Friday, March 24, 2017

Trump's reason of state argument: Foundation of idolotry

Image result for Metacrock's blog Trump

...................................................Machievelli....................................The Prince 




Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is best known for his work The Prince (1532) which essentially argued that the Prince was justified in whatever he did because he's the prince, This is known as the "reason of state argument," (RSA) The concept has been reviled and rebuked by thinkers of all stripes ad has come to be an icon of circular reasoning and lust for power,corruption of power.[1] All the major powerful dictatorial types have wounding up making the argument most notably Richard Nixon in recent times. Shakespeare gives Macbeth a reasom of state argument probably as a means of showing the true moral bankruptcy of his plans for power. He says killing the King will be justified when he is the king. Also the reason of state is used in Hamlet. In fact Shakespeare uses it Inm Othello and many plays,[2]

What a surprise Trump finally got around to using the reason of state argument although not nearly as well developed as Shakespeare's version.  

It is remarkable — and perhaps praiseworthy — that Donald Trump gave a long and detailed interview on the subject of his being a pathological liar. The interview, with Time’s Michael Scherer, covers a wide range of Trump’s lies, and features many of his own justifications for them. The truly revealing moment of the interview comes at the end, when Trump gives up the game. “But isn’t there, it strikes me there is still an issue of credibility,” asks Scherer, referencing Trump’s hallucinatory claims to have been surveilled by his predecessor, which his own intelligence officials have refuted. Trump rambles through various talking points, and lands on this conclusion: “I guess, I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not.”[3]
There is also something of the RSA  In the answer Trump gave O'Rilely when ask how he could support Putin,ma murderer, Trump said "you think our country is so innocent?"[4] Even murder is justified because we are us, we do what needs doing to stay us, So right and wrong truth and falsehood are nothing more than what you need to do to hang on to power. Chait again:

This small line is an important historical marker of the bizarre and disconcerting reality into which American politics has plunged. Trump is not merely making an attack on truth here. He is attacking the idea of truth. His statement is a frontal challenge to the notion that objective reality can be separated from power.
Trump and his officials have been dancing around this notion since November. When challenged on almost any of their lies, they point to the election, which proves that the credibility of the crooked Fake News media is nonexistent, and theirs is beyond reproach. Questions about veracity are met with responses about voting in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump made the argument explicit: The only measure of his veracity is power, which he has, and his critics do not.[5]

What do we expect from an administration that defines compassion as looking out that the taxpayers get their money's worth and staving old ladies and little children don't get away with a decent meal they didn't pay for because they are  on the unimportant side of the equation; the beggars ca't be choosers side?[6]  Going back to our guide, Mr. Orwell. the fundamental reality of political langue is to make murder look respectable an d to give solidity to pure wind.[7] The redefining of words and stripping away the concept of truth and replacing it with the closed realm of discourse the reason of state as it's foundation is paramount to all fascist and tyrannical endeavors. It also happens to be the basis of idolatry and the negation of the Gospel of Christ. God is truth. Augustine made that connection and he was right. Idolatry is falsehood, the erection of a false God,which we do when we allow things that are not God, whatever they are, weather stone idol or a political agenda to come between us an d God.
I once suggested that Trump’s most anti-democratic quality is his authoritarian epistemology. He tells repeated, brazen lies about matters large and small, in the confidence that his supporters have surrendered all independent judgment to him. That is not a democratic relationship between elected official and polity. [8]
I know I have pointed out that Trump is a fascist a time or two. I still think If I keep beating this dead horse some day he;s going to fly.





Sources

(all online sources accessed 3/24/17)


[1] Cary J. Neaderma,  Machiavelli: a Beginner's Guide, Oxford: onme World, 2009, 115.

