Noam Chomsky versus Sam Harris

I have contacted Sam Harris through his site to discuss his meta-ethical example of the chess game. I’ll try to avoid this abstract and philosophical debate here, untill he has replied. I can accept he’s busy. I only mention this, so I won’t get a cease-and-desist for quoting almost an entire chapter from his (though outdated) book. First give me a reply Mr Harris! I’ve never mailed or contacted Noam Chomsky because I feel he’s busy enough, I have too many of his books to read first and he’s old (so I assume his time is too precious).
I’m also looking forward to reading Harris’ new book “Lying”. So far, he seems to be against it: “Even with Nazis at the door and Anne Frank in the attic, Howard [teacher of “The Ethical Analyst", the course Harris was taking] always seemed to find truths worth telling and paths to even greater catastrophe that could be opened by lying”. In the End of Faith, his utilitarian approach of equating do and allowing (which I agree with in principle mind you) is illustrated with Peter Unger, who “made a persuasive case that a single dollar spent on anything but the absolute essentials of our survival is a dollar that has some starving child’s blood on it.” (footnoting: P. Unger, Living High & Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996). Wikipedia (I admit not reading Unger’s book, because I agree as I already stipulated) says: “Unger argues that for people in the developed world to live morally, they are morally obliged to make sacrifices to help mitigate human suffering and premature death in the third world, and further that it is acceptable (and morally right) to lie, cheat, and steal to mitigate suffering”. Obviously, Harris either took the course after he wrote the End of Faith, or he’s using Unger to make a point. The point being that “intentions matter” (making Harris, at most, a rule-utilitarian; the rule being intentions matter, but letting people die is a bad intention and shouldn’t be a rule). However, as Chomsky points out in a conference (to be found on youtube, but I don’t think I need proof to make this general anarchist critique -if you find it; contact me, save me the hassle of looking it up myself and I’ll edit this part-), Hitchens (the war) and Harris are state apologists. I’ll quote Harris in the End of Faith: “But we are, in many respects, just such a “well-intentioned giant.” And it is rather astonishing that intelligent people, like Chomsky and Roy, fail to see this”. I’m currently reading Stephen Jay Gould’s book “The Mismeasure of Man” and most recently “The White Man’s Burden” of Rudyard Kipling was quoted. I don’t think I need to quote the entire poem of the response of Teddy Roosevelt (writing to Henry Cabot Lodge).
The next section of Harris’ book discusses “Perfect Weapons and the Ethics of “Collateral Damage”.
“Consider the all too facile comparisons that have recently been made between George Bush and Saddam Hussein (or Osama bin Laden, or Hitler, etc.)—in the pages of writers like Roy and Chomsky, in the Arab press, and in classrooms throughout the free world”. These “facile comparisons” are what most moral philosophers call “universality”. As Chomsky puts it:”That’s not what I was saying. The statement of mine that you just quoted is a very conservative statement, in fact it was articulated by George Bush’s favorite philosopher, Jesus Christ, who famously defined the notion of a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow’s crimes and refuses to look at his own. That’s the definition of hypocrite by George Bush’s favorite philosopher. When I repeat that I’m not taking a radical position. I’m taking a position that is just elementary morality”. Harris continues “What would Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden do with perfect weapons? What would Hitler have done? They would have used them rather differently”. As if these people have a bloodlust and would not try to attain global domination/hegemony if it could be done without needless killing. They are the unhumans, it would seem. To claim the same of our leaders, is the make a mockery of democracy. However, if this is the argument which Harris proposes (and it’s not clear he does), then we are all indeed complicit in the crimes of our leaders and nobody in those towers was innocent. As the terrorists claim. I’d rather go with the analysis that half of the US population doesn’t even vote because “it doesn’t matter”. Of course, Harris