products of this office would be talking points that all desk officers would use verbatim in the preparation of their background documents."
"By August, only the Pollyannas at the Pentagon felt that the decision to invade Iraq, storm Baghdad, and take over the place (or give it to Ahmad Chalabi) was reversible."
"It wasn't intelligence — it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."[17]
"Interestingly, the Downing Street memo is actually being reported by CNN and FOX News. It is being discussed in the major papers. Congress intends to examine it. Hearing it mentioned on the half hour by CNN Headline News has not dispossessed me of the belief that a state suicide is impossible. Thus, my gentle thoughts are increasingly turning to murder. Murder of the state. In self-defense, of course!"[18]
"We have a Congress that failed in every way to ask the right questions, to hold the President to account. Our Congress failed us miserably, and that's because many in Congress are beholden to the Military Industrial Complex."
"The reason we're in Iraq first off has not honestly been told to the American people; it certainly had nothing to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was never part of the agenda and it's not part of the agenda now."
Articles
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2007-01-15). "Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine". LewRockwell.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18.
Books
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2000). African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) past, present, and future?. Peacekeeping Institute, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College.
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2001-10-01). Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions. ISBN 978-1585661008.
Griffin, David Ray; Peter Dale Scott (2006-08-23). 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1. Karen Kwiatkowski: Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-1566566599.
Anonymous essays 2002-2003
Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski's anonymous essays while still at the Pentagon. (Anonymous essays number 1 to 39)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Ready to go to war?, January 31, 2003. (Anonymous essay number 40)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Fear of God, February 3, 2003. (No.41)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Life is Tough All Over, February 8, 2003. (No.42)
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love CBW, March 10, 2003. (No.47)
The Souffle has Fallen, March 29, 2003. (No.49)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Those Awful Turks, May 28, 2003. (No.51)
References
^ militaryweek.com
^ mcsweeneys.net
^ lewrockwell.com
^ mindfully.org
^ commondreams.org
^ nationalreview.com
^ rpc.senate.gov
^ defenddemocracy.org
^ nathancallahan.com
^ lp.org
^ knappster.blogspot.com
^ politics1.com politics1.com
^ smallgov.org
^ phillies2008.org
^ Academics for Ron Paul
^ amconmag.com
^ motherjones.com
^ lewrockwell.com
See also
The Oil Factor
[edit] External links
Liberty and Power Group Blog
Karen Kwiatkowski, entry on SourceWatch
Center for Cooperative Research Profile of Karen Kwiatkowski
The New Pentagon Papers, an article by Kwiatkowski that appeared on Salon.Com
Archive of articles by Karen Kwiatkowski on LewRockwell.Com
List of articles on militaryweek.com
"Conscientious Objector", an article by Kwiatkowski, originally appearing in The American Conservative
Honor Betrayed page on veteransforpeace.org
The Pentagon Insider Who Spread Rumors that Sounded Anti-Semitic by Edwin Black appearing on History News Network
Web of Conspiracies by Michael Rubin appearing on National Review Online
Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear, and the Selling of American Empire
Democracy Now, September 10, 2004 Hijacking Catastrophe
Democracy Now, October 22, 2004 The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
Karen Kwiatkowski's 2002-2003 archives Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon
Knight Ridder News, July 31, 2003 Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon
Inter Press Service, August 5, 2003 War Critics Zero In on Pentagon Office
Inter Press Service, August 7, 2003 Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network
If Americans Knew, December 1, 2003 Israelis walked through the Pentagon to Feith's office like they owned the place
Interhemispheric Resource Center, February 12, 2004 Office of Special Plans
Inter Press Service, October 28, 2005 A Formidable Hawk Goes Down
Mother Jones, January 2004 The Lie Factory
Democracy Now, December 18, 2003 The Lie Factory - Neocons & the OSP Pushed Disinformation and Bogus Intelligence
In These Times, April 12, 2004 Outside the Inside
In These Times, October 24, 2004 The Bush team’s foreign policy disregarded reality and ignored actuality
Democracy Now, August 8, 2003 Ex-Pentagon Official Suggests Bush Administration Should Face War Crimes Tribunal
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, November 2, 2003 Pentagon Whistle Blower
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, May 22, 2004 An Insider's Look at the March to War
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, September 21, 2004 Timothy McSweeney
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, June 16, 2005 Daily Kos
Ten questions and answers, with Karen Kwiatkowski, October 25, 2005 Unknown News
Daily Kos Karen Kwiatkowski
After Downing Street, June 16, 2005 Written Testimony of Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski's video interview California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Democracy Now, June 29, 2005 Former Pentagon Insider Blasts Bush's Iraq Speech and Repeated References to 9/11
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews on The Charles Goyette Show
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews The Weekend Interview Show with Scott Horton
Brian Lamb. Karen discusses her service in the Air Force, Pentagon & more C-SPAN, April 2, 2006.
Karen Kwiatkowski's radio show American Forum
Interview With Kwiatkowski: Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski on Liberty Cap Talk Live with Todd Andrew Barnett
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski"
Categories: 1960 births | Living people | American columnists | American foreign policy writers | American libertarians | American anti-Iraq War activists | Harvard University alumni | People from North Carolina | United States Air Force officers | Women in the United States Air Force | Members of the Libertarian Party (United States) | Anarcho-capitalists | American anti-war activists | American whistleblowers
This page was last modified on 18 September 2008, at 19:14. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.......................................................................
v. Chalmers Johnson
...................................................
Chalmers Johnson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chalmers Ashby Johnson (born 1931) is an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He is also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia. He has written numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 The Blowback trilogy
3 Bibliography
4 Footnotes
5 External links
Biography
Johnson was born in 1931 in Phoenix, Arizona. He earned a B.A. degree in Economics in 1953 and a M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science in 1957 and 1961 respectively. All of his degrees were from the University of California, Berkeley. During the Korean War, Johnson served as a naval officer in Japan. He taught political science at the University of California from 1962 until he retired from teaching in 1992. He was best known early in his career for scholarship about China and Japan.
Johnson set the agenda for ten or fifteen years in social science scholarship on China with his book on peasant nationalism. His book MITI and the Japanese Miracle, on the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry was the preeminent study of the country's development and created the bustling subfield of what could be called the political economy of development. He coined the term "developmental state." As a public intellectual, he first led the "Japan revisionists" who critiqued American neoliberal economics with Japan as a model, but also attacked Japan for protectionism. During this period, Johnson acted as a consultant for the Office of National Estimates, part of the CIA, contributing to analysis of China and Maoism.[1]
Johnson was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1976. He served as Director of the Center for Chinese Studies and Chair of the Political Science Department at Berkeley, and held a number of important academic posts in area studies. He was a strong believer in the importance of language and historical training for doing serious research. Late in his career he became well known as a critic of "rational choice" approaches, particularly in the study of Japanese politics and political economy.
Johnson is today best known as a sharp critic of American imperialism. His book Blowback won a prize in 2001 from the Before Columbus Foundation, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment and Nemesis concludes the trilogy. Johnson was featured in the Eugene Jarecki-directed film Why We Fight, which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In the past, Johnson has also written for the Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, Harper’s Magazine, and The Nation
The Blowback trilogy
Johnson believes the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, Johnson experienced a political awakening after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy.
Bibliography
Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (1962) (ISBN 0-8047-0074-5)
An Instance of Treason: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring (1964; expanded in 1990)
Change in Communist Systems (1970), By Jeremy R. Azrael, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-8047-0723-5
Conspiracy at Matsukawa (1972)
Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China (1973) By John Israel, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-2959-5247-4
Japan's Public Policy Companies (1978) ISBN 0-8447-3272-9
Revolutionary Change (1982) ISBN 0-316-46730-8
MITI and the Japanese Miracle (1982)
The Industrial Policy Debate (1984) ISBN 0-9176-1665-0
Politics and productivity: the real story of why Japan works (1989) By Chalmers A. Johnson, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, ISBN 0-8873-0350-1
Japan: Who Governs? -- The Rise of the Developmental State (1995)
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000, rev. 2004) ISBN 0-8050-6239-4
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (2004) ISBN 0-8050-7004-4
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2007) ISBN 0-8050-7911-4
Footnotes
^ Nic Paget-Clarke, 2004, "Interview with Chalmers Johnson Part 2. From CIA Analyst to Best-Selling Scholar" (In Motion Magazine). Access date: December 5, 2007.
External links
A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States by Chalmers Johnson (from Harper's Magazine)
Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door by Chalmers Johnson
Blowback Chalmers Johnson essay from The Nation
Cold Warrior in a Strange Land Tom Engelhardt interviews Chalmers Johnson
Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson on Democracy Now! February 27 2007
Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?
Audio: Our Own Worst Enemy
Audio: Is America on the brink of destruction through imperial over-reach?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson"
........................................................................
Chalmers Johnson: “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic”
In his new book, CIA analyst, distinguished scholar, and best-selling author Chalmers Johnson argues that US military and economic overreach may actually lead to the nation’s collapse as a constitutional republic. It’s the last volume in his Blowback trilogy, following the best-selling “Blowback” and “The Sorrows of Empire.” In those two, Johnson argued American clandestine and military activity has led to un-intended, but direct disaster here in the United States.
.........................................................................
vi. Michael Moore
....................................................................
Michael Moore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other persons named Michael Moore, see Michael Moore (disambiguation).
Michael Moore
Michael Moore in 2004
Born Michael Francis Moore
April 23, 1954 (1954-04-23) (age 54)
Davison, Michigan[1][2]
Occupation director, screenwriter, producer, actor
Years active 1989 - present
Spouse(s) Kathleen Glynn (1991-)
Official website
[show]Awards won
Academy Awards
Best Documentary Feature
2002 Bowling for Columbine
César Awards
Best Foreign Film
2002 Bowling for Columbine
Emmy Awards
Outstanding Informational Series
1995 TV Nation
Other awards
Golden Palm (Palme d'Or)
2004 Fahrenheit 9/11
Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an Academy Award-winning American filmmaker, author, and liberal political commentator. He is the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, three of the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time.[3][4] In September 2008, he released his first free movie on the Internet, Slacker Uprising, documenting his personal crusade to encourage more Americans to vote in presidential elections. [5] He has also written and starred in the TV shows TV Nation and The Awful Truth, both of which continue his trademark style of presenting serious documentaries in humorous ways.
Moore is a self-described liberal[6] who has explored globalization, large corporations, gun ownership, the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[7] In 2005, Moore started the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. In 2008, he closed his Manhattan office and moved it to Traverse City, where he is working on his new film.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Early life
1.2 Post-school career
1.3 2004
1.4 Acting career
1.5 Marriage
1.6 Religion
2 Directing
2.1 Films and awards
2.2 Television shows
2.3 Music videos
2.4 Appearances in other documentaries
3 Writings and political views
4 Controversy
5 Published work
5.1 Bibliography
5.2 Filmography
5.3 Television
6 References
7 External links
Biography
Early life
Moore was born in Davison[1] a suburb of Flint, Michigan to parents Veronica, a secretary, and Frank Moore, an automotive assembly-line worker.[9] At that time, the city of Flint was home to many General Motors factories, where his parents and grandfather worked. His uncle was one of the founders of the United Automobile Workers labor union and participated in the Flint Sit-Down Strike. Moore has described his parents as "Irish Catholic Democrats, basic liberal good people."[10]
Moore was brought up Roman Catholic and attended St. John's Elementary School for primary school.[11][12] He then attended Davison High School, where he was active in both drama and debate,[13] graduating in 1972. At the age of 18, he was elected to the Davison school board.[14]
Post-school career
After dropping out of the University of Michigan-Flint (where he wrote for the student newspaper The Michigan Times) and working for a day at the General Motors plant,[15] at 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The Flint Voice, which soon changed its name to The Michigan Voice as it expanded to cover the entire state, which Moore later regretted[citation needed]. In 1986, when Moore became the editor of Mother Jones, a liberal political magazine, he moved to California and The Michigan Voice was shut down.
