Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
D'Souza's Obama
http://egbertowillies.com/2012/08/26/obamas-america-2016-review-want-a-conservative-in-2012-radical-obama-probably-your-best-choice/
I recently went to see the documentary film “Obama’s America: 2016” at Starplex Theater in Kingwood, Texas with the expectation of being confronted with a series of falsehoods and logical fallacies, but I was very surprised by how informative the film was regarding Barack Obama’s past. I read Obama’s autobiographical memoir Dreams From My Father after his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the film did a wonderful job bringing to life Obama’s reflections and experiences. The portions of the film based on Obama’s book were very well done and quite informative for viewers who arguably would be more content to have Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck tell them everything they need to know about Obama’s past. The film solidly rejected the “birther conspiracy” by stating that Obama was born in Hawaii and the film never questioned Obama’s religious beliefs. Instead, the film focused on a topic that many Americans know little about: anti-colonialism.
The portions of the film that sought to interpret Obama’s past in order to provide context for his political views in the present, and what those views could mean for America’s future, came from Dinesh D’Souza’s Roots of Obama’s Rage and Obama’s America. D’Souza is an Indian-American immigrant, Roman Catholic convert, and influential conservative intellectual. D’Souza’s thesis is quite simple: Barack Obama is motivated by a Marxist anti-colonial worldview and seeks to deliberately weaken the United States through his presidency. The support offered for this claim: Obama’s enthusiasm for nuclear disarmament, his willingness to increase the national debt, and his unwillingness to increase offshore oil drilling. Okay, but what is anti-colonialism?
You may recall from various history classes that Europe colonized much of the world between 1500 and 1950. There were various phases of colonization (exploration of the New World, Africa in the 19th century, the Middle East after WWI) and diverse motivations (Christianization, national pride, natural resources). The United States itself, as the film points out, was a colony of the British Empire and rebelled against its colonial “master.” Over time, colonies in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, particularly after WWII, began to gain independence and it was anti-colonialism, the belief that people should be self-governing, that was the political ideology motivating the various liberation movements throughout the world.
Anti-colonialism forms part of Barack Obama’s background in the figure of his father, Barack Obama Sr., who was a Harvard educated Kenyan with anti-colonial political views. President Obama only met his father once, but Dinesh D’Souza argues that this absence of a father is what led Obama to identify so strongly with his father’s views. D’Souza attempts to psychoanalyze Obama and argues that he is trying to fulfill his father’s political aspirations. D’Souza’s main support for this claim comes from Obama’s own reflections in Dreams From My Father. In the book, Obama talks about how his past influences his present, and that his father’s history is also his history. D’Souza interprets this to mean that Obama is on a crusade to weaken the Unites States in order to help the people of the Third World, people like his father’s family, who suffered under Western oppression and exploitation.
In the film, D’Souza points out that he and President Obama have much
in common biographically, both of them being immigrants from former
British colonies and receiving Ivy League educations in the United
States. The main difference, according to D’Souza, is that the
anti-colonialism that Obama “inherited” from his father insists that the
industrialized West became wealthy by exploiting the unindustrialized
Third World. D’Souza argues that countries like the United States became
wealthy due to creativity and hard work, rather than exploitation of
other people and their land. I guess D’Souza overlooks the fact that the
United States, once it gained independence from the British Empire,
took natural resources from Native Americans and labor from African
slaves by force, to say nothing of “banana republics” in Central America
or our foreign policy in the Middle East since WWII. D’Souza argues
that Obama wants to weaken the Unites States because the United States
happens to be the sole superpower currently leading the industrialized
West. It’s that simple. Obama is anti-colonial, which means he his
anti-Western, which means he is anti-American, which means he ran for
office with the sole purpose of weakening the “American Empire.”