claims they’re not crimes. They’re collateral damage. We just haven’t found the perfect weapon yet. But if our enemy had it, he would cause needless bloodshed. I won’t defend Islam. In fact, whenever I meet a believer of anything, I’ll discuss untill they kindly run away:”Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral equivalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the internecine violence that is perpetrated by Muslim militants, or indeed by Muslim governments. Chomsky seems to think that the disparity either does not exist or runs the other way”. As if The Troubles were settled with atheists from the Continent and their critique of what was happening in between Europe and America. Perhaps this is a false comparison, but it’s the first one that came to mind and seems plausible enough. I invite you to explain in the comments what’s wrong with it and I’ll come up with a new one if needed. Perhaps I don’t need to. The very next paragraph in Harris’ work relates to Saddam’s rule (so faith seems to be false enemy, it’s secular rule by a mob style ganster and his posse):”Consider the recent conflict in Iraq: If the situation had been reversed, what are the chances that the Iraqi Republican Guard, attempting to execute a regime change on the Potomac, would have taken the same degree of care to minimize civilian casualties? What are the chances that Iraqi forces would have been deterred by our use of human shields? (What are the chances we would have used human shields?) What are the chances that a routed American government would have called for its citizens to volunteer to be suicide bombers ? What are the chances that Iraqi soldiers would have wept upon killing a carload of American civilians at a checkpoint unnecessarily? You should have, in the ledger of your imagination, a mounting column of zeros”. To answer the questions: 1) If they had the same military might, it might not have been so different. But I can’t say with the same certitude as Harris, because we don’t live anywhere near that kind of society. 2) Perhaps they’ve seen more misery than our volunteer army (called mercenary army by Chomsky) and they’ve lost all humanity. 3) Israel seems to be a good case study of doing more with less. They do use human shields. I’ve seen the pictures (teens on the hoods of cars, younger childeren in front of IDF forces). But this questions was in parenthesis. Pure rhetoric and deserves no response as none was expected. 4) Suicide missions only seem to exist in the movie version of the US Army. Marines never leave a man behind, so the issue doesn’t arise. However, if the military is broken and citizens are needed to bomb the enemy, I’m sure they’ll have to risk their lives too. 5) I’m not sure the tearducts or Iraqi soldiers are unable to function. We hear the same stories from anti-war soldiers returning from Iraq. The story being that most of the company don’t care that much about Iraqis and it’s hard to get these stories out. Hate breeds more hate. Being in the war won’t make ‘them’ better people. It’ll make ‘us’ worse. 0) This is the only zero. I’m sorry Sam, but I have some imagination. Harris continues to claim “But you would not know this from reading Chomsky. For him, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all”. From reading Chomsky I get the feeling he’s saying the intentions of the population matters and if the population votes to go to war, maybe we should. Body count is relevant. ‘Liberals’ often take about the cost of war, never mentioning the human cost. He’s trying to side-step this “It’s moral, but we’re doing it wrong and it’s costing us too much money” discourse. He seems to be a ‘better’ utilitarian. Nevertheless, as a child of the Enlightement, Chomsky sees Kant as an extension of Hume and Mill and all those guys as one great tradition. He does not claim intentions are not important. He merely points out that geo-political interests (eg. oil) are often the true motivation and noble excuses are thought of later. Intentions are important for Chomsky when, say, he defends attacking fascism in the ’40′s after the fall of anarchism in the ’30′s. But Harris seems to be a libertarian and has his own ideological filter. One that allows for a Pax Americana it would seem. Or as he puts it:”We are now living in a world that can no longer tolerate wellarmed, malevolent regimes. Without perfect weapons, collateral damage—the maiming and killing of innocent people—is unavoidable”.