[2] DiMatteo, Anthony. "Shakespeare and the Public Discourse of Sovereignty: 'Reason of State' in Hamlet". Early Modern Literary Studies PDF 10.2 (September, 2004) 2.1-54 . URL
https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Shakespeare-and-the-Public-Discourse-of-Sovereignty.pdf


[3]  

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/trumps-defense-of-his-lies-im-president-and-youre-not.html?mid=facebook_nymag


[4] Abby Philip, "O'Reilly said Putin is a killer. Trump's reply: 'You think our country is so innocent?'
Chicago Tribune, (March 24,2017). on line versiom URL
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-oreilly-interview-20170204-story.html


[5] Chait, op cit

[6] Joseph Hinman, "Trump Budgetting: The Bizzaro Version of Compassion" Metacrock's Blog

MARCH 17, 2017



[7] George Orwell, "Politics and The English Language," Horizon, volume 13, issue 76,(Dec. 1946), pages 252–265
Online version published by NPR
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/Poli ... uage-1.pdf
[8] Chait, op cit













Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Evolutionary Development of The God Concept part 1

 photo 220px-GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage_zps5d6fe999.jpg





An Atheist on Cadre blog linked to a Wiki article (an article flagged as needing work be that as it may) saying:

 Barbara King argues that while non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self" and a concept of continuity.[1][2] There is inconclusive evidence that Homo neanderthalensis may have buried their dead which is evidence of the use of ritual. The use of burial rituals is thought to be evidence of religious activity, and there is no other evidence that religion existed in human culture before humans reached behavioral modernity.
That is supposed to prove that religion is made up entirely by humans with no
God involved. I suggest that evolutionary nature of religion in and of itself is not enough to rule out God,After all of God users evolution in creation then we should expect God to allow evolutionary nature of religion to shape human development. Here is my article (part 1) showing how the evolutionary nature of religious development is not contrary to God.

All experiences of the divine must be filtered through cultural constructs, or symbols. God is beyond our understanding, thus beyond language. If we are talk about our experiences, however badly, we must filter them through culture.

RELIGION, although inherent in man, borrows its expressions from the setting or milieu in which man appears. The forms through which man expresses the supernatural are all drawn from the cultural heritage and the environment known to him, and are structured according to his dominant patterns of experience.In a hunting culture this means that the main target of observation, the animal, is the ferment of suggestive influence on representations of the supernatural. This must not be interpreted as meaning that all ideas of the supernatural necessarily take animal form. First of all, spirits do appear also as human beings, although generally less frequently; the high-god, for instance, if he exists, is often thought of as a being of human appearance. Second, although spirits may manifest themselves as animals they may evince a human character and often also human modes of action.[1]

Narrative is psychologically important to humans because it enables us to put things in perspective, to put ourselves into the story and to understand. Anything can be narrative. Even when events are taken as historical and the consciousness of myth falls away, the narrative is no less naratival. The resurrection of Christ, the existence of Jesus and his claims to be Messiah, all I take to be history and truth. Yet these are also part of the meta-narrative of Christianity. The meat-narrative is not closed or not an ideology or truth regime as long as it can be open to outside voices and to adult itself to them. For that reason the narrative hast to be fluid. The reason for this is that it has to explain the word in a new way to each new generation. To the extent that it can keep doing this it continues to be relevant and survives. This is equivalent to Kuhn’s paradigm absorbing the anomalies. Even when a certain set of fact is held out as historical and more that, but “the truth” such as Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, there is still an interpretation, a spin an understanding of just exactly how to put it, that varies from time to time and culture to culture. The facts of the event don’t change, the historical significance of it doesn’t change, but the way of relating it to each generation anew does change. This is not say that ideology doesn’t change, but the change is much slower and less obvious and less fluid. Even when the meta-narrative of a given religious tradition features factual material it’s not closed in the sense that ideology is closed and it’s still fluid.
            This is not to say that religious traditions don’t get infected with ideology. When traditions take on ideology they usually form something more than Orthodoxy, something like “fundamentalism.” Orthodoxy is just the recognition of stable boundaries that ground the fluid nature of the narrative in expression of continuity. While ideology seeks to create a black hole, like the eternal conflict between communism and anti-communism, that absorbs all light and allows nothing to escape; the attempt to suck everything in one eternal understanding. Ideology in religious tradition probably is most often he result of literalizing the metaphors. When we forget that the metaphor bridges the gap between what we know and we don’t know—through comparison--and that it contains a “like” and a “not-like” dimension, we begin to associate the metaphor with truth in literal way then we begin to formulate ideology. Critics of religious thinking might be apt to confuse dogma with ideology. Religious ideas are not automatically ideological, dogma is not automatically ideological. It’s the literalistic elements in some religious thinking (not all of course) that closes off the realm of discourse and crates a closed truth regime. The danger of form ideology may be acute in a religious setting since it is easy to confuse the metaphor with literal truth by casting over it the aura of the sacred. We often associate the things pertaining to belief in God with God, and in so doing forger a literalism that closes off discourse. Yet religious belief as a whole is too fluid to be fully ideological. Ideology is self protecting and self perpetuating. Thomas Kuhn’s talk about damage control in paradigm defense is a good example of the self defending nature of ideology. While meta-narrative often reflects concepts of divine truth, it’s too changeable to be ideological. Even though theology resists change and novelty is a bad thing in theological parlance, meta-narrative changes in spite of it all. The fact of changed is noted in the many examples of different versions of the same myth. One such change turns upon a burning question that must be raised at this point, why did religious thinking move from numatic realization to a theocentric nature?
            Why “God?” The same can be asked of the female form? Why a pseudo-parental, suzerain figure who creates the world and is in charge of the cosmos? Why not, since this model is obviously a metaphor comparing the unknown with some aspect of reality we know well, why that aspect and not another? What did people worship before they worshipped gods? Anthropology tells us that the shamanistic style of animism is older than the concept of a creator god.[2] This form of belief dates back to the stone age. Native American tribe “Shosoni, like other hunting people in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America, have an idea of a “master of the animals,” or an “owner,” a supernatural being who is in charge of the animals:

Hunting peoples in Africa, Europe, Asia and America have developed the idea of a supernatural owner of the animal species, or of all animals, who protects them, commands them, and at request from hunters delivers them to be slayed and eaten. The concept is not infrequent in North America. The master of animals is a spirit, generally figured as an animal. The Shoshoni have possibly in very remote times known the coyote, or rather the mythical Coyote, as a master of animals. With the impact of Plains Indian culture the buffalo and the eagle have halfway achieved the position as master of animals and master of birds, respectively. In all fairness it should be pointed out, however, that this type of concept is very little noticeable among the Shoshoni.[3]

We must be cautious but since “shamanism” is connected to animism this owner of the animals might imply a transition between animistic thinking and beliefs in gods. We can’t say that all religions evolved in the same way in every location, but it does seem that in general it was an evolution from nameless “spirits” to specific pantheon of gods. The development of the concept of God was probably influenced by thoughts of parents, of tribal chiefs, or the leader, long before they became complex enough to fit a suzerain model. Yet it does seem that the concept of God evolved out of an understanding of nature oriented religion and evolved slowly over time based upon comparison with the authority figures we know best in life.
            In his work The Evolution of God,[4] Robert Wright distills the work of anthropology over the last two centuries and demonstrates an evolutionary development, form early superstition that personified nature (pre-historic people talking to the wind)[5], through a polytheistic origin in pre-Hebrew Israelite culture,[6] to monotheistic innovation with the God of the Bible.[7] Wright is distilling a huge body of work that stretches back to the ninetieth century, the work of countless archaeologists, historians, and anthropologists. Another such successful distiller of scholarship in recent years is Karen Armstrong. In her work A History of God: The 4000 year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, [8] she presents a similar evolutionary story, focusing specifically upon the Biblical religions. She sees the pre-historical religious scene through the eyes of wonderment at the world around us. The cave paintings she understands as an attempt to record participation in the all pervasive aspect of the enchanted world.[9] The general agreement between scholarship, social sciences, and the work of anthropologists is that the concept of God is a product of the evolution of human thought.[10] At one time the concept was not, then it began and it has developed over time. Of course the great body of this work is coming out of naturalistic assumptions, especially in the ninetieth century. In the anthropological study of the evolution of religion those assumptions centered around the concept of projection in human thinking. People are projecting the relationship with the father or the king. This assumption can be traced to the work of Ludwig Feuerbach, social critic and precursor to Marxian analysis (God is the mask of money). He understood the concept of projection in terms of Hegel’s philosophy of spirit.[11] In The Essence of Christianity Feuerbach argues that superhuman deities are involuntary projections based upon the attributes of human nature.[12] How this thesis came to be the basis of modern anthropological understanding of religious evolution is not hard to seek. As Harvey puts it “It became the Bible to a group of revolutionary thinkers including, Arnold Ruge, the Bauers, Karl Marx, Richard Wagner, Frederic Engles.[13] This circle became a major part of the basis of modern social thought. While modern anthropology has not necessarily played out Feuerbach’s actual inversion of Hegel it has taken its que from him by making assumptions about theoroes of prodjection of one kind or another.