After four months at Mother Jones, Moore was fired. Matt Labash claims this was for refusing to print an article by Paul Berman that was critical of the Sandinista human rights record in Nicaragua. According to the story, Moore stated that he would not run the article because Ronald Reagan "could easily hold it up, saying, 'See, even Mother Jones agrees with me.'"[16] Berman described Moore as a "very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy" when asked about the incident.[17] Moore claims that Mother Jones actually fired him because of the publisher's refusal to allow him to cover a story on the GM plant closings in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. He responded by putting laid-off GM worker Ben Hamper (who was also writing for the same magazine at the time) on the magazine's cover, leading to his termination. Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger & Me.[18]
2004
Moore was a high-profile guest at both the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the 2004 Republican National Convention, chronicling his impressions in USA Today. He was criticized in a speech by Republican Senator John McCain as "a disingenuous film-maker." Moore laughed and waved as Republican attendees jeered, later chanting "Four more years." Moore gestured his thumb and finger at the crowd, which translates into "loser."[19]
During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to young people who promised to vote. This provoked public denunciations from the Michigan Republican Party and attempts to convince the government that Moore should be arrested for buying votes, but since Moore did not tell the "slackers" involved for whom to vote, just to vote, district attorneys refused to get involved. The "Underwear" tour was a popular success. Quite possibly the most controversial stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah. A fight for his right to speak ensued and resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. Death threats, bribes and lawsuits followed. The event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[20]
Acting career
He has also dabbled in acting, following a 2000 supporting role in Lucky Numbers as the cousin of Lisa Kudrow's character, who agrees to be part of the scheme concocted by John Travolta's character. He also had a cameo in his Canadian Bacon as an anti-Canada activist. In 2004, he did a cameo, as a news journalist, in The Fever, starring Vanessa Redgrave in the lead.
Marriage
Since 1990, Moore has been married to producer Kathleen Glynn,[21] with whom he has a stepdaughter named Natalie. They live in New York City and spend quite a bit of time in Traverse City, Michigan.
Religion
Moore describes himself as a Catholic.[22][23]
Directing
Films and awards
Moore's most recent film, Sicko, released in 2007.
At the Cannes Film Festival Roger & Me
Moore first became famous for his controversial 1989 film, Roger & Me, a documentary about what happened to Flint, Michigan after General Motors closed its factories and opened new ones in Mexico, where the workers were paid much less. Since then Moore has been known as a critic of the neoliberal view of globalization. "Roger" is Roger B. Smith, former CEO and president of General Motors.
Canadian Bacon
In 1995, Moore released a satirical film, Canadian Bacon, which features a fictional US president (played by Alan Alda) engineering a fake war with Canada in order to boost his popularity. It is noted for containing a number of Canadian and American stereotypes, and for being Moore's only non-documentary film. The film is also one of the last featuring Canadian-born actor John Candy, and also features a number of cameos by other Canadian actors. In the film, several potential enemies for America's next great campaign are discussed by the president and his cabinet. (The scene was strongly influenced by the Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove.) The President comments that declaring war on Canada was as ridiculous as declaring war on international terrorism. His military adviser, played by Rip Torn, quickly rebuffs this idea, saying that no one would care about "...a bunch of guys driving around blowing up rent-a-cars".
The Big One
In 1997, Moore directed The Big One, which documents the tour publicizing his book Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American, in which he criticizes mass layoffs despite record corporate profits. Among others, he targets Nike for outsourcing shoe production to Indonesia.
Bowling for Columbine
Moore's 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, probes the culture of guns and violence in the United States, taking as a starting point the Columbine High School massacre of 1999. Bowling for Columbine won the Anniversary Prize at the Cannes Film Festival and France's Cesar Award as the Best Foreign Film. In the United States, it won the 2002 Academy Award for Documentary Feature. It also enjoyed great commercial and critical success for a film of its type and became, at the time, the highest-grossing mainstream-released documentary (a record later held by Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11). It was praised by some for illuminating a subject slighted by the mainstream media, but it was attacked by others who claim it is inaccurate and misleading in its presentations and suggested interpretations of events.
Fahrenheit 9/11
Fahrenheit 9/11 examines America in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, particularly the record of the Bush administration and alleged links between the families of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Fahrenheit was awarded the Palme d'Or, the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival; it was the first documentary film to win the prize since 1956. Moore later announced that Fahrenheit 9/11 would not be in consideration for the 2005 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, but instead for the Academy Award for Best Picture. He stated he wanted the movie to be seen by a few million more people, preferably on television, by election day. Since November 2 was less than nine months after the film's release, it would be disqualified for the Documentary Oscar. Moore also said he wanted to be supportive of his "teammates in non-fiction film." However, Fahrenheit received no Oscar nomination for Best Picture. The title of the film alludes to the classic book Fahrenheit 451 about a future totalitarian state in which books are banned; according to the book, paper begins to burn at 451 degrees Fahrenheit. The pre-release subtitle of the film confirms the allusion: "The temperature at which freedom burns." At the box office, Fahrenheit 9/11 remains the highest-grossing documentary of all time, taking in close to US$200 million worldwide, including United States box office revenue of US$120 million.
Sicko
Moore directed this film about the American health care system, focusing particularly on the managed-care and pharmaceutical industries. At least four major pharmaceutical companies—Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline—ordered their employees not to grant any interviews to Moore.[24][25][26] According to Moore on a letter at his website, "roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas – and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with have caused some minor delays." The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on 19 May 2007, receiving a lengthy standing ovation, and was released in the U.S. and Canada on 29 June 2007.[27] The film was the subject of some controversy when it became known that Moore went to Cuba with chronically ill September 11th rescue workers to shoot parts of the film. The United States is looking into whether this violates the trade embargo. The film is currently ranked the third highest grossing documentary of all time[28] and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.[29]
Captain Mike Across America [30]
Moore takes a look at the politics of college students in what he calls "Bush Administration America" with this film shot during Moore's 60-city college campus tour in the months leading up to the 2004 election.[31][32] The film was later re-edited by Moore into Slacker Uprising.
Television shows
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
Between 1994 and 1995, he directed and hosted the BBC television series TV Nation, which followed the format of news magazine shows but covered topics they avoid. The series aired on BBC2 in the UK. The series was also aired in the US on NBC in 1994 for 9 episodes and again for 8 episodes on FOX in 1995.
His other major series was The Awful Truth, which satirized actions by big corporations and politicians. It aired on Channel 4 in the UK, and the Bravo network in the US, in 1999 and 2000.
Another 1999 series, Michael Moore Live, was aired in the UK only on Channel 4, though it was broadcast from New York. This show had a similar format to The Awful Truth, but also incorporated phone-ins and a live stunt each week.
In 1999 Moore won the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in Arts and Entertainment, for being the executive producer and host of The Awful Truth, where he was also described as "muckraker, author and documentary filmmaker".
Music videos
Moore has directed several music videos, including two for Rage Against the Machine for songs from "The Battle of Los Angeles": "Sleep Now in the Fire" and "Testify". He was threatened with arrest during the shooting of "Sleep Now in the Fire", which was filmed on Wall Street; the city of New York had denied the band permission to play there, although the band and Moore had secured a federal permit to perform.[33]
He also directed video for "R.E.M." single "All the Way to Reno (You're Gonna Be a Star)" in 2001. In 2003 Moore directed a video for "System of a Down" song "Boom!".
Appearances in other documentaries
Moore appeared in The Drugging of Our Children,[34] a 2005 documentary about over-prescription of psychiatric medication to children and teenagers, directed by Gary Null a proponent of Alternative Medicine. In the film Moore agrees with Gary Null that Ritalin and other similar drugs are over-prescribed, saying that they are seen as a "pacifier".
Moore appeared on fellow Flint natives Grand Funk Railroad's edition of Behind The Music.
Moore appeared as an off-camera interviewer in Blood in the Face, a 1991 documentary about white supremacy groups. The film centers around a neo-Nazi gathering in Michigan.[35]
Moore appeared in The Yes Men, a 2003 documentary about two men who pose as the World Trade Organization. He appears during a segment concerning working conditions in Mexico and Latin America.
Moore was interviewed for the 2004 documentary, The Corporation. One of his highlighted quotes was: "The problem is the profit motive: for corporations, there's no such thing as 'enough'".[36]
Moore appeared briefly in Alex Jones's 2005 film Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State. Jones asks Moore why he did not mention some of the information regarding the September 11 attacks in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, in particular, why he did not explain why NORAD stood down on that day. Moore replied, "Because it would be Un-American."
Moore featured prominently in the 2005 documentary This Divided State, which followed the heated level of controversy surrounding his visit to a conservative city in the United States two weeks before the 2004 election.
Moore appeared in the 2006 documentary I'm Going to Tell You a Secret, which chronicles Madonna during her 2004 Re-Invention World Tour. Moore attended her show in New York City at Madison Square Garden.
Writings and political views
Though Moore rejects the label "political activist,"[37] he has been active in promoting his political views. According to John Flesher of the Associated Press, Moore is known for his "fiery left-wing populism."[38]
Moore has authored three best-selling books:
Downsize This! (1996), about politics and corporate crime in the United States,
Stupid White Men (2001), ostensibly a critique of American domestic and foreign policy but, by Moore's own admission, "a book of political humor,"[39] and
Dude, Where's My Country? (2003), an examination of the Bush family's relationships with Saudi royalty, the Bin Laden family, and the energy industry, and a call-to-action for liberals in the 2004 election.
Despite having supported Ralph Nader in 2000, Moore urged Nader not to run in the 2004 election so as not to split the left vote. (Moore joined Bill Maher on the latter's television show in kneeling before Nader to plead with him to stay out of the race.) In June 2004, Moore claimed he is not a member of the Democratic party. Although Moore endorsed General Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination on January 14, Clark withdrew from the primary race on February 11. Moore drew attention when charging publicly that Bush was AWOL during his service in the National Guard (see George W. Bush military service controversy).
With the 2004 election over, Moore continues to collect information on the war in Iraq and the Bush administration in addition to his film projects. On several occasions during 2007, he called for Al Gore to run for President.
On April 21, 2008, Moore endorsed Barack Obama for President, claiming that Clinton's recent actions had been "disgusting."[40]
Controversy
Main article: Michael Moore controversies
Moore has been at the center of several controversies, mostly as a result of his political views and directing style.
Published work
Bibliography
Moore, Michael (1996). Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060977337.
Moore, Michael; Glynn, Kathleen (1998). Adventures In A TV Nation. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060988096.
Moore, Michael (2002). Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!. New York: Regan Books. ISBN 0060392452.