Psychoanalysis and therapeutic effects.

Departing from Freudian analysis, I shall mainly take a more bioneural approach to the brain. Not disregarding concepts of the mind, as stablished by C.G. Jung and partners; this will be my main focus.

Sigmeund Freud has to be placed in historical context. In a time when fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes were hailing the use of cocaine, it did not take long for Freud to look at it as a “wonderous medicine”. He, of course, explains his increased libido as a central enforced personal trait. In patients, he sees it makes them “more normal” and administers it if they feel depressed. After some research is done on this chemically refined use of coca leaves, he is devasted by the scientific consensus: It’s highly addictive and worse than a cup of coffee (which were the effects when chewed as done by native americans for millenia). He goes on to work with C. G. Jung, who places emphasis on the collective consciousness. We have evidence from 5000B.C. that mushrooms were used in Central and South America were reverence. The molecular biology of
and deserves attention at this point.

These subjects are controversial because they were outlawed (but recreational users and medicinal research) during times of racism. A class of people was seen as not being able to control themselves. ‘Crazed negro’ with a ‘bullet to the heart…in self-defense’ would not stop a cocaine pumped agent of that class. This would leave a scar on our social consciousness and psychological freedom restricted to an irrational degree. After alcohol and opium, cocaine was pronounced as the third scourge of mankind. Pemberton treated his morphine addiction with a cocaine drink to provide an alternative to an alcoholic beverage (outlawed during the latest dry era). However in 1970 through the controlled substances act, research on psychedelics and cannabis (still described as marihuana to link it with mexicans rather than the industrial crop hemp) is prohibited. However, psychedelics are by definition:
From Greek psykhe- “mind” (see psyche) + deloun “make visible, reveal,” from delos “visible, clear.” Psychedelia is from 1967. Earliest in 1956, of drugs, suggested by H. Osmond in a letter to Aldous Huxley and used by Osmond in a scientific paper published the next year.
Fitting into a larger criminal market for over 300 billion dollars and over 200 billion euros a year, it remains outcast to the darkest corners of society.
Unlike coffee, alcohol in most countries and tabacco; these products are doomed to make profits near the size of oil revenus of users and addicts, none of whom receive any honest help from their government of social milieu. Most is based on myth and tradition, being biased one way or the other, without relevant data or educational information explaining levels of dependency, mortality rate and so forth.
This is part of the grander setting in which the Self must seated. The set, the internal framework of those who would use a substance to alter their state of mind and thereby enhance the effects of psychoanalysis and/or therapy. The id, ego and superego would in a freudian framework be connected to the set. The ego would be unable to reconcile with the superego on the basis that reality is slanted and only Id could possibly arise from such an irrational disaster.
In other words, the experience becomes tainted. Tryptamines are associated with trips, which are in turn associated with the possibility of a bad trip. In the free associations game that goes on during synaptic free firing neurons, such a view of reality is skewed and causes baseless conceptions of the world to enter what is essentially, a very delicate moment. In other, more ancient, cultures, traditions and rituals would do the same by declaring these as sacred. To view perceptions as real, say gods or aliens; would be to miss the point. Psychotherapy and sjaminism deserve no greater place on the cast system of society than mechanics and mathmeticians.
A lot of energy must first be invested in fixing such a society, which must divide and structure so competitivly.
No one occupation, status, class or use of leisure time should define a person in its entirety. I say it, because it’s a conceptual structure. This abstract person extends to all categorical aspects of life (social, political, economical, territorial, structural). The biological perspective has a lot of evolutionary twists and turns, so for now I’ll leave this page as it is. All of this should be part of the educational system. We ought to learn the basics of food. Nutrition and toxins for the body and mind.

Journal of a law abiding citizen

In Confoederatio Helvetica, a utupic future (and not so distant past), might look like this.
Morning, get up. Wash with water.
Need soap and shampoo from pant H. It grows on the mountainside and requires no maintenance.
Just water. Which flows because of global warming from our precious glacier.
I like the smell, so I made deodorant (also made from H) also smell like it. I´m not a lavander person.

Time to eat something. Ate last of my personally slaughtered chicken yesterday. Time for something less meaty today. Let´s see. Tomorrow I might eat soy, but for now, something more digestable. I´ll just take some seeds from plant H from the near brook. It´s got energy (567 calories/100g), Protein (30.6/100g), Carbohydrate (10.9) Dietary fiber (6), Fat (47.2), Saturated fat (5.2), Oleic (18:1 Omega-9, 5.8), Polyunsaturated fat (36.2), Linoleic (18:2 Omega-6 27.6), Linolenic (18:3 Omega-3 8.7), Linolenic (18:3 Omega-6 0.8). And zero cholesterol. About 5grams will be water from the near brook, but I’m cool with that.
It’s got Vitamin A, Thiamine (Vit B1) , Riboflavin (Vit B2), Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Calcium and Iron. So that’ll be enough for breakfast. Save some of the seed oil for treatment of eczema.
Also no gluten in it, so I can share it later with people who have celiac disease.