            Hegel did not think of God as some projection of human imagination. Feuerbach inverted Hegel’s concept to produce the idea. Hegel understood stages of human culture as “moments in the unforlding of absolute spirit.”[14] Thus, as Harvey points out, the various stages in religious development can be seen as stages in the self manifestation of Spirit.[15] In other words, from the cave paintings, to the shamans and the wind talkers to the highest aspirations of Judo-Christian ethics, Spirit (God), is making himself aware of himself by moving through progressive revelation to humanity. “In other words, the history of religion culminating in Christianity was a progressive revelation of the truth that the absolute is not merely an impersonal substance but a subject.”[16] Feuerbach inverts this principal by asserting that finite spirit is becoming aware of itself through externalizing its own attributes and then projecting them into magnified from.[17] On Feuerbach’s part this was the result of a long struggle with idealism. Be that as it may, and for both sides, it’s clearly the roots of ideology. It sowed the seeds of ideology in terms of the social sciences naturalistic assumptions. Now we find those same kinds of assumptions being made with regard to the laws of physics. Paul Davies has been quoted to say that the traditional view of the laws of physics are just seventeenth century monotheism without God, “Then God got killed off and the laws just free-floated in a conceptual vacuum but retained their theological properties,”[18] The assumption of modernity is always that belief in God is dying out, religion is of the past, these are the things that are dying. Armstrong sounds the death knell and starts singing the dirge in first book. She observes that “one of the reasons why religion seems irrelevant today is that many of us no longer have the sense that we are surrounded by the unseen.”[19] It’s so irrelevant she’s writing books about it.
We can just hear those atheists saying "yes this proves man invented God," not so fast. see part 2 on friday.


 sources
[1] Ake Hultkrantz, “Attitudes Toward Animals in Shashoni Indian Religion,” Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 4, No. 2. (Spring, 1970) © World Wisdom, Inc. no page listed,online archive, URL:
[2] Weston La Barre, “Shamanic Origins of Religion and Medicine,” Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, vol 11, (1-2) Jan. June 1979 no page listed, PDF, URL: http://www.cnsproductions.com/pdf/LaBarre.pdf  accessed 3/22/13.
[3] Hultkrantz, op. cit.  the author also cites other works by himself on the matter: Cf. Hultkrantz, The Owner of the Animals in the Religion of the North American Indians (in Hultkrantz, ed., The Supernatural Owners of Nature, Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 1, 1961). Hultkrantz, The Masters of the Animals among the Wind River Shoshoni (Ethnos, Vol. 26:4, 1961).
[4] Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, New York: Back Bay Books, reprint edition, 2010.  The book was Originally published in 2009. The company “Back Bay books: is an imprint of Hachette Books, through Little Brown and company. Wright studied sociobiology at Princeton and taught at Princeton as and University of Pennsyania. He edits New Republic and does journalistic writing of science, especially sociobiology.
[5] Wright, ibid, 9
[6] ibid. 10
[7] ibid, 11
[8] Karen Armstrong, A History of God: The 4000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Ballantine Books, 1994.
[9] Ibid, 4-6
[10] T. M. Manickam,, Dharma According Manu and MosesBangalore : Dharmaram Publications, 1977,6.
[11] Van A. Harvey, Feuerbach and The Interpretation of Religion, Carmbridge: Press Syndicate for the University of Cambridge, Cambridge Studies in Religion and Critical Thought, 1995/1997, 4.
Harvey is professor emeritus, taught religious studies at Stanford Univesity. His Ph.D. from Yale in 1957. His thesis supervisor was H.Richard Neibhur.
[12] Cited by Harvey, ibid., 25.
[13] ibid, 26.
[14] ibid.
[15] ibid.
[16] ibid.
[17] ibid, 27
[18] Dennis Overbye, quoting email message from Paul Davies, “Laws of Nature, Source Unknown,” “Science” New York Times. December 19, 2007. on line edition URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& accessed, 3/25/13.
[19] Armstrong, op.cit. 4.