Moore, Michael (2003). Dude, Where's My Country?. New York: Warner Books. ISBN 0446532231.
Moore, Michael (2004). Will They Ever Trust Us Again?. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743271521.
Moore, Michael (2004). The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743272927.
Moore, Michael (2008). Mike's Election Guide 2008. New York: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0446546275.
Filmography
Roger & Me (1989)
Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint (1992) (TV)
Canadian Bacon (1995)
The Big One (1997)
And Justice for All (1998) (TV)
Lucky Numbers (2000) (as actor)
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) "Palme d'Or" in Cannes
Sicko (2007)
Captain Mike Across America (2007)
Slacker Uprising (2008)
Television
TV Nation (1994)
The Awful Truth (1999)
Michael Moore Live (1999)
References
^ a b New York Times profile
^ Michael Moore - MSN Encarta
^ Allmovie (2007). "Michael Moore filmography". Allmovie. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ "Documentary Movies". Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-12.
^ "Michael Moore releases Slacker Uprising for free on Net". www.meeja.com.au (2008-09-24). Retrieved on 2008-09-24.
^ Michael Moore (2006-11-14). "A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives". Michael Moore.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-21.
^ Joel Stein. "Michael Moore: The Angry Filmmaker", Time. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Rick Coates (2008). "Northern Michigan's film industry from Michael Moore's perspective". Northern Express. Retrieved on 2008-07-21.
^ "Michael Moore Biography (1954-)". Film Reference. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Ron Sheldon (23 September 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation", People's Weekly World. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Richard Knight, Jr. (2007-06-27). "To Your Health: A Talk with Sicko's Michael Moore", Windy City Media Group. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
^ Primeau, François. American Dissident, Lulu Press, 2007.
^ Gary Strauss (June 20, 2004). "The truth about Michael Moore". USA Today. Retrieved on 2006–07–09.
^ MichaelMoore.com: The Day I Was To be Tarred and Feathered
^ Ron Sheldon (September 23, 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation". People's Weekly World.
^ Emily Schultz, Michael Moore: A Biography, Ecw Press, 2005. Pg 47-54.
^ Paul Mulshine. "A Stupid White Man and a Smart One". Newark Star Ledger, March 3, 2003
^ Matt Labash. "Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony". The Weekly Standard. June 8, 1998
^ Delegates relish McCain jab at filmmaker Moore CNN.com. 31 August 2006.
^ This Divided State official website. Accessed 9 July 2006.
^ IMDb, Kathleen Glynn
^ Rahner, Mark (2007-06-26). ""Sicko," new Michael Moore film, takes on the health-care system", The Seattle Times. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ Elliott, David (2007-06-29). "Moral outrage, humor make up Michael Moore's one-two punch", SignOnSanDiego. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ The Philadelphia Inquirer: Inqlings | Michael Moore takes on Glaxo. Michael Klein, 30 September 2005. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ Common Dreams News Center: Drug Firms are on the Defense as Filmmaker Michael Moore Plans to Dissect Their Industry. Original Article - Elaine Dutka, L.A. Times, December 22, 2004. Archive accessed August 09, 2006
^ Chicago Tribune: Michael Moore turns camera onto health care industry. Bruce Japsen, 3 October 2004. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ CBC Sicko to have unofficial premiere at Democratic fundraiser May 26, 2007. URL accessed October 14, 2007.
^ "Documentary Movies". Genres. Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ "Shortlist for docu Oscar unveiled". The Hollywood Reporter (2007-11-20). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ Captain Mike at the Internet Movie Database
^ "Toronto International Film Festival". Retrieved on 2007–09–07.
^ Captain Mike Across America (2007)
^ Green Left Weekly: Rage against Wall Street. Michael Moore, via MichaelMoore.com, date unspecified. URL accessed 9 July 2006.
^ "The Drugging of Our Children". at the Internet Movie Database
^ Blood in the Face at the Internet Movie Database Moore details his involvement in the audio commentary on the Roger & Me DVD.
^ "Who's Who". The Corporation Film.
^ "'I am the balance', says Moore". Minneapolis Star Tribune. South Florida Sun-Sentinel (4 July 2007). Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "Moore rejects the label "political activist"; as a citizen of a democracy, Moore insists, such a description is redundant."
^ Flesher, John (16 June 2007). "Hollywood meets Bellaire as Moore gives sneak peek of "Sicko"". Associated Press. MichaelMoore.com. Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "But the filmmaker, known for his fiery left-wing populism and polemical films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," told the audience "Sicko" would appeal across the political spectrum."
^ Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal: Unmoored from Reality. John Fund's Political Diary, 21 March 2003. URL accessed 29 August 2006.
^ My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore April 21, 2008
External links
Michael Moore Official website
Michael Moore at the Internet Movie Database
Michael Moore on YouTube
Works by or about Michael Moore in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
A 2007 NOW on PBS interview with Michael Moore What makes him tick, and why our health care system ticks him off
[show]v • d • eFilms directed by Michael Moore
Roger & Me • Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint • Canadian Bacon • The Big One • Bowling for Columbine • Fahrenheit 9/11 • Sicko • Captain Mike Across America • Slacker Uprising
Persondata
NAME Moore, Michael Francis
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Moore, Michael
SHORT DESCRIPTION American film director, author, and social commentator
DATE OF BIRTH April 23, 1954
PLACE OF BIRTH Davison, Michigan
DATE OF DEATH
PLACE OF DEATH
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore"
Categories: Michael Moore | 1954 births | Alternative journalists | Michigan Democrats | American anti-war activists | American anti-Iraq War activists | American film actors | American film directors | American documentary filmmakers | University of Michigan alumni | American political writers | American Roman Catholics | Americans of Irish descent | César Award winners | Documentary film directors | Emmy Award winners | Health activists | American liberal activists | Living people | Irish-American writers | Michigan actors | Michigan writers | National Rifle Association members | Best Documentary Feature Academy Award winners | Roman Catholic writers | People from Detroit, Michigan | People from Flint, Michigan | Eagle Scouts
Hidden categories: Semi-protected against vandalism | Template computed age | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since June 2008 | Articles needing additional references from August 2007ViewsArticle Discussion View source History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
This page was last modified on 21 October 2008, at 11:19. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.........................................................................
10. Who has been more of a righteous extremist in this election campaign: McCain or Obama. For the most part, Obama has been the voice of reason and integrationism, while McCain has been the voice of the past: righteous/religous/political intolerance, divisionism, and hate. McCain has for the most part used negative campaign tactics that have worked well for the Republican Party in the past in terms of negatively stereotyping and blackballing 'potential Democratic President Hopefuls'. This election things are going to be different: the American people and Obama have evolved; McCain, Palin, and the rest of the negative campaigners in this year's Republican Party -- have't. The Republican Party needs to be re-created, re-invented. It needs to rise like the Phoenix. Today it is dead. And I hope -- I truly hope -- the American people understand that. I think they do. Obama will be the next President of the United States of America -- and I think a potentially exciting one if he sticks to his dreams, his vision, his priorities, his mandate.
I am not particlarly religious but I do not mind religion, politics, economics, and ethics all working in the same direction for a better America - and a better world.
So I will say this for the first and only time to compensate for the negative force of the Jeremy Wright rant quoted earlier:
God Bless America -- and the harmonious integration and peaceful harmony of America with the rest of the world. (From here after, refer to the Dylan song 'With God on My Side' to underline my more regular feelings about the use of the name 'God' to add 'religious force' to any kind of political ideology, particularly when that ideology is 'pathologically destructive and/or self-destructive').
Hate, unbridled greed, selfishness, narcissism, righteous/religous/political intolerance and civil divisionism are all self-destructive to the human race. These are all characteristics that mark the humn race at its worst. They are all characteristics that are 'anti-evolutionary'. They will lead us the same way as the dinosaur -- to extinction.
How many more American soldiers and foreign soldiers, American civilians and foreign civilians have to come home in body bags or lay rotting in the fields or in blown up buildings that CNN cameramen have to relay to the American people and to the rest of the world before everyone on both sides of this brutally savage and ridiculous war will finally come to their senses and say, 'Enough is enough'. Winning the war isn't the answer here. Because we are all big-time losers -- on both sides of the political and relgious and economic fence that divides us -- and kills us and maims us and povertizes us -- as long as we continue to embrace this tragic farce we call 'war', and the radical, righteous, religious, and/or economic extremism that continues to propogandize and support it.
"Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets a greater toughness. ...I believe Martin Luther King Junior said that...but i think it has even older philosophical roots.
The point is: When will it ever stop?
Never?
I think we have evolved better than this. Or have we?
-- dgb, October 23rd-24th, 2008.
Introduction
I thought that Part 4 of this series of political 'Faceoff' essays -- Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party would be my last 'kick' at the Republican Party, the Republican 'Can' if you will, before the election.
However, obviously I was mistaken as, within 24 hours, I had 'gushed out' another sequence of thoughts and feelings relative to my overall current 'Anti-Republican sentiment'.
So, here we go again. I am certainly not against Republican Ideology (Idealism) at its best. If my Republican leader is Dwight Eisenhower, his son John, or John's daughter Susan -- then I am right there in the middle of their particular brand of Republican Ideology and Idealism.
However, I certainly am against Republican Ideology ('Idealism') at its worst -- and this leads us both to Bush's pathological form of Republican Ideology and to McCain's newer 'brand of lipstick' on the 'old Bush Republican Brand'. (Notice, I had to refrain myself from over-using the infamous 'lipstick on a pig' metaphor and, obviously, I only partly succeeded.)
In my mind, it is too late for the McCain-Palin Republicans to recover in this election -- they blew their opportunities, plain and simple. Too much negative and negative-stereotyping pathological political philosophy vs. not enough 'responsible-accountable-ethical' Republican political philosophy. Healthy Republican Idealism can still be found but not on this 2008 corpse of the American Republican Party.
In this essay, we will explore the roots of current 'Pathological Republican Ideology'. This essay is not for the weak of mind, reason, truth, awareness, and 'philosophical digging' -- which might also be called 'philosophical-political forensics'.
Before we start, there is a relationship between 'philosophical-political forensics' and 'blowback' that needs to be fully clarified and understood here.
.......................................................................
Blowback (intelligence)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Manchurian blowback)
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback is a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.[1]
In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informative only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts. In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations.
The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the harmful effects to friendly forces when some weapons are used under certain conditions (for example nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc. used upwind from friendly troops or assets, or a torpedo circling and hitting the firing vessel, etc.). The word is believed to have appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état titled "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953."[2][3]
In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while covert support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.
Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.
......................................................................
Blowback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Blowback may refer to one of the following.
Blowback (intelligence)
Blowback (arms)
Blowback (military) - Negative effects suffered from one's own weapons, such as nuclear fallout blown onto one's own troops or civilian population.
Blowback (book) - a 2000 book on American Empire by Chalmers Johnson ISBN 0805075593.
..............................................................
I heard the term 'blowback' for the first time by Chalmers Johnson (the inspirational CIA analyst) as I tried to digest the full content, quality, substance, and implications of the movie, 'Why We Fight' which I just finished watching. A quick DGB editorial: I saw a 'better' John McCain in this movie than anything I have seen from him on his Repubican campaign -- except perhaps for his Al Smith Dinner Roast Party Comedy Speech where his comedy speech was actually significantly better than Obama's. But that was only one speech.