It´s noon. I just worked in the barn, feeding the animals with plant H I brought back from the mountainside. What they don´t eat can be used as hay. I´m exhausted. Still have a long day. Better eat something made of plant C butter. Can´t swallow the painkillers because they have too many side-effects on my stomach.

Evening. Just looked to see if plant C was doing fine. I try to keep it seperate from plant H. Otherwise it all turns H. Far relatives of hop, which I don´t brew. I don´t need to have an industrial only variety to make of for this lacking thirst as they call it. I harldy use Fords T-model. Made it after his and diesels design myself. Same fuel source and all. Made from, mainly plant H and runs on it too.
Time to relax. I eat some more butterscones from C. I throw some of the outdoor variety on the campfire, it was growing too close to H and might start mixing. I take some more blankets to keep warm, also made from H, as are my clothes.

As I write this down on paper made from H, I take some plants C and vaporize it to fight the depressing and grim reality. This isn´t utopia, this is the real world.

My plant H is of course, Herbicide. Plant C, Change.

Update: I couldn´t stop nature from crosspollinating. The plant spreads like a weed. Growing in all climates and deserts. Withstanding the conditions of central asia. Even though it originated from the rainforest. Started growing the domisticated variety, tribes used it a couple of thousand years in this manner. The molecule with medicinal values reaches 8% which is sufficient.

Violence as legitimate means

I just saw the clip “Rise Against – Re-Education (Through Labor)” and it reminded me of Fight Club. But also of 24 and Xe.
The clip started with a quotation from John F. Kennedy:”Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Now, if all of us (wealthy worldcitizens, access to internet etc) were to adopt this principle; the world would be an ugly place.

Don’t get me wrong, I like JFK. But the (cold) war rethoric bothers me. If anarchists (meaning people who identify themselves with the anti-authoritarian tradition) were to use the ‘propaganda of the act’ as it were, we’d all be terrorists.

If ANYBODY, starts adressing their grievances (such as state terror on a massive scale) by mimicing the abhorrent behavior, we’re in for a very long and destructive circle (if not spiral, but I doubt cycle) of violence.

Imagine, the anarchist cookbook and the destructive nature of such literature being applied by all extremes of the political spectrum. From left wing commies, claiming all private property is theft, to right-wing contractors who feel the only way to keep order is to do it themselves.
That doesn’t include the people desecrating public property because they feel what one arm of government does, they should annihilate its legs.

The logic is destructive. Meanly because it’s war logic. If you look at this as a war, we’re all going to be fucked.
But as george carlin points on (on education -must see!-), the owners of this country won’t allow us to learn anything. So if we (the masses) can’t think (if that’s reserved for elites), we’ll have to act. Without rational thought I feel this could easily lead into harsh situations.

However, if one (leftist) would replace say, class warfare with class cooperation, he’d quickly have a fundamental change of position (even it’s its only implemented after nationalising the collectives’ wealth); we’d end up with fascism.

Which is a difficult position to maintain. Of course, if you WANT power and you want to achieve your OWN political agenda: Fascism is the way to go.

It is the only thing that does not tolerate anarchy. It doesn’t even tolerate the mob. CIA had to rebuild that with the french connection (drug money, prohibition excluded liquids again). There was order in the streets. The manifesto had been somewhat realised. People listened, and the ones that didn’t were dealt with.

If I lived in the world wars, I hope I’d have been a pacifist. Maybe I’d had joined the resistance, because there was so much suffering around me and no wealth.

But right now, even if I were to -for the sake of argument- think of the current world regime/empire is more totalitarian than it could have been over 50 years ago, I’d still use non-violent means to address the issue.
Like say, words, ideas, concepts, etc.