Monday, March 20, 2017

Rage Against The Dying of The Light

Image result for Metacrock's blog Tank man





Here I use the dying father as metaphor, if Dylan Thomas* will forgive me, for the dying Western civilization, which I now mourn. We stand to lose in this era far more than anyone has understood. Not just every vestige of progress made in the 20th century, not just millions of lives, in death and hellish life, but the very capacity to object, to reason ,to discourse. We stand to lose more than this, the entire religious edifice which has made America the bulwark of Christian belief and stemmed the tide of modern secular anti-clericalism throughout the 20th century, That now comes to an end  not because of new atheism but because Christian fundamentalism delivered  the gospel into the hands of one-dimensionaizing forces to be used as a political tool and nothing more. It had been denuded of the values that make the gospel a meaningful answer in a meaningless world,


Trump destroying every vestige of progress


The Republicans have put forth 2000 bills so far everyone of them destroying some aspect of social progress. The entire edifices of social progress apprised throughout the 20th century is being devastated and pulled down in one college semester. They will terminate EPA, if that doesn't work they will gut 60% of it;s regulations, Tax dollars for private schools, Terminate Department of education, eliminate rules protective of  wildlife, eliminate affordable care act, defend planned parenthood (only a minty part of that funding goes to abortion) destroy the vestigial remains of the labor movement iwth right to work legislation, [1] Trash the nation's clear water supply by allowing toxic dumpling, ruining tap water for 117 million Americans [2] Eliminate funding for meals on wheels, for the arts, destroy PBS and many other barbaric and unconscionable things. Destroying research on climate change at crucial moment when we are approaching tipping point  and yes that science is proven, 97% of scientists agree that figure is firm and proven. [3]

It is pretty obvious that Trump seeks to erase every aspect of social progress made since the new deal. He seeks to take us back to pre FDR levels of social progress. I guess he;s saving segregated lunch counters for second term. We are talking about people's lives, Pollution kills. Before the EPA existed the first major scientific study on harms of pollution found that a 50% reduction in air pollution would result in 20% reduction in all cardio pulmonary deaths, we are talking millions of people.[4] Now we are going back to those levels by gutting EPA and eliminating regulations. Why is he doing it? He says it's because the national debt is so great, it's practically at emergency levels. The problem with that is none of the conservative economic publications back him on that.

Bob Bryan quotes Scott Brown of Raymond James April 2016 tells us:"There is no magic level of debt that gets an economy in trouble," Brown, the chief economist at Raymond James, said in the note. "Research arguing that view has been discredited. The federal government currently has no problem borrowing, nor is there any evidence that it is crowding out private investment." Bryan adds: "Brown's argument is fairly simple: Debt is an issue only if you can't repay it or if other people believe you can't repay it. And, as Business Insider's Myles Udland has noted, the US can literally print the money it needs to repay its debt, and it still maintains a high credit rating." [5] 

Trump's rational may be the deficit but he does nothing about it. His budget is a sham because, like with Reagan he cuts spending with one hand by slashing social programs, but then throws it all away on defense spending with the other. Trump's budget will make no gains of savings for all it/s death and destruction it causes among the poor. It features a 54 Billion dollar increase in defense. [6][7] The old Reagan strategy of treating defense dollars like magic so that spending them doesn't causer deficit.