.................................................................
I am like the 'old fashioned, underdog Lieutenant Columbo' on the old detective series 'Columbo'. In this context, there are many, many political, economic, and military things that I do not understand. However, once I hear or read something, and i deem it to be important, then I will grab it and twist it and tear it to pieces -- not unlike a bulldog or a pitbull or Columbo himself -- until I fully understand the implications, applications, ramifications, and consequences of what i have read or hear. Such is the case here, relative to the term 'blowback' and my current beginning understanding of the term.
Based mainly on what I heard and interpreted Chalmers Johnson as saying, and from their experience relative to the war in Vietnam -- 'too many body bags and imagery of people being blown up, especially women and children, being shown on television and fed back to the American people can be viewed as 'political blowback'. Political blowback is not going to usually be good for the politicians in office who want to continue an ongoing war. If you continue to feed 'war propaganda' to the American people, you are less likely to have the American people 'fall' for this manipulation and exploitation of their fear, because they can see some real, hard-line pictures of what is happening in the war in front of their very faces on tv. If some military-political person tells the American people that war technology has advanced to the stage that we now have 'precision bombing' that hits very precise military targets 100 percent of the time -- and then we see on tv with our own eyes that those supposed military targets were clearly missed, and innocent civilians were killed instead of 'pathological terrorists, insurgents, and/or dictators' -- then how does the American Government look in this kind of an instance?
It's similar to a politician having a sexual affair with a woman (or man) outside of his marriage, and then one day pictures of the affair land on the front page of the National Inquiry, or The New York Times -- this after the politician has been continually denying for days, weeks, or even months, that no such affair every happened....This might be called 'Political-Sexual Blowback'.
I think we all now have an idea of what the term 'Blowback' means...
Philosophical-political forensics investigations may dig up 'political blowback' that the American Government has been hiding from the American people for obvious political reasons. If the American people knew about this 'Blowback', they would not be very happy with their American politicians. This is very much what has happened with Bush and his claims of definitely observed 'weapons of mass destruction'.
On with the essay at hand...
................................................................
B) Ten Inherent Pathologies in McCain's Republican Campaign and 'Idealistic' Vision
1. The first thing that the McCain-led 'New Republicans' did wrong is that they did not separate themselves enough from George Bush, and Bush's Unilateral, Unethical Republican Capitalism and Political Ideology.
2. The second thing that they did wrong is that they focused too much on negative campaigning against Obama.
3. The third thing that they did wrong is that they nominated Governor Sarah Palin as vice-president on the McCain ticket.
4. The fourth thing that they did wrong was that did not create a compelling 21st Century Populist-Ethical Brand and Vision of American Capitalism.
5. The fifth thing that they did wrong is that they -- meaning McCain -- did not separate himself/themselves enough from the American downfalls of Global Capitalism, and a free trade vision that is killing the American manufacturing industry. There is a reason why tariffs are important -- otherwise, all the other countries in the world with very cheap labour forces -- China, India, Mexico...-- are going to conspire to seduce American manufacturing industries away from America and kill the American manufacturing industry -- and thousands and thousands of jobs -- in the process. Cheap foreign labour might be great for corporate profits and great for buyers -- until the 'quality' and even the 'toxicity' of the product comes into question. Not to mention that thousands of American workers are left at home twiddling their thumbs and wondering where there next paycheque is coming.
6. McCain may say that he is a 'maverick' and an 'anti-lobbyist' but that is downright plagerism from Obama's Democratic Capitalist Idealism. The shoe doesn't fit Senator McCain so don't wear it. Maybe you voted to try to stop these 'sub-prime' mortgages, maybe you didn't. The news I heard is that you did -- perhaps even when Obama didn't. Obama is not perfect. He is not quite the 'Messiah' of those first Martin Luther King-like speeches. Obama is a politician too and knows the full voting value of 'political expedience'. Politicians 'flip-flop' -- case closed. Both McCain and Obama have flip-flopped when the 'political weather changed'. Sometimes this is 'philosophical and political evolution'. Sometimes, it is 'moving closer to the votes' -- like in the 'off-shore drilling' example. Still, I give Obama higher marks than you Senator McCain for poltical ethics, integrity, vision, clarity of purpose, rhetorical eloguence, philosophical substance, peaceful foreign relations, and differential unity, harmony, and integrationism. Have I missed anything?
7. Senator McCain, your idealistic view of Capitalism is skewered. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand would both be disgusted by what just happened on Wall Street and to the American people. What you offer to the American people as a whole -- meaning primarily, middle class, working class, America -- is rice and porridge when your unethical -- corrupt -- friends in the Senate and on Wall Steet are dining on Steak and Lobster -- at expensive spa retreats. These CEOs who are completely detached and alienated from the American working class are still the same people (meaning CEOs and lobbyists for CEOs) that pour many thousands if not millions of dollars into your campaign fund. Enough perhaps to make you turn the other way when they 'transgress' on Wall Street while Main Street is financially defrauded, manipulated, exploited, gouged, trashed... Did I leave anything out? Yeah, for sure, Obama is not entirely clean of this debacle as well. But still, I will lay my money on Obama cleaning up this Wall Street debacle and thisSenate-White House-Wall Street Collusion faster and better than either you or your supposed 'anti-lobbyist, Good Old Boy in a Pant Suit maverick' Palin will. Palin has enough trouble keeping her own personal ethics clean let alone America's. Palin may have some rhetorical and charasmatic features to her character but she is in way over her head. Alaska is calling...
8. Let me try briefly to explain a new DGB term: 'Quadra-Dialectic-Democratic Capitalism'
There needs to be a strong working homeostatic and double-dialectic balance between four different sets of people:
1. the American Government;
2. Corporate Leaders and Investors (CEOs, Investors, Wall Street, Management);
3. Corporate Employees (often with the support of Unions);
4. Consuming Customers.
Call these the four pillar foundations of American Capitalism.
If any one of these four groups of American people are unhappy -- and worse, unstable -- then American Capitalism is likely to become destablized or unstablized as a whole. We need all four quadrants of American Capitalism to be strong in order to keep the Capitalist Infrastructure alive, functioning, and stable. If two of these quadrants are 'colluding' -- such as the American Senate, the White House, a particular political party in the goverment, and the lobbyists and/or CEOs for a very powerful mortgaging or banking company -- splitting 90 percent of the American Pie between themselves and leaving only 10 percent left over for the remainin two sectors -- then American Capitalism is going to crumble over a 'bankruptcy' where the CEOs of the company still get very rich, take their money home,and have much, much more than enough to start as many more companies as they want to -- again, at the expense of the middle class and lower class American people. McCain is not my man to fix this problem. Obama is.
9. Regarding alleged Republican 'tax cuts' and 'spending cuts' this is a joke. The McCain Republican Party claims that 'raising taxes' in a 'recession' is not the right thing to do. 'Cutting spending' is. So here is the joke. Money that needs to be poured into American infrastructure and services -- building roads and bridges, building new forms of viable energy supplies, building new schools, building new hospitals, helping to pay for massive medical expenses, helping to subsidize post-secondary education, helping to form 'social safety nets for the elderly, the war veterans, the special needs childen, day care, single mothers and/or dads, the unemployed, the physically and/or mentally and/or pschologically challenged -- all of these badly needed American services and resources, are going to more or less get 'pissed out of the window' because the Republican Party wants to continue to spend 10 to 20 billion dollars a month in Iraq -- a war that America should have never entered into in the first place because even President Bush has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- nor as it turned out -- did they have any 'weapons of mass destruction' that were 'imminanently effecting America's national security. So -- in effect -- the war in Iraq was, and still is, a national fraud played out by the American government on the American people.
In this context, Pastor Jeremy Wright's 'loose-lipped political sermon rampages -- going over the edge and over-associating to be sure, by saying, 'God Damn America' when what he was really trying to say (and please excuse the continuation of the profanity in this context) was 'God Damn The American Imperialist Government That Keeps Making All These Very Nasty Foreign Policy Decisions Abroad and Then Comes Back To The American People Preaching Its Own Brand of Political-Religious Dermons In Which It Makes Its Best Effort To Convince The American People That It's Philosophy Is Perfectly In Line With The Philosophy Of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or Adam Smith or Martin Luther King' -- then and only then, can we perhaps put Jeremy Wright's 'deconstructive' political-religious sermons into their proper context in a spirit that is not 'Anti-American' but rather 'Anti-American-Imperialism'...
The same goes with Madonna's concert imagery comparison of the Republican Party ith German Nazi Imperialism. As Bob Dylan wrote in one of his songs that you can hear in the movie, 'Why We Fight' -- 'It's Not Dark Yet, But Its Getting There...'
Let's see how many politically credible names I can add to support the logistics of the type of 'forensic political-philosophical investigation' we need to undergo -- meaning all of the American people who are brave enough and democratic enough to go here with me in order to unearth the full extent of American Goverment Psycho- and Socio-Pathology:
i. Dwight Eisenhower and his Prophetic Farewell Address that keeps coming back to haunt us like a 'Freddy Krueger Nightmare in Iraq and on Wall Street';
.................................................................
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So was Ike a 60s leftist like Oliver Stone? Note some key elements of Ike's thinking:
Eisenhower didn't believe the Military Industrial Complex was to blame for the Cold War. He laid the blame on communism: "a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method."
Eisenhower felt the Military Industrial Complex was necessary.
Eisenhower felt the influence of the Military Industrial Complex might be "sought or unsought." For 60s leftists, "unsought" power for the Military Industrial Complex was inconceivable.
A principled Republican, Ike was also skeptical of agricultural and research programs fostered by the federal government. He did not consider military industrial interests uniquely insidious, but rather he distrusted government expansion generally.
............................................................
ii. John Eisenhower (son of Dwight Eisenhower)
.......................................................
Eisenhower's son endorses Kerry (2004)
A commentary by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- and another good reminder that some Republicans still believe in age-old principles.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By John Eisenhower
The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3 years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we always have. We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration�s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's Republican Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word Republican has always been synonymous with the word responsibility, which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance. ...
October 3, 2004 at 10:06 PM in Politics | Permalink
............................................................................
iii. Susan Eisenhower (Dwight Eisenhower's grandaughter) (dgb editorial comment: Sound, reasonable thinking seems to be at least partly in the genes...dgb, Oct. 24th, 2008)
................................................................
Susan Eisenhower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan Elaine Eisenhower (born December 31, 1951 in Fort Knox, Kentucky) is a consultant, author, and expert on international security and the relationship between the United States and Russia. She is the daughter of John Eisenhower, and the granddaughter of President Dwight Eisenhower.[1][2] She was married to space scientist Roald Sagdeev,[3] formerly the director of the Russian Space Research Institute. Despite the end of the marriage several years ago, they remain friends and business partners.[4]
Contents
1 Career
2 Publications
3 Endorsement of Barack Obama
4 References
5 External links
6 See also
Career
Susan Eisenhower is President of the Eisenhower Group, Inc, which provides strategic counsel on political, business and public affairs projects. She has consulted for Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies doing business in the emerging markets of the former Soviet Union and for a number of major institutions engaged in the energy field.