There was a massive movement, even followed by the Czar (because his poor weaponry) leading up to the Great War. In the Second World War, it becomes hard to repeat Dwight on the american version of The Office and say that “it was a war we never should have gotten involved with”.
Even Einstein and Chomsky thought fighting it was right, and I kinda look upto these guys. But winning a war never determines who’s right, only who’s left.
In this case, the guys with the nukes won. Thank you a lot, Einstein!
And then there’s an MIT (pentagon budget) professor who teaches linguistics who can’t decide on paying taxes or not (or any other act of civil disobedience) because it might lead to fascism.

Of course, I don’t live in a country with the same budget lay-out (military is lik 15% here and most of it goes to social security and health, my region gives most its money away on education and health), so I pay my taxes (well I don’t because I’m a student and I hardly work, when I do the tariff is low and I give most of it away on causes so I get a refund). So even non-violent oppossition isn’t really an option for me either, either by voicing my opinion (because it’s easier to encounter people who might actually recognize me then in such a small country as mine) or by not paying taxes (even though 147 dossiers of 100000 known fraudulents cases are handed over to the justice department of further selection).

As for violence as legitimate means…To what? For what? What’s the end? In my world view it’s peace and non-violence. It’s dialogue, reason, and above all freedom and justice. The first two being the means. The latter two the goals, incompatible with legitimating violence.

For the ends are the means, and anarchism ought to be about deconstructing institutions of power (when classified as illegitimate), not about repeating mistakes of the past.

Make new ones. Do anything, try anthing. Just try not to infringe on other people’s right to do the same. And violence tends to target the weak. You may feel strong knowing that information is free and it’s surprisingly easy for any individual to destroy a lot of infrastructure, human lives, systems of dominance and whatnot.

If not, I’m sure EVERYONE will be able to find SOMETHING they’d be willing to burn, pillage and rape over.
Albeit, most might not abide by that order.

Anarchism

Deconstructing is the core of anarchism. Not destruction. The general consensus (and the media ferment this idea that the masses are violent and best adressed accordingly) seems to be that anarchists all want anarchy. That is to say, disorder, destruction. Destruction of wealth, merely because it is property (for the masses have little else to touch or stir when it comes to economy, especially in disarray). Rather than declaring it eg. a public good. Or concentrate on the fact that anarchism refers to the political theory which essentially deconstructs all systems of power and authority untill they are legitimized. And even then, further analysis has to prove that it works. Tradition and rituals are false gods.
That’s about it from a religious metaphor. I could give you an ideaological simile, but I’d be understood as being somebody decreeing some thing. And not another, to define oneself in the spectrum.
But that’s the problem within the mainstraim thought of both intellectuals and the sometimes hardly literate masses: The idea that politics is narrow and anything to fundamentally alter it must be violent in its nature, or at least very, very hard work and best done by the workers or, respectively, brainiacs.

Anarchism is deconstructing. Those systems of thought. And many others. For me, it’s about freedom. And perhaps that is justice, because it is inevitable, that one day, we will all be equally free. When vengeance becomes so codified as to agree to call it just and all else immoral.Or perhaps that day has already come and we move on. To something in which all of humanity has the same rights, conditions. abilities and all else that could be regarded as core fundamentals. Of the individual, within his community, within the environment and to know that they are all interconnected. And that frustration is not a stable path. All members of society ought to be free in mind and body. To decide their own path, within their own identity. I believe that identity begins with the human race (homo sapiens sapiens) and perhaps, in many years (Spain leading the way), all primate descendants. After that, mammals (starting with dolphins and whales), moving on to fish (like sharks etc) and so on and so on, untill we realise that we are all one.

As Hicks said, let us explore space. Both inner and outer. Together.

Work work

In welfare states; the working man’s outcry to stop having to pay for the lazy bums causing the electorate to hit the right. Of course one does not “want to work for the sake of someone who does NOT want to work”, because this diminishes the effort somehow.

It doesn’t feel right. If I were to give you one dollar and 99 to another person; you would rather have me give you 10 dollars and 10 or 20 to someone else. Even if I burned everything else; even tough we’re talking about ME giving it away. We look into ourselves and care little for others.