Why the total devastation of social programs went it wont really reduce the deficit? One name that is very meaningful in the world of high finance is John C, Bogle of the Vanguard group. Bogle argues that Trump is aiming to produce a total business environment, He;s clearing the decks of all regulation to create a total business environment, In that way he will spur business and the economy will grow. [8]

Trump has chosen the typical  American penchant for short term prophets and immeidate pleasure screw tomorrow screw the future,


The Closed Realm of Discourse

As I have documented in the past Western Civilization has been reduced to a closed realm of discourse along the lines of Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man. [9] The way of life that has developed in America admits only one line of discourse backing the social protect and all else disappears into the black hole of false needs. C. Wright Mills said:
The individual learns not to reason, but to rationalize the goals and ends of life, and his or her position in the overall scheme of things. Given...the ascendant trend of rationalization, the individual 'does what he can.' He gears his aspirations and his work to the situation he is in and from which he can find no way out. In due course he does not seek a way out: he adapts. That part of his life which is left over from work he uses to play, to consume, to have fun. Yet this sphere of consumption is also being rationalized. Alienated from production, from work, he is also alienated from consumption, from genuine leisure. This adaptation of the individual and its effects upon his milieux and self results not only in the loss of his chance, but in due course of his capacity and will to reason; it also affects his chances and his capacity to act as a free [person]. Indeed, neither the value of freedom nor of reason, it would seem, are known to him.[10]
Marcuse extended the analysis to the consumer oriented lifestyle, the meaning of life because the acquisition of false needs,
..The irresistible output of the entertainment and information industry carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits...The products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against falsehood. And as these beneficial products have become available to more individuals, in more social classes, the indoctrination they carry ceases to be publicity; it becomes a way of life. It is a good way of life' much better than before and as a good way of life, it militates against qualitative change. Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behavior, in which ideas, aspirations, and objectives that, by their content, transcend the established universe of discourse and action are either repelled or reduced to terms of this [social-political] universe. They are re-defined by the rationality of the given system and of its quantitative extension..[11]

That has been the situation since the late 40s. Now we have a new situation in which all vintages of humanity, of culture,or arts, and of thinking and everything that is not business is to be swept aside children will no longer be trained in these things. It is all to be left to cruel market forces of hyper capitalism in a war time hysteria. We are on-dimensional as is, but even the slight alternatives that create small spaces for transcendence will be closed up and the closed realm of discourse will center itself around the business mentality.

One-dimensional Christianity

What happens to the Gospel of Christ in one-dimensional society?  We can already see the direction it's taking. In the last week we saw what has become of the value of compassion in the Trump culture, it is the side of sensibility to watch our for the poor exploited tax payers who are ask to help those vicious old ladies get lunches. We need to haven compassion on those poor beseaged guys in the upper brackets who are not getting their just share of American defense.Buying that extra fighter could swing the whole tide of the war, whatever war Our true leader Mr. Putin sends us to fight for him,[12] How about some compassion for those poor frightened KKK guys who didn't get to lynch everyone they wanted to? We need to have compassion for the poor lions getting indigestion on all those old Christians.

The basic values that underlay the Gospel are distorted and perverted when the realm of discourse is closed around a project of hyper capitalism in a climate of fear. We see this happening now when the evangelical church has become the American Taliban ready to sell their birthright for protecting from terrorism, at the expense of the truly helpless sea of humanity victimized by the dictatorship and war, but the Christians are taught to fear the foreigners.

Bob Eschliman, writes: "Stephen Powell, one of the newer voices of the prophetic movement, has shared another word from the Lord regarding not just President Trump, but how his presidency is reforming politics in America:"
I hear the Lord saying, "This man [Trump] is unstoppable because I'm unstoppable. My kingdom is unstoppable, and this man has a mandate from heaven; he has momentum that is not his own. His movement will not dissipate, it will grow, and it will reach beyond the borders of American governing. It will inspire; it will stir up a nest.
"As the eagle stirs up the nest, so the Lord will do through this man. People are laughing at him, saying that his plans are too bold, his ideas are too big, that his plans will not work because after all, what president has been able to do these things before without gridlock?
But the Lord is saying, "This president shall not be in gridlock, for his strength is not his own. I have put a spirit of breakthrough on this man and on this land, and he will do things that will be monumental for the generations to come. I will use him to stir up the nest and cause this young generation of young eagles to soar."[13]