She is the Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs & Chairman Emeritus of the Eisenhower Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. and in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania associated with Gettysburg College. Eisenhower served as the president of the Eisenhower Institute twice, and later as Chairman. During that time, she became known for her work in the former Soviet Union and in the energy field.
Eisenhower testified before the Senate Armed Services and Senate Budget Committees on policy toward the region. She was also appointed to the National Academy of Sciences' standing Committee on International Security and Arms Control, where she served for eight years.
In 2000, she was appointed by the United States Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson to the Baker-Cutler Commission, to evaluate U.S.-funded nonproliferation programs in Russia, and since that time she has also served as an advisor to another United States Department of Energy study. She currently sits on the Nuclear Threat Initiative board, co-chaired by Senator Sam Nunn and Ted Turner, the Energy Future Coalition and the US Chamber of Commerce's new Institute for 21st Century Energy. She also serves as an Academic Fellow of the International Peace and Security program of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. She has co-chaired Save America’s Treasures, first with Founding Chair Hillary Rodham Clinton and now with First Lady Laura Bush.
She has provided analysis for CNN International, MSNBC, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, FOX News, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Hardball with Chris Matthews, One on One with John McLaughlin, the BBC, and all three network morning programs. Over the years she has appeared on many other programs including Nightline, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, This Week with David Brinkley, and CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Kuralt.
Eisenhower has also been seen as a "talking head" on many TV programs and documentaries, including Oliver North's War Stories, Sony Pictures Why We Fight (2005 film) and, most recently, Sputnik Mania.
She has received four honorary doctorates, most recently from the Monterey Institute, where she was cited for her work on nuclear non-proliferation. Ms. Eisenhower received the 2008 Dolibois History Prize from Miami University.[5]
Publications
Eisenhower has written extensively on nuclear and space issues and in 2000, she co-edited a book, Islam and Central Asia, which carried the prescient subtitle, An Enduring Legacy or an Evolving Threat?[5] She is the author of three books: Breaking Free, Mrs. Ike, and Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War. She has also edited four collected volumes on regional security issues - the most recent - Partners in Space (2004), which was also published in Russia by Nayuk, the publishing house of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She has written chapters for a number of collected volumes and penned hundreds of op-eds and articles on foreign and domestic policy for publications such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, United States Naval Institute's Proceedings, The Spectator, and Gannett Newspapers, as well as the National Interest and Politique Americaine.[5]
Endorsement of Barack Obama
Although a lifelong member of the Republican Party, Eisenhower endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States in 2008.[6][7][8] Eisenhower announced on August 21, 2008 that she was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent.[9]
She spoke on the final day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Her speech was delivered at INVESCO Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado, and began with, "I stand before you tonight not as a Republican or a Democrat, but as an American." [10] The full transcript of her remarks as delivered [11] are on her official website www.SusanEisenhower.com,as well as video of her remarks at the Convention. [12]
[edit] References
^ Biography of Susan Eisenhower. - Save America's Treasures
^ Susan Eisenhower. - National Public Radio
^ "Leadership in Conflict". - Samford University
^ [1]--Susan Eisenhower's official website.
^ a b c Susan Eisenhower, Chairman Emeritus. - The Eisenhower Institute
^ Susan Eisenhower - Why I'm Backing Obama. - Washington Post
^ Julie Nixon and Susan Eisenhower back Barack Obama. - Daily Telegraph
^ Ike's Granddaughter Calls Obama 'Future of America'. - Washington Independent
^ Reflections on Leaving the Party. - The National Interest
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Official transcript of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
^ Video of remarks by Susan Eisenhower at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. - SusanEisenhower.com
External links
The Official Website of Susan Eisenhower
..........................................................................
iv. Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karen Kwiatkowski
24 Sept 1960-
Kwiatkowski during an interview in Honor Betrayed
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Air Force
Years of service 1978–2003
Rank Lieutenant Colonel
Unit Near East/South Asia and Special Plans
Other work A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine.
Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Colonel Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard and an MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska. She has a PhD in World Politics from Catholic University; her thesis was on overt and covert war in Angola, A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine. She has also published two books about U.S. policy towards Africa: African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001).[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Career
2 Quotations
3 Articles
4 Books
5 Anonymous essays 2002-2003
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
Career
Raised in western North Carolina, Kwiatkowski began her military career in 1982 as a second lieutenant. She served at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, providing logistical support to missions along the Chinese and Russian coasts. She also served in Spain and Italy. Kwiatkowski was then assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually becoming a speechwriter for the agency's director. After leaving the NSA in 1998 she became an analyst on sub-Saharan Africa policy for the Pentagon. Kwiatkowski was in her office in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. From May 2002 to February 2003 she served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia directorate (NESA).[2] While at NESA, she wrote a series of anonymous articles, Insider Notes from the Pentagon which appeared on the website of David Hackworth.[3]
Kwiatkowski left NESA in February 2003 and retired from the Air Force the following month. In April 2003 she began writing a series of articles for the libertarian website LewRockwell.com. In June of that year she published an article in the Ohio Beacon Journal, "Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon,"[4] which attracted additional notice. Since February 2004 she has written a biweekly column ("Without Reservations") for the website MilitaryWeek.
Her most comprehensive writings on the subject of a corrupting influence of the Pentagon on intelligence analysis leading up to the Iraq War appeared in a series of articles in The American Conservative magazine in December 2003 and in a March 2004 article on Salon.com. In the latter piece ("The New Pentagon Papers") she wrote:
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
Kwiatkowski described how a clique of officers led by retired Navy Captain Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA and former aide to Dick Cheney when the latter was Secretary of Defense, took control of military intelligence and how the "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) grew and eventually turned into a censorship and disinformation organism controlling the NESA.[5]
Following the American Conservative and Salon articles, Kwiatkowski began to receive criticism from several conservative sources that supported President Bush's policies. Michael Rubin of the National Review argued she had exaggerated her knowledge of the OSP's workings and claimed she had ties to Lyndon LaRouche.[6] Republican U.S. Senator John Kyl criticized her in a speech on the Senate floor.[7] On a Fox News program, host John Gibson and former Republican National Committee communications director Clifford May described her as an anarchist.[8] Kwiatkowski responded by saying, among other points, that she had never supported or dealt with LaRouche.[9] She requested and received a written apology from Senator John Kyl for his false statements about her.[citation needed]
In addition to her writings Kwiatkowski has appeared as a commentator in the documentaries Hijacking Catastrophe, Honor Betrayed and Why We Fight. She has been a registered member of the U.S. Libertarian Party since 1994 and spoke at the party's national convention in 2004.[10] She is also a member of the Liberty and Power group weblog at the History News Network. Kwiatkowski currently lives with her family in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and works part-time as a farmer.
Kwiatkowski has been widely seen as an attractive Libertarian presidential candidate,[11][12] especially given her military background and outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. In April 2006, Kwiatkowski received the New Hampshire Libertarian Party's 2008 vice-presidential nomination (the Libertarian Party chooses presidential and vice-presidential nominees on separate ballot, and campaigns for the two positions are often independent).[13][14] In 2007, she announced her support for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. [15]
[edit] Quotations
"I came to share with many NSA colleagues a kind of unease, a sense that something was awry. What seemed out of place was the strong and open pro-Israel and anti-Arab orientation in an ostensibly apolitical policy-generation staff within the Pentagon."[16]
"Why we fight? I think we fight 'cause too many people are not standing up, saying 'I'm not doing this any more.'"
"If you join the United States military now, you are not defending the United States of America; you are helping certain policy-makers pursue an imperial agenda."
"At the end of the summer of 2002, new space had been found upstairs on the fifth floor for an "expanded Iraq desk." It would be called the Office of Special Plans. We were instructed at a staff meeting that this office was not to be discussed or explained, and if people in the Joint Staff, among others, asked, we were to offer no comment. We were also told that one of the products of this office would be talking points that all desk officers would use verbatim in the preparation of their background documents."
"By August, only the Pollyannas at the Pentagon felt that the decision to invade Iraq, storm Baghdad, and take over the place (or give it to Ahmad Chalabi) was reversible."
"It wasn't intelligence — it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."[17]
"Interestingly, the Downing Street memo is actually being reported by CNN and FOX News. It is being discussed in the major papers. Congress intends to examine it. Hearing it mentioned on the half hour by CNN Headline News has not dispossessed me of the belief that a state suicide is impossible. Thus, my gentle thoughts are increasingly turning to murder. Murder of the state. In self-defense, of course!"[18]
"We have a Congress that failed in every way to ask the right questions, to hold the President to account. Our Congress failed us miserably, and that's because many in Congress are beholden to the Military Industrial Complex."
"The reason we're in Iraq first off has not honestly been told to the American people; it certainly had nothing to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was never part of the agenda and it's not part of the agenda now."
Articles
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2007-01-15). "Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine". LewRockwell.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18.
Books
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2000). African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) past, present, and future?. Peacekeeping Institute, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College.
Kwiatkowski, Karen (2001-10-01). Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions. ISBN 978-1585661008.
Griffin, David Ray; Peter Dale Scott (2006-08-23). 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1. Karen Kwiatkowski: Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-1566566599.
Anonymous essays 2002-2003
Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski's anonymous essays while still at the Pentagon. (Anonymous essays number 1 to 39)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Ready to go to war?, January 31, 2003. (Anonymous essay number 40)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Fear of God, February 3, 2003. (No.41)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Life is Tough All Over, February 8, 2003. (No.42)
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love CBW, March 10, 2003. (No.47)
The Souffle has Fallen, March 29, 2003. (No.49)
Insider Notes from The Pentagon: Those Awful Turks, May 28, 2003. (No.51)
References
^ militaryweek.com
^ mcsweeneys.net
^ lewrockwell.com
^ mindfully.org
^ commondreams.org
^ nationalreview.com
^ rpc.senate.gov
^ defenddemocracy.org
^ nathancallahan.com
^ lp.org
^ knappster.blogspot.com
^ politics1.com politics1.com
^ smallgov.org
^ phillies2008.org
^ Academics for Ron Paul
^ amconmag.com
^ motherjones.com
^ lewrockwell.com
See also
The Oil Factor
[edit] External links
Liberty and Power Group Blog
Karen Kwiatkowski, entry on SourceWatch
Center for Cooperative Research Profile of Karen Kwiatkowski
The New Pentagon Papers, an article by Kwiatkowski that appeared on Salon.Com
Archive of articles by Karen Kwiatkowski on LewRockwell.Com
List of articles on militaryweek.com
"Conscientious Objector", an article by Kwiatkowski, originally appearing in The American Conservative
Honor Betrayed page on veteransforpeace.org
The Pentagon Insider Who Spread Rumors that Sounded Anti-Semitic by Edwin Black appearing on History News Network
Web of Conspiracies by Michael Rubin appearing on National Review Online
Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear, and the Selling of American Empire
Democracy Now, September 10, 2004 Hijacking Catastrophe
Democracy Now, October 22, 2004 The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
Karen Kwiatkowski's 2002-2003 archives Deep Throat Returns: Insider Notes from The Pentagon
Knight Ridder News, July 31, 2003 Career Officer Does Eye-Opening Stint Inside Pentagon
Inter Press Service, August 5, 2003 War Critics Zero In on Pentagon Office
Inter Press Service, August 7, 2003 Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network
If Americans Knew, December 1, 2003 Israelis walked through the Pentagon to Feith's office like they owned the place
Interhemispheric Resource Center, February 12, 2004 Office of Special Plans
Inter Press Service, October 28, 2005 A Formidable Hawk Goes Down
Mother Jones, January 2004 The Lie Factory
Democracy Now, December 18, 2003 The Lie Factory - Neocons & the OSP Pushed Disinformation and Bogus Intelligence
In These Times, April 12, 2004 Outside the Inside
In These Times, October 24, 2004 The Bush team’s foreign policy disregarded reality and ignored actuality
Democracy Now, August 8, 2003 Ex-Pentagon Official Suggests Bush Administration Should Face War Crimes Tribunal
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, November 2, 2003 Pentagon Whistle Blower
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, May 22, 2004 An Insider's Look at the March to War
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, September 21, 2004 Timothy McSweeney
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, June 16, 2005 Daily Kos
Ten questions and answers, with Karen Kwiatkowski, October 25, 2005 Unknown News
Daily Kos Karen Kwiatkowski
After Downing Street, June 16, 2005 Written Testimony of Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski's video interview California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Democracy Now, June 29, 2005 Former Pentagon Insider Blasts Bush's Iraq Speech and Repeated References to 9/11
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews on The Charles Goyette Show
Karen Kwiatkowski's audio interviews The Weekend Interview Show with Scott Horton
Brian Lamb. Karen discusses her service in the Air Force, Pentagon & more C-SPAN, April 2, 2006.