But why is this the case? Is it the case? If I were to give you 2 dollars and someone else 3000; you would, even tough you don’t know the person, feel inclined to do the ‘right’ thing, rather than avenge yourself.

Who cares about the rich not wanting to work for their money? Hardly anybody it would seem. Who cares that the poorest of the world work the hardest for the least money? A few more people, but most feel overwhelmed by feelings of powerlessness. If they weren’t, they’d have to get off their arse and do something about it.

We’re not looking at life as a human endeavor. We’re looking at ourselves as pieces of the economic pie to be distributed. And whomever works, will produce and deserves piece of the pie. But that’s a pre-1930′s mentality. The problem of our society has become overproduction, not scarce resources. Being a commodity on the market to be traded is something most people aspire to, and labor should be sold without concern of human concepts such as freedom or justice.

At least, when you’re bought; there’s a willingness to invest and sell you when you’re truly worth more. But since slavery ended and we stuck to wage slavery, people can just stop hiring you when productivity increases. This means, less people needed for the production of just as much or more wealth. This causes unemployment. Because we don’t NEED to people to WORK to have the same luxeries.

So we don’t work because we want to do the manual or mental labor. Not as an exercise in creativity or freedom. No, we want to be payed more. The work takes second place. Money as a means has become almost a goal. We can’t sit at home all day because most feel inclined to start consuming (24hour shopping stations and malls might have something to do with that), rather than learning a new skill, instrument, or language.

If it is truly possible NOT to go to work and not get eaten by predators, survive comfortably, eat and drink healty, exercise regularly, get medical attention when needed, even get some electricity. Well then, I think the caveman in us should stop hunting. If you don’t want to work for those people who refuse to, than don’t. Stay at home, or go out and help other people; volunteer. Help the rest of the world so they may be able to help you. Or kill them all if you think they’re all compitition.

Mankind could evolve either way, we’ve been on the planet with a thousand people; near extinction. The last 200 years we’ve gone to 1 billion and increased exponentially ever since. If you honestly don’t think the industrial revolution can meet our automatisatoin requirements, that we can’t think of certain machines and computerized processes to replace human labor with; tell me, what makes a human human?

Is it reproduction (because overpopulation or famine, human/food) is not a problem. It is consciousness? Because nobody seems to be willing to rethink our current paradigm. Is it something else? Please comment.

NATO Mission Afghanistan and Obama

It seems clear now that Europe may rebuild Afghanistan escorting military operations conducted by US troops and contractors. NATO will continue to turn over people to the regime which will torture them in many cases (and who knows, maybe before it’s all over, he’ll be a terrorist). Basically, NATO will have to join the fight to control the mass population. This is a mixed strategy because the european army is still more or less mixed. The variants that come into play are along very nuanced and interacting paths. Belgians way of training troops (military or neighbourhood cop) will define the post-revolution (1979) landscape and shape the future junta. Civics lessons are nice idea, law and order is currently the talibans monopoly.
If post-colonial powers cannot succusfully install a stable oilpipeline, there’s no telling what Russia will do. Their willingness to make sacrificies is equalled only by the largest empire history has ever seen, funded by the chinese.
If India gets its tech people to run the japanese fighterdrones (they’re decades ahead, don’t tell me they don’t have transformers fully functioning), there’s no predicting how this will end.
Europe will be sick of getting a lousy oil/gas deal from its Ursidae second-world, almost complete capitalist third-world (those are the only ones that AREN’T protectionist, are weren’t because they were raped and pillaged on a metaphysical level) country.
Seriously, there’s nothing there but rocks. Leave it alone, a good part of the 20th century were moderate. Giving women the right to vote that is, maybe that’s too radical.
Exactly what kind of reaction are we trying to provoke with locals?
“Hello, I’m white and well armed. I’m here to help,”?
The Fundament (Al Qaida) is likely to hold a firm ground where the biggest army decides to draw lines in the sand.
Obama’s adviser (from Carter era) still wants a capitalist state of whatever regime, despite what the populations’ desire for afghan democracy and independance. The Mujahedin were his doing and Bin Ladens’ CIA training was hybris in the making. Breeding this medieval environment is manifest doom.
We will not win. Winning has no parameters, they’re infinite. The afghan civil war has to be thrown aside for securing oil and gas. The history of this region has only one, dominant lesson. It has huge blowback. In the long run, the gorilla movement has owned those caves. Even if we end up nuking every square inch (I think there are enough nukes for that on the planet) of that state, we’ll still end up with radiated oil.
So, what ARE we doing there?