Honestly, I do not doubt that President Obama’s political views are somewhat informed by anti-colonialism or that he was influenced by Marxist professors in college. Interestingly, the film, and most of the audience, assumes that anti-colonialism and Marxism are inherently anti-American. Again, the United States was born out of rebellion, out of an independence movement against the British Empire. We claim to want to spread democracy around the world. Why should we, as Americans, be opposed to countries in the Third World striving for the political ideals what we ourselves promote? We either believe our own Declaration of Independence, which states that “all men are created equal” and capable of self-government, or we don’t. Leninism (revolutionary Marxism) and Stalinism (totalitarianism) are certainly at odds with democracy, but Marxism itself is not. Many scholars and political theorists argue that democracy and socialism are more compatible than democracy and capitalism. They argue that unregulated, excessive capitalism corrupts the democratic process by concentrating wealth and political power in the hands of a small minority. Sound familiar?
Again, I concede that anti-colonialism and Marxism may have influenced President Obama’s political philosophy, but the idea that he wants to weaken the United States based on these influences is not proven by his actions as president. Obama followed the lead of George W. Bush by passing a second bailout for Wall Street, which I guess could be considered a form of socialism for the rich (our money being redistributed upwards). He then passed Health Care Reform based on a Heritage Foundation (conservative think tank) plan, which simply increased the profits of the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries (Note: “socialized” medicine would be Medicare for All, which would be far more efficient and moral). Obama has increased U.S. drone strikes in Third World countries killing innocent civilians on a weekly basis, the same people that D’Souza argues Obama is trying to help. Obama has also expanded the government’s surveillance capabilities, both abroad and domestically (which helps the Third World, how?). Obama has also caved to the fossil fuel industry on climate change, which is already seriously affecting the Third World. Maybe if Obama was insisting that the United States radically decrease carbon emissions in order to save the Third World I would reconsider D’Souza’s argument, but even then I would probably just applaud the effort to save the planet.
The film concludes by asking the audience to consider, given all that D’Souza has now told them, what America will be like in 2016 if Obama is re-elected. Well, for all of Obama’s anti-colonial and Marxist influences, we actually already know what America will look like in 2016 if Obama is re-elected. President Obama wants to preserve Medicare and Social Security, invest in education and infrastructure, and reduce the deficit by cutting some military spending and raising some taxes on the wealthiest 1%. The real question is: what will America be like in 2016 if Romney is elected? The Republican Party has been so radicalized by the Tea Party that it no longer resembles the GOP of Reagan or Bush. In fact, if you want to vote for a “conservative” in 2012, the “radical” Obama is probably your best choice.
I recently went to see the documentary film “Obama’s America: 2016” at Starplex Theater in Kingwood, Texas with the expectation of being confronted with a series of falsehoods and logical fallacies, but I was very surprised by how informative the film was regarding Barack Obama’s past. I read Obama’s autobiographical memoir Dreams From My Father after his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the film did a wonderful job bringing to life Obama’s reflections and experiences. The portions of the film based on Obama’s book were very well done and quite informative for viewers who arguably would be more content to have Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck tell them everything they need to know about Obama’s past. The film solidly rejected the “birther conspiracy” by stating that Obama was born in Hawaii and the film never questioned Obama’s religious beliefs. Instead, the film focused on a topic that many Americans know little about: anti-colonialism.
The portions of the film that sought to interpret Obama’s past in order to provide context for his political views in the present, and what those views could mean for America’s future, came from Dinesh D’Souza’s Roots of Obama’s Rage and Obama’s America. D’Souza is an Indian-American immigrant, Roman Catholic convert, and influential conservative intellectual. D’Souza’s thesis is quite simple: Barack Obama is motivated by a Marxist anti-colonial worldview and seeks to deliberately weaken the United States through his presidency. The support offered for this claim: Obama’s enthusiasm for nuclear disarmament, his willingness to increase the national debt, and his unwillingness to increase offshore oil drilling. Okay, but what is anti-colonialism?
You may recall from various history classes that Europe colonized much of the world between 1500 and 1950. There were various phases of colonization (exploration of the New World, Africa in the 19th century, the Middle East after WWI) and diverse motivations (Christianization, national pride, natural resources). The United States itself, as the film points out, was a colony of the British Empire and rebelled against its colonial “master.” Over time, colonies in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, particularly after WWII, began to gain independence and it was anti-colonialism, the belief that people should be self-governing, that was the political ideology motivating the various liberation movements throughout the world.