Karen Kwiatkowski's radio show American Forum
Interview With Kwiatkowski: Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski on Liberty Cap Talk Live with Todd Andrew Barnett
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski"
Categories: 1960 births | Living people | American columnists | American foreign policy writers | American libertarians | American anti-Iraq War activists | Harvard University alumni | People from North Carolina | United States Air Force officers | Women in the United States Air Force | Members of the Libertarian Party (United States) | Anarcho-capitalists | American anti-war activists | American whistleblowers
This page was last modified on 18 September 2008, at 19:14. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.......................................................................
v. Chalmers Johnson
...................................................
Chalmers Johnson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chalmers Ashby Johnson (born 1931) is an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He is also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia. He has written numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 The Blowback trilogy
3 Bibliography
4 Footnotes
5 External links
Biography
Johnson was born in 1931 in Phoenix, Arizona. He earned a B.A. degree in Economics in 1953 and a M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science in 1957 and 1961 respectively. All of his degrees were from the University of California, Berkeley. During the Korean War, Johnson served as a naval officer in Japan. He taught political science at the University of California from 1962 until he retired from teaching in 1992. He was best known early in his career for scholarship about China and Japan.
Johnson set the agenda for ten or fifteen years in social science scholarship on China with his book on peasant nationalism. His book MITI and the Japanese Miracle, on the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry was the preeminent study of the country's development and created the bustling subfield of what could be called the political economy of development. He coined the term "developmental state." As a public intellectual, he first led the "Japan revisionists" who critiqued American neoliberal economics with Japan as a model, but also attacked Japan for protectionism. During this period, Johnson acted as a consultant for the Office of National Estimates, part of the CIA, contributing to analysis of China and Maoism.[1]
Johnson was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1976. He served as Director of the Center for Chinese Studies and Chair of the Political Science Department at Berkeley, and held a number of important academic posts in area studies. He was a strong believer in the importance of language and historical training for doing serious research. Late in his career he became well known as a critic of "rational choice" approaches, particularly in the study of Japanese politics and political economy.
Johnson is today best known as a sharp critic of American imperialism. His book Blowback won a prize in 2001 from the Before Columbus Foundation, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment and Nemesis concludes the trilogy. Johnson was featured in the Eugene Jarecki-directed film Why We Fight, which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In the past, Johnson has also written for the Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, Harper’s Magazine, and The Nation
The Blowback trilogy
Johnson believes the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, Johnson experienced a political awakening after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy.
Bibliography
Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (1962) (ISBN 0-8047-0074-5)
An Instance of Treason: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring (1964; expanded in 1990)
Change in Communist Systems (1970), By Jeremy R. Azrael, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-8047-0723-5
Conspiracy at Matsukawa (1972)
Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China (1973) By John Israel, Chalmers A. Johnson, ISBN 0-2959-5247-4
Japan's Public Policy Companies (1978) ISBN 0-8447-3272-9
Revolutionary Change (1982) ISBN 0-316-46730-8
MITI and the Japanese Miracle (1982)
The Industrial Policy Debate (1984) ISBN 0-9176-1665-0
Politics and productivity: the real story of why Japan works (1989) By Chalmers A. Johnson, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, ISBN 0-8873-0350-1
Japan: Who Governs? -- The Rise of the Developmental State (1995)
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000, rev. 2004) ISBN 0-8050-6239-4
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (2004) ISBN 0-8050-7004-4
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2007) ISBN 0-8050-7911-4
Footnotes
^ Nic Paget-Clarke, 2004, "Interview with Chalmers Johnson Part 2. From CIA Analyst to Best-Selling Scholar" (In Motion Magazine). Access date: December 5, 2007.
External links
A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States by Chalmers Johnson (from Harper's Magazine)
Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door by Chalmers Johnson
Blowback Chalmers Johnson essay from The Nation
Cold Warrior in a Strange Land Tom Engelhardt interviews Chalmers Johnson
Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson on Democracy Now! February 27 2007
Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?
Audio: Our Own Worst Enemy
Audio: Is America on the brink of destruction through imperial over-reach?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson"
........................................................................
Chalmers Johnson: “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic”
In his new book, CIA analyst, distinguished scholar, and best-selling author Chalmers Johnson argues that US military and economic overreach may actually lead to the nation’s collapse as a constitutional republic. It’s the last volume in his Blowback trilogy, following the best-selling “Blowback” and “The Sorrows of Empire.” In those two, Johnson argued American clandestine and military activity has led to un-intended, but direct disaster here in the United States.
..............................................
vi. Michael Moore
....................................................................
Michael Moore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other persons named Michael Moore, see Michael Moore (disambiguation).
Michael Moore
Michael Moore in 2004
Born Michael Francis Moore
April 23, 1954 (1954-04-23) (age 54)
Davison, Michigan[1][2]
Occupation director, screenwriter, producer, actor
Years active 1989 - present
Spouse(s) Kathleen Glynn (1991-)
Official website
[show]Awards won
Academy Awards
Best Documentary Feature
2002 Bowling for Columbine
César Awards
Best Foreign Film
2002 Bowling for Columbine
Emmy Awards
Outstanding Informational Series
1995 TV Nation
Other awards
Golden Palm (Palme d'Or)
2004 Fahrenheit 9/11
Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an Academy Award-winning American filmmaker, author, and liberal political commentator. He is the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, three of the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time.[3][4] In September 2008, he released his first free movie on the Internet, Slacker Uprising, documenting his personal crusade to encourage more Americans to vote in presidential elections. [5] He has also written and starred in the TV shows TV Nation and The Awful Truth, both of which continue his trademark style of presenting serious documentaries in humorous ways.
Moore is a self-described liberal[6] who has explored globalization, large corporations, gun ownership, the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[7] In 2005, Moore started the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. In 2008, he closed his Manhattan office and moved it to Traverse City, where he is working on his new film.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Early life
1.2 Post-school career
1.3 2004
1.4 Acting career
1.5 Marriage
1.6 Religion
2 Directing
2.1 Films and awards
2.2 Television shows
2.3 Music videos
2.4 Appearances in other documentaries
3 Writings and political views
4 Controversy
5 Published work
5.1 Bibliography
5.2 Filmography
5.3 Television
6 References
7 External links
Biography
Early life
Moore was born in Davison[1] a suburb of Flint, Michigan to parents Veronica, a secretary, and Frank Moore, an automotive assembly-line worker.[9] At that time, the city of Flint was home to many General Motors factories, where his parents and grandfather worked. His uncle was one of the founders of the United Automobile Workers labor union and participated in the Flint Sit-Down Strike. Moore has described his parents as "Irish Catholic Democrats, basic liberal good people."[10]
Moore was brought up Roman Catholic and attended St. John's Elementary School for primary school.[11][12] He then attended Davison High School, where he was active in both drama and debate,[13] graduating in 1972. At the age of 18, he was elected to the Davison school board.[14]
Post-school career
After dropping out of the University of Michigan-Flint (where he wrote for the student newspaper The Michigan Times) and working for a day at the General Motors plant,[15] at 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The Flint Voice, which soon changed its name to The Michigan Voice as it expanded to cover the entire state, which Moore later regretted[citation needed]. In 1986, when Moore became the editor of Mother Jones, a liberal political magazine, he moved to California and The Michigan Voice was shut down.
After four months at Mother Jones, Moore was fired. Matt Labash claims this was for refusing to print an article by Paul Berman that was critical of the Sandinista human rights record in Nicaragua. According to the story, Moore stated that he would not run the article because Ronald Reagan "could easily hold it up, saying, 'See, even Mother Jones agrees with me.'"[16] Berman described Moore as a "very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy" when asked about the incident.[17] Moore claims that Mother Jones actually fired him because of the publisher's refusal to allow him to cover a story on the GM plant closings in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. He responded by putting laid-off GM worker Ben Hamper (who was also writing for the same magazine at the time) on the magazine's cover, leading to his termination. Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger & Me.[18]
2004
Moore was a high-profile guest at both the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the 2004 Republican National Convention, chronicling his impressions in USA Today. He was criticized in a speech by Republican Senator John McCain as "a disingenuous film-maker." Moore laughed and waved as Republican attendees jeered, later chanting "Four more years." Moore gestured his thumb and finger at the crowd, which translates into "loser."[19]
During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to young people who promised to vote. This provoked public denunciations from the Michigan Republican Party and attempts to convince the government that Moore should be arrested for buying votes, but since Moore did not tell the "slackers" involved for whom to vote, just to vote, district attorneys refused to get involved. The "Underwear" tour was a popular success. Quite possibly the most controversial stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah. A fight for his right to speak ensued and resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. Death threats, bribes and lawsuits followed. The event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[20]
Acting career
He has also dabbled in acting, following a 2000 supporting role in Lucky Numbers as the cousin of Lisa Kudrow's character, who agrees to be part of the scheme concocted by John Travolta's character. He also had a cameo in his Canadian Bacon as an anti-Canada activist. In 2004, he did a cameo, as a news journalist, in The Fever, starring Vanessa Redgrave in the lead.
Marriage
Since 1990, Moore has been married to producer Kathleen Glynn,[21] with whom he has a stepdaughter named Natalie. They live in New York City and spend quite a bit of time in Traverse City, Michigan.
Religion
Moore describes himself as a Catholic.[22][23]
Directing
Films and awards
Moore's most recent film, Sicko, released in 2007.
At the Cannes Film Festival Roger & Me
Moore first became famous for his controversial 1989 film, Roger & Me, a documentary about what happened to Flint, Michigan after General Motors closed its factories and opened new ones in Mexico, where the workers were paid much less. Since then Moore has been known as a critic of the neoliberal view of globalization. "Roger" is Roger B. Smith, former CEO and president of General Motors.