Obama is which mythological president?

Personalities of past presidents have been intertwined with, amongst other things, their death. Lincoln was shot, FDR died in office from polio. Which you would like to see Obama end his career with?
Or is it Kennedy’s escalation in around Vietnam. The middle-east will be the new Indochina. Then again, that guy got shot too. So maybe another policy or charismatic option is required for hopefull change.
Now they(Robert Gates and alike) want to do the same thing to afghanistan as they did in Iraq.
Obama doesn’t want to get into the medical marihuana debate (states allow it) because it would waste political capital. Joe Biden and Clinton are allowed to run affaires that are abroad. How is he going to respond to the very real fact that cannabis has replaced opium as a crop. This major cash crop also has a low THC-variant, hemp. Industrial use of this was common for centuries, many taliban tribes haven’t evolved either the last couple of centuries, mind you. Making the plant illegal has been an on again, off again relationship. The use of any substance that can impair judgement is considered haram, forbidden. Then again, when fighting infidels, Al Qaida and other extremists find no fault in allowing production and storage of opium and cannabis (the variant that can also be used for medicinal purposes) to skyrocket to unseen heights.

Only in being realistic about the facts on the ground can you make adequate decisions. What kind of change will he bring after 72 years of prohibition (wood pulp and corn methanal could be ecologically and economically replaced in a sound manner)? Is there a scientific aspect that ought to enter the dialogue? It is time to reach beyond faithfulness and platitudes.
It is time, for change.

So maybe, Obama is Ron Paul.

Just kidding, unless Obama allows a viable, pluralistic, multi party system to take root; Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and sorts don’t stand a change in hell

Aliens visit our planet:

Disclaimer: Narrative may vary in time according to your place in the Universe. General and special rules of relativity apply.

“Look, lifeforms on the dry part of a watery celestial body.
They seem to multiply quite hastely. Oh look, they’ve developed a hierachic structure. Oh no, the top is inbreeding.
Let’s see what the masses are doing. Oh no, they’ve even more narrow sighted. Whatever instantly satisfies is chosen. The surving specimens are rather happy, the sad ones die quickly. The sad ones die quickly. Cognitive abilities are hampered due to massive consumption of dehydrating liquids.
Look at their habitat, this mammalian creature will probably have to evolve to adapt to such a drastically altering environment. The radiation might speed up the process. Then again, after growing thumbs; what’s left?

Ambition

When I was child I wanted to suit up, with a briefcase and GO places. Now that I’m a little older, I realise that that’s not going to accomplish anything. I mean, there’s nothing you can do that can’t be done. Why should I want to achieve anything? Are my desires not just as much me as my performances?
You’d say it’s part of selfrealisation, that labor enables man to exist in its purest form. Being part of something greater is its own reward and makes you feel good about your’self’. But isn’t having a good time worth just as much? When did feeling good, and feeling good about yourself or nobler good (grand collective identity, tiny community) came to be at a par, and perhaps beyond. Our first duty now, is not just to obey the law anymore, it’s obeying the laws of economics. However, there’s not written by the people or for the people, they’re abstract musings which in practice often translate into inhumane policies which are forced upon small ‘states’ (former colonies) who must endure rules, never imposed upon industrial world.

So really, just tune out, and relax. It’s all fine. It’s not going to be fine, but right now it is. And there is only now. And here. And nothing else. No added value, no extra meaning.
Humans are a cosmic blimp on the grand scheme of things.