The right wing fundamentalists seek to expropriate the mantle of Prophet in pushing their political. agenda. In so doing they tag as divine a set of values that contradict everything Jesus taught, I don't think the major criticism is that his plans are too bold, too stupid maybe not too bold. God told Israel to give the alien among them the same rights and protections as they enjoyed. Of course we know that we are called protect widows and orphans, to sacrifice for those who can't help themselves. Through the Bible we are told God takes the side of the poor. There is nothing consistent between these values and the discrimination and loathing for welfare and social programs the seeking to destroy every form of social progress made in the 20th century seen in the agenda of Trump. There is no way that Trump's anti-compass agenda is divinely mandated. Not to mention the Brown shirt effect, the massive awakening of racism and antisemitism we see in the wake of Trump's influence.[14]

Thus the last and in view most important alternative to any form of dictatorship, the sacred that which never be possessed by temporal power, will simply be defined out of being because the very capacity to understand the concept will be engineered away, as Schweitzer predicted.


The lesson of Christians in Sweden

In my article answering Phil Zuckerman I demonstrated that Christianity was a major part of the coalition that built the Swedish welfare state. But the Christians of Sweden made a huge mistake, The fundamentalists took over the Christian world and them out of the social coalition, They lost their place in Swedish society and have never gotten it back.[15] That is why Sweden is so secular and Christianity is perceived as old and antiquated and irrelevant. Because it made itself irrelevant and it betrayed the social mission of the Church. They did it because they were taken over by right wing political thinking that tried to suppress social programs.








Sources

(all sources accessed 3/20/17)





[1] Tom Cahill.,"While We Were distracted by Trump The Republoicans Unviled Nine Terrifying Bills," Resistance Report, (March 4, 2017) On line resource URL:

http://resistancereport.com/politics/gop-bills-congress/

[2] Craig Cox, "Trump Plan To Gut Stream Protectionism," Know Your Environment Protect Your Health (WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 201)
http://www.ewg.org/research/trump-plan-gut-stream-protections-imperils-tap-water-117-million-americans
Cox is  Senior Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Soren Rundquist, Director of Spatial Analysis


[3] 97%

[4] L&S

[5] BobBryan, "U.S. Government's 19 Trillion Dollar Deficit Isn't a Problem," Busimess Imsider.
(APril. 25, 2016) URL:

[6]
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/16/news/economy/trump-budget-debt/

[7]  @CNNMoney
March 16, 2017: 
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/trump-shows-budget-hawks-wrong-to-demand-obama-fix-the-debt.html


[8] Alexandra King,"Legomndary Invester Bobler..." CNN March 18, 2017

[9] Joseph Hinman, "Atheists educe Knowledge to Science," Metcrock's Blog (JULY 03, 2016)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/07/atheist-reduction-of-knowledge-to.html

from my forth comimg book


[10] C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination. New York, London: Oxford University Press, 1967 (originally 1959) 170

[11] Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Soceity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.

[12]Joseph Hinman, "Trump Budgetting: The Bizzaro Version of Compassion" Metacrock's Blog

MARCH 17, 2017



[13]Stephen Powell quoted by Bob Eschlisman, "Prophecy: Donald Trump Is Unstoppable Because the Lord Is Unstoppable," Charisma News (2/1/2017)
http://www.charismanews.com/politics/issues/62737-prophecy-donald-trump-is-unstoppable-because-the-lord-is-unstoppable (access 2/28/17)

[14] Joseph Himan,"Trump, Fascism, and the Rise of hate," Resistance is not Futile,March 17, 2017
http://resistance-not-futile.blogspot.com/2017/03/trump-fascism-and-rise-of-hate.html

Southern Poverty Law Center documents

[15] Kees Van Kersbergen and Philip Manow, "Religion and the Western Welfare State--The Theoretical Context," Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, Kees Van Kersbergen and Philip Manow, (ed) 2009. 1-38,1.
Google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=bPYdeROiAD8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true






*Do not go gentle into that good night
Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

From The Poems of Dylan Thomas, published by New Directions. Copyright © 1952, 1953 Dylan Thomas. Copyright © 1937, 1945, 1955, 1962, 1966, 1967 the Trustees for the Copyrights of Dylan Thomas. Copyright © 1938, 1939, 1943, 1946, 1971 New Directions Publishing Corp. Used with permission.