Canadian Bacon
In 1995, Moore released a satirical film, Canadian Bacon, which features a fictional US president (played by Alan Alda) engineering a fake war with Canada in order to boost his popularity. It is noted for containing a number of Canadian and American stereotypes, and for being Moore's only non-documentary film. The film is also one of the last featuring Canadian-born actor John Candy, and also features a number of cameos by other Canadian actors. In the film, several potential enemies for America's next great campaign are discussed by the president and his cabinet. (The scene was strongly influenced by the Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove.) The President comments that declaring war on Canada was as ridiculous as declaring war on international terrorism. His military adviser, played by Rip Torn, quickly rebuffs this idea, saying that no one would care about "...a bunch of guys driving around blowing up rent-a-cars".
The Big One
In 1997, Moore directed The Big One, which documents the tour publicizing his book Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American, in which he criticizes mass layoffs despite record corporate profits. Among others, he targets Nike for outsourcing shoe production to Indonesia.
Bowling for Columbine
Moore's 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, probes the culture of guns and violence in the United States, taking as a starting point the Columbine High School massacre of 1999. Bowling for Columbine won the Anniversary Prize at the Cannes Film Festival and France's Cesar Award as the Best Foreign Film. In the United States, it won the 2002 Academy Award for Documentary Feature. It also enjoyed great commercial and critical success for a film of its type and became, at the time, the highest-grossing mainstream-released documentary (a record later held by Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11). It was praised by some for illuminating a subject slighted by the mainstream media, but it was attacked by others who claim it is inaccurate and misleading in its presentations and suggested interpretations of events.
Fahrenheit 9/11
Fahrenheit 9/11 examines America in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, particularly the record of the Bush administration and alleged links between the families of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Fahrenheit was awarded the Palme d'Or, the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival; it was the first documentary film to win the prize since 1956. Moore later announced that Fahrenheit 9/11 would not be in consideration for the 2005 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, but instead for the Academy Award for Best Picture. He stated he wanted the movie to be seen by a few million more people, preferably on television, by election day. Since November 2 was less than nine months after the film's release, it would be disqualified for the Documentary Oscar. Moore also said he wanted to be supportive of his "teammates in non-fiction film." However, Fahrenheit received no Oscar nomination for Best Picture. The title of the film alludes to the classic book Fahrenheit 451 about a future totalitarian state in which books are banned; according to the book, paper begins to burn at 451 degrees Fahrenheit. The pre-release subtitle of the film confirms the allusion: "The temperature at which freedom burns." At the box office, Fahrenheit 9/11 remains the highest-grossing documentary of all time, taking in close to US$200 million worldwide, including United States box office revenue of US$120 million.
Sicko
Moore directed this film about the American health care system, focusing particularly on the managed-care and pharmaceutical industries. At least four major pharmaceutical companies—Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline—ordered their employees not to grant any interviews to Moore.[24][25][26] According to Moore on a letter at his website, "roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas – and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with have caused some minor delays." The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on 19 May 2007, receiving a lengthy standing ovation, and was released in the U.S. and Canada on 29 June 2007.[27] The film was the subject of some controversy when it became known that Moore went to Cuba with chronically ill September 11th rescue workers to shoot parts of the film. The United States is looking into whether this violates the trade embargo. The film is currently ranked the third highest grossing documentary of all time[28] and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.[29]
Captain Mike Across America [30]
Moore takes a look at the politics of college students in what he calls "Bush Administration America" with this film shot during Moore's 60-city college campus tour in the months leading up to the 2004 election.[31][32] The film was later re-edited by Moore into Slacker Uprising.
Television shows
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
Between 1994 and 1995, he directed and hosted the BBC television series TV Nation, which followed the format of news magazine shows but covered topics they avoid. The series aired on BBC2 in the UK. The series was also aired in the US on NBC in 1994 for 9 episodes and again for 8 episodes on FOX in 1995.
His other major series was The Awful Truth, which satirized actions by big corporations and politicians. It aired on Channel 4 in the UK, and the Bravo network in the US, in 1999 and 2000.
Another 1999 series, Michael Moore Live, was aired in the UK only on Channel 4, though it was broadcast from New York. This show had a similar format to The Awful Truth, but also incorporated phone-ins and a live stunt each week.
In 1999 Moore won the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in Arts and Entertainment, for being the executive producer and host of The Awful Truth, where he was also described as "muckraker, author and documentary filmmaker".
Music videos
Moore has directed several music videos, including two for Rage Against the Machine for songs from "The Battle of Los Angeles": "Sleep Now in the Fire" and "Testify". He was threatened with arrest during the shooting of "Sleep Now in the Fire", which was filmed on Wall Street; the city of New York had denied the band permission to play there, although the band and Moore had secured a federal permit to perform.[33]
He also directed video for "R.E.M." single "All the Way to Reno (You're Gonna Be a Star)" in 2001. In 2003 Moore directed a video for "System of a Down" song "Boom!".
Appearances in other documentaries
Moore appeared in The Drugging of Our Children,[34] a 2005 documentary about over-prescription of psychiatric medication to children and teenagers, directed by Gary Null a proponent of Alternative Medicine. In the film Moore agrees with Gary Null that Ritalin and other similar drugs are over-prescribed, saying that they are seen as a "pacifier".
Moore appeared on fellow Flint natives Grand Funk Railroad's edition of Behind The Music.
Moore appeared as an off-camera interviewer in Blood in the Face, a 1991 documentary about white supremacy groups. The film centers around a neo-Nazi gathering in Michigan.[35]
Moore appeared in The Yes Men, a 2003 documentary about two men who pose as the World Trade Organization. He appears during a segment concerning working conditions in Mexico and Latin America.
Moore was interviewed for the 2004 documentary, The Corporation. One of his highlighted quotes was: "The problem is the profit motive: for corporations, there's no such thing as 'enough'".[36]
Moore appeared briefly in Alex Jones's 2005 film Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State. Jones asks Moore why he did not mention some of the information regarding the September 11 attacks in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, in particular, why he did not explain why NORAD stood down on that day. Moore replied, "Because it would be Un-American."
Moore featured prominently in the 2005 documentary This Divided State, which followed the heated level of controversy surrounding his visit to a conservative city in the United States two weeks before the 2004 election.
Moore appeared in the 2006 documentary I'm Going to Tell You a Secret, which chronicles Madonna during her 2004 Re-Invention World Tour. Moore attended her show in New York City at Madison Square Garden.
Writings and political views
Though Moore rejects the label "political activist,"[37] he has been active in promoting his political views. According to John Flesher of the Associated Press, Moore is known for his "fiery left-wing populism."[38]
Moore has authored three best-selling books:
Downsize This! (1996), about politics and corporate crime in the United States,
Stupid White Men (2001), ostensibly a critique of American domestic and foreign policy but, by Moore's own admission, "a book of political humor,"[39] and
Dude, Where's My Country? (2003), an examination of the Bush family's relationships with Saudi royalty, the Bin Laden family, and the energy industry, and a call-to-action for liberals in the 2004 election.
Despite having supported Ralph Nader in 2000, Moore urged Nader not to run in the 2004 election so as not to split the left vote. (Moore joined Bill Maher on the latter's television show in kneeling before Nader to plead with him to stay out of the race.) In June 2004, Moore claimed he is not a member of the Democratic party. Although Moore endorsed General Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination on January 14, Clark withdrew from the primary race on February 11. Moore drew attention when charging publicly that Bush was AWOL during his service in the National Guard (see George W. Bush military service controversy).
With the 2004 election over, Moore continues to collect information on the war in Iraq and the Bush administration in addition to his film projects. On several occasions during 2007, he called for Al Gore to run for President.
On April 21, 2008, Moore endorsed Barack Obama for President, claiming that Clinton's recent actions had been "disgusting."[40]
Controversy
Main article: Michael Moore controversies
Moore has been at the center of several controversies, mostly as a result of his political views and directing style.
Published work
Bibliography
Moore, Michael (1996). Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060977337.
Moore, Michael; Glynn, Kathleen (1998). Adventures In A TV Nation. New York: HarperPerennial. ISBN 0060988096.
Moore, Michael (2002). Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!. New York: Regan Books. ISBN 0060392452.
Moore, Michael (2003). Dude, Where's My Country?. New York: Warner Books. ISBN 0446532231.
Moore, Michael (2004). Will They Ever Trust Us Again?. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743271521.
Moore, Michael (2004). The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743272927.
Moore, Michael (2008). Mike's Election Guide 2008. New York: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0446546275.
Filmography
Roger & Me (1989)
Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint (1992) (TV)
Canadian Bacon (1995)
The Big One (1997)
And Justice for All (1998) (TV)
Lucky Numbers (2000) (as actor)
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) "Palme d'Or" in Cannes
Sicko (2007)
Captain Mike Across America (2007)
Slacker Uprising (2008)
Television
TV Nation (1994)
The Awful Truth (1999)
Michael Moore Live (1999)
References
^ a b New York Times profile
^ Michael Moore - MSN Encarta
^ Allmovie (2007). "Michael Moore filmography". Allmovie. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ "Documentary Movies". Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-12.
^ "Michael Moore releases Slacker Uprising for free on Net". www.meeja.com.au (2008-09-24). Retrieved on 2008-09-24.
^ Michael Moore (2006-11-14). "A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives". Michael Moore.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-21.
^ Joel Stein. "Michael Moore: The Angry Filmmaker", Time. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Rick Coates (2008). "Northern Michigan's film industry from Michael Moore's perspective". Northern Express. Retrieved on 2008-07-21.
^ "Michael Moore Biography (1954-)". Film Reference. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Ron Sheldon (23 September 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation", People's Weekly World. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
^ Richard Knight, Jr. (2007-06-27). "To Your Health: A Talk with Sicko's Michael Moore", Windy City Media Group. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
^ Primeau, François. American Dissident, Lulu Press, 2007.
^ Gary Strauss (June 20, 2004). "The truth about Michael Moore". USA Today. Retrieved on 2006–07–09.
^ MichaelMoore.com: The Day I Was To be Tarred and Feathered
^ Ron Sheldon (September 23, 1995). "Exclusive Interview with Michael Moore of TV Nation". People's Weekly World.
^ Emily Schultz, Michael Moore: A Biography, Ecw Press, 2005. Pg 47-54.
^ Paul Mulshine. "A Stupid White Man and a Smart One". Newark Star Ledger, March 3, 2003
^ Matt Labash. "Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony". The Weekly Standard. June 8, 1998
^ Delegates relish McCain jab at filmmaker Moore CNN.com. 31 August 2006.
^ This Divided State official website. Accessed 9 July 2006.
^ IMDb, Kathleen Glynn
^ Rahner, Mark (2007-06-26). ""Sicko," new Michael Moore film, takes on the health-care system", The Seattle Times. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ Elliott, David (2007-06-29). "Moral outrage, humor make up Michael Moore's one-two punch", SignOnSanDiego. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ The Philadelphia Inquirer: Inqlings | Michael Moore takes on Glaxo. Michael Klein, 30 September 2005. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ Common Dreams News Center: Drug Firms are on the Defense as Filmmaker Michael Moore Plans to Dissect Their Industry. Original Article - Elaine Dutka, L.A. Times, December 22, 2004. Archive accessed August 09, 2006
^ Chicago Tribune: Michael Moore turns camera onto health care industry. Bruce Japsen, 3 October 2004. Archive accessed 9 July 2006.