Sunday, March 19, 2017

Urgent action altert!

The obscene stupidity replacing Obama Care goes to the house this week. it is time to call congress and demand that they vote no! CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS 202-224-3121

Friday, March 17, 2017

Trump Budgetting: The Bizzaro Version of Compassion





Alt-compassion


On Thursday morning, the White House’s budget director Mick Mulvaney rationalized Trump's budget cuts with the  The Bizzaro Version of Compassion. He said: “When you start looking at places that we reduce spending, one of the questions we asked was, can we really continue to ask a coal miner in West Virginia or a single mom in Detroit to pay for these programs? The answer was no,” Mulvaney told MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “We can ask them to pay for defense, and we will, but we can’t ask them to continue to pay for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”


Eric Levitz has come thoughts about things we are already asking them to pay for:

(1) The U.S. already spends more more on its military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, France, India, and Germany — combined. By contrast, America spends far less than its peers (per capita) on many of the initiatives that the Trump’s budget cuts.
(2) Trump’s proposal cuts many programs that are more intuitively valuable to coal miners in West Virginia — and single mothers in Detroit — than a 10 percent increase in defense spending. The president’s budget cuts funding for early-childhood education, public housing, transit, food assistance, and job training — all programs that disproportionately benefit single mothers in cities with low median incomes. And it also abolishes the Appalachian Regional Commission and Rural Business-Cooperative Service, while shrinking the Labor Department — all moves that disadvantage coal miners.
(3) If the White House feels bad about taking money from coal miners and single mothers, then why is one of its top priorities to pass an enormous, regressive tax cut?
Reporters pressed him for futher clairificatiomn:


“Just to follow-up on that, you were talking about the steel worker in Ohio, coal worker in Pennsylvania, but they may have an elderly mother who depends on the Meals on Wheels program or who may have kids in Head Start,” Acosta said. “Yesterday, or the day before, you described this as a hard-power budget. Is it also a hard-hearted budget?”
“No, I don’t think so,” Mulvaney replied. “I think it’s probably one of the most compassionate things we can do.”
“To cut programs that help the elderly and kids?” Acosta asked, incredulously.

Now here is the crux of his reasoning, this is how he rationalizes it:


“You’re only focusing on half of the equation, right? You’re focusing on the recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients of the money and the folks who give us the money in the first place,” Mulvaney explained. “And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, ‘Look, we’re not gonna ask you for your hard-earned money, anymore, single mother of two in Detroit … unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually being used in a proper function.’”
That is Bizzazro logic. W can ask them to pay 149$ for a towelette seat (for defense--soldiers have to crap) but we can'task them to by an old lady lunch or for a hungry child  so he can learn and grow up to be a  brilliantine like Trump? 
If we look at murder from his perspective we have to take both ides of the equation we need to know if the murderer is getting a good clean kill. We can't just look at the victim's side of it, we should stick up for the murderer, make sure the she get's her monies worth worth.
Tax payers are not analogous to murderers but the principle is the same, both sides of every equation are not equal. The fact is the taxpayer only get's her money's  wroth from defense if it's used, but you have to have a war to use it. Not to worry I'm sure Trump will get us into  war, But there is one other point to be considered. Taxpayers benefit from services, social programs are not just helpful for some abstract category of lazy people called "the poor" they help tax payers too. We benefit from PBS,  from culture more than from defense.It's more important to go on with culture and civilization. We benefit from society we owe we should pay back. Defense id all overcharge anyway, no money's worth there.
This is a crime agaisnt humanity it is the essence of evil. The rich and powerful misusing a concept like compassion to justify their murder of the poor. It's double murder because they not only murder the poor but the English language as well.


White House Says Cutting Meals on Wheels Is ‘Compassionate’ New Yorkb (March 16, 2017)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/white-house-says-cutting-meals-on-wheels-is-compassionate.html?mid=fb-share-di