^ CBC Sicko to have unofficial premiere at Democratic fundraiser May 26, 2007. URL accessed October 14, 2007.
^ "Documentary Movies". Genres. Box Office Mojo (2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ "Shortlist for docu Oscar unveiled". The Hollywood Reporter (2007-11-20). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
^ Captain Mike at the Internet Movie Database
^ "Toronto International Film Festival". Retrieved on 2007–09–07.
^ Captain Mike Across America (2007)
^ Green Left Weekly: Rage against Wall Street. Michael Moore, via MichaelMoore.com, date unspecified. URL accessed 9 July 2006.
^ "The Drugging of Our Children". at the Internet Movie Database
^ Blood in the Face at the Internet Movie Database Moore details his involvement in the audio commentary on the Roger & Me DVD.
^ "Who's Who". The Corporation Film.
^ "'I am the balance', says Moore". Minneapolis Star Tribune. South Florida Sun-Sentinel (4 July 2007). Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "Moore rejects the label "political activist"; as a citizen of a democracy, Moore insists, such a description is redundant."
^ Flesher, John (16 June 2007). "Hollywood meets Bellaire as Moore gives sneak peek of "Sicko"". Associated Press. MichaelMoore.com. Retrieved on 2007–07–06. "But the filmmaker, known for his fiery left-wing populism and polemical films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," told the audience "Sicko" would appeal across the political spectrum."
^ Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal: Unmoored from Reality. John Fund's Political Diary, 21 March 2003. URL accessed 29 August 2006.
^ My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore April 21, 2008
External links
Michael Moore Official website
Michael Moore at the Internet Movie Database
Michael Moore on YouTube
Works by or about Michael Moore in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
A 2007 NOW on PBS interview with Michael Moore What makes him tick, and why our health care system ticks him off
[show]v • d • eFilms directed by Michael Moore
Roger & Me • Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint • Canadian Bacon • The Big One • Bowling for Columbine • Fahrenheit 9/11 • Sicko • Captain Mike Across America • Slacker Uprising
Persondata
NAME Moore, Michael Francis
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Moore, Michael
SHORT DESCRIPTION American film director, author, and social commentator
DATE OF BIRTH April 23, 1954
PLACE OF BIRTH Davison, Michigan
DATE OF DEATH
PLACE OF DEATH
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore"
Categories: Michael Moore | 1954 births | Alternative journalists | Michigan Democrats | American anti-war activists | American anti-Iraq War activists | American film actors | American film directors | American documentary filmmakers | University of Michigan alumni | American political writers | American Roman Catholics | Americans of Irish descent | César Award winners | Documentary film directors | Emmy Award winners | Health activists | American liberal activists | Living people | Irish-American writers | Michigan actors | Michigan writers | National Rifle Association members | Best Documentary Feature Academy Award winners | Roman Catholic writers | People from Detroit, Michigan | People from Flint, Michigan | Eagle Scouts
Hidden categories: Semi-protected against vandalism | Template computed age | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since June 2008 | Articles needing additional references from August 2007ViewsArticle Discussion View source History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
This page was last modified on 21 October 2008, at 11:19. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
.........................................................................
vii) Five Former Secretaries of State Cite Key Issues for Next President
Posted Tuesday, September 16 2008 12:53:29 am
Amanpour and Sesno moderated the round table discussion, scheduled to air on CNN.
Photos by Shameek Patel
By Marissa Moran
Co-Editor-in-Chief
Five former U.S. secretaries of state agreed that the next president should work to better engage America in the global community at a televised panel in Lisner Auditorium on Monday afternoon.
CNN’s Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour and GW Professor Frank Sesno, a CNN special correspondent and former Washington bureau chief moderated the round table discussion of Madeleine K. Albright, James A. Baker III, Warren Christopher, Henry A. Kissinger, and Colin L. Powell for a CNN broadcast entitled “The Next President: A World of Challenges.”
In an extremely competitive presidential election season, and one highly scrutinized by the press, Amanpour and Sesno looked for substantial, issue-based conversation among the secretaries instead of partisan debate. Amanpour opened by telling the secretaries that they should give “candid, robust, meat and potatoes advice for the next president, whoever that may be.”
Colin Powell responded first by saying that in his first duty as commander in chief, the president must “restore a sense of confidence in the U.S.”
“We must let friends and allies around the world know we are supporting their work in unison,” said Powell, who served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005 under President George W. Bush. He said that, as Americans, we “should have confidence in ourselves and in the rest of the world” and that we must convey this strong image to the global community, a large part of which currently views America less than favorably because of interventionist policies abroad.
Madeleine Albright drew laughs from the audience at the beginning of the discussion, saying that if she greeted the newly elected president at his Inaugural Ball, she would say, “Remember that you wanted this job.”
Albright, secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, stressed that the international problems facing the world can only be solved by cooperation between the U.S. and other countries.
“To work with other countries is a sign of strength,” she said.
Though the secretaries agreed that restoration of America's image abroad is essential, some differed on what the next president's top priority will be. Christopher, who served immediately before Albright under President Clinton, said that the primary issue that the new president must work on is the economy, while Baker, President George H.W. Bush's secretary of state, argued that the president must "structure the national security apparatus," making clear the lines of its responsibility. Baker also encouraged "strengthening the elements of American soft power" for the new president's foreign policy.
However, for the U.S. to effectively interact with the rest of the world, Kissinger stressed that the next president should reach a consensus among his principle advisers so as to avoid the "jockeying of position among various advisers." According to Kissinger, who was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and also assistant to the president for national security affairs from 1969 to 1975, once there is unity in the next administration then the U.S. could invite the rest of the world to partake in foreign policy.
The five former secretaries walked on stage to a standing ovation from a sold-out audience of 1,400, which included GW students, members of the press, and more than 80 foreign dignitaries. Tickets for the event sold out within an hour of their release nearly two weeks ago, according to GW Media Relations.
When Amanpour asked for three key points that the president must do to regain the American image abroad, Baker said that he must use American diplomatic, political, and economic elements to the country’s advantage. Albright said that there is “generally a sense that the U.S. is on the wrong side” in world politics, and that many think that the “growing gap between the rich and the poor” is in part due to the U.S.
“We have to have confidence and also humility,” said Albright, who is presently the principle of The Albright Group, LLC, a global strategy firm. “It’s not easy in that office, admitting to the American people that he needs help….He needs to realize that when he’s talking to the American people, he’s (also) talking to a foreign audience.”
Christopher said that his suggestions for the president to regain respect would be to outlaw torture and become a global leader in the climate change crisis. His colleagues agreed with him about outlawing torture and further suggested the shut down of Guantanamo Bay.
When Sesno asked if the current U.S. economic problems would lead to a global recession, Baker said that the situation “will affect the global economy negatively.” Albright said that on an international level, “it doesn’t matter if we’re popular but it does matter if we’re respected and whether other countries want to work with us.”
Powell, who contributed a great deal to the discussion, said in response to Sesno’s inquiry about American policy toward “this” Russia that the new administration must “deal with the Russians in a straightforward, candid way, not emotionally. We have to treat Russia as a proud country with popular political leadership.”
As for relations with Iran, Kissinger also said that the U.S. must be upfront and honest.
“I always believe the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and the outcome you’re trying to achieve.”
The conversation covered issues of foreign aid, the war in Afghanistan, relations with Pakistan, and a Middle East peace agreement. On the question of U.S. engagement or isolation with the rest of the world, all the secretaries agreed that engagement is the best route. As for the war in Iraq, both Christopher and Powell agreed that the number one priority of the new president will be to encourage the Iraqi government to reach a political reconciliation.
At the end of the event, several GW students from the audience asked questions of the former secretaries of state. The first student, from Greenwich, Conn., asked what message they thought the potential election of the first African-American president would send to the rest of the world. Albright said that she thought it would send a great message abroad, and she was thus supporting Sen. Barack Obama as the presidential nominee.
Sesno then asked Colin Powell, the first African-American secretary of state, what he thought.
“I am an American first and foremost,” said Powell, eliciting a wild cheer from the audience. But he declared that he is “neutral” right now, knowing both the democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama and the republican candidate, Sen. John McCain very well.
“We have to get off this ‘lipstick on a pig’ stuff and get to the serious issues,” he said, criticizing the media’s “celebrity” hype surrounding the campaigns. Powell said he is waiting to watch the upcoming debates to make his final decision of whom to support.
“I’m not going to vote for McCain because he’s a friend. I’m not going to vote for Obama because he’s black,” he continued. “Who’s going to keep us safer? Who brings the best judgment and experience to the task?”
The broadcast of the roundtable discussion will air on CNN on Saturday, September 20 at 9 p.m. and on Sunday, September 21 at 2 p.m. EST.
............................................................................
10. Who has been more of a righteous extremist in this election campaign: McCain or Obama. For the most part, Obama has been the voice of reason and integrationism, while McCain has been the voice of the past: righteous/religous/political intolerance, divisionism, and hate. McCain has for the most part used negative campaign tactics that have worked well for the Republican Party in the past in terms of negatively stereotyping and blackballing 'potential Democratic President Hopefuls'. This election things are going to be different: the American people and Obama have evolved; McCain, Palin, and the rest of the negative campaigners in this year's Republican Party -- have't. The Republican Party needs to be re-created, re-invented. It needs to rise like the Phoenix. Today it is dead. And I hope -- I truly hope -- the American people understand that. I think they do. Obama will be the next President of the United States of America -- and I think a potentially exciting one if he sticks to his dreams, his vision, his priorities, his mandate.
I am not particlarly religious but I do not mind religion, politics, economics, and ethics all working in the same direction for a better America - and a better world.
So I will say this for the first and only time to compensate for the negative force of the Jeremy Wright rant quoted earlier:
God Bless America -- and the harmonious integration and peaceful harmony of America with the rest of the world. (From here after, refer to the Dylan song 'With God on My Side' to underline my more regular feelings about the use of the name 'God' to add 'religious force' to any kind of political ideology, particularly when that ideology is 'pathologically destructive and/or self-destructive').
Hate, unbridled greed, selfishness, narcissism, righteous/religous/political intolerance and civil divisionism are all self-destructive to the human race. These are all characteristics that mark the humn race at its worst. They are all characteristics that are 'anti-evolutionary'. They will lead us the same way as the dinosaur -- to extinction.
How many more American soldiers and foreign soldiers, American civilians and foreign civilians have to come home in body bags or lay rotting in the fields or in blown up buildings that CNN cameramen have to relay to the American people and to the rest of the world before everyone on both sides of this brutally savage and ridiculous war will finally come to their senses and say, 'Enough is enough'. Winning the war isn't the answer here. Because we are all big-time losers -- on both sides of the political and relgious and economic fence that divides us -- and kills us and maims us and povertizes us -- as long as we continue to embrace this tragic farce we call 'war', and the radical, righteous, religious, and/or economic extremism that continues to propogandize and support it.
"Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets a greater toughness. ...I believe Martin Luther King Junior said that...but i think it has even older philosophical roots.
I finally found the older quote I was looking for.
'Victory breeds hatred for the conquered is unhappy.' -- Gautama Buddha
The point is: When will the madness of war and violence ever stop?
The point is: When will it ever stop?
Never?
I think we have evolved better than this. Or have we?
-- dgb, October 23rd-24th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)