Anti-colonialism forms part of Barack Obama’s background in the figure of his father, Barack Obama Sr., who was a Harvard educated Kenyan with anti-colonial political views. President Obama only met his father once, but Dinesh D’Souza argues that this absence of a father is what led Obama to identify so strongly with his father’s views. D’Souza attempts to psychoanalyze Obama and argues that he is trying to fulfill his father’s political aspirations. D’Souza’s main support for this claim comes from Obama’s own reflections in Dreams From My Father. In the book, Obama talks about how his past influences his present, and that his father’s history is also his history. D’Souza interprets this to mean that Obama is on a crusade to weaken the Unites States in order to help the people of the Third World, people like his father’s family, who suffered under Western oppression and exploitation.
Honestly, I do not doubt that President Obama’s political views are somewhat informed by anti-colonialism or that he was influenced by Marxist professors in college. Interestingly, the film, and most of the audience, assumes that anti-colonialism and Marxism are inherently anti-American. Again, the United States was born out of rebellion, out of an independence movement against the British Empire. We claim to want to spread democracy around the world. Why should we, as Americans, be opposed to countries in the Third World striving for the political ideals what we ourselves promote? We either believe our own Declaration of Independence, which states that “all men are created equal” and capable of self-government, or we don’t. Leninism (revolutionary Marxism) and Stalinism (totalitarianism) are certainly at odds with democracy, but Marxism itself is not. Many scholars and political theorists argue that democracy and socialism are more compatible than democracy and capitalism. They argue that unregulated, excessive capitalism corrupts the democratic process by concentrating wealth and political power in the hands of a small minority. Sound familiar?
Again, I concede that anti-colonialism and Marxism may have influenced President Obama’s political philosophy, but the idea that he wants to weaken the United States based on these influences is not proven by his actions as president. Obama followed the lead of George W. Bush by passing a second bailout for Wall Street, which I guess could be considered a form of socialism for the rich (our money being redistributed upwards). He then passed Health Care Reform based on a Heritage Foundation (conservative think tank) plan, which simply increased the profits of the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries (Note: “socialized” medicine would be Medicare for All, which would be far more efficient and moral). Obama has increased U.S. drone strikes in Third World countries killing innocent civilians on a weekly basis, the same people that D’Souza argues Obama is trying to help. Obama has also expanded the government’s surveillance capabilities, both abroad and domestically (which helps the Third World, how?). Obama has also caved to the fossil fuel industry on climate change, which is already seriously affecting the Third World. Maybe if Obama was insisting that the United States radically decrease carbon emissions in order to save the Third World I would reconsider D’Souza’s argument, but even then I would probably just applaud the effort to save the planet.
The film concludes by asking the audience to consider, given all that D’Souza has now told them, what America will be like in 2016 if Obama is re-elected. Well, for all of Obama’s anti-colonial and Marxist influences, we actually already know what America will look like in 2016 if Obama is re-elected. President Obama wants to preserve Medicare and Social Security, invest in education and infrastructure, and reduce the deficit by cutting some military spending and raising some taxes on the wealthiest 1%. The real question is: what will America be like in 2016 if Romney is elected? The Republican Party has been so radicalized by the Tea Party that it no longer resembles the GOP of Reagan or Bush. In fact, if you want to vote for a “conservative” in 2012, the “radical” Obama is probably your best choice.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Friday, August 24, 2012
Hardcourt: the police state and neo-conservative economics
"Not surprisingly, the periods of strongest belief in the free market (the "Market Revolution" in the 1820s and the recent period of neoliberalism since the 1970s) have coincided with the starkest periods of penal expansion – with the birth of the penitentiary in the first half of the 19th century and the exponential rise in prison populations since 1973." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/30/laissez-faire-with-strip-searches-liberalism
Monday, August 20, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
On the necessity of cross-cultural dialogue
http://us-intellectual-history.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-zulus-produce-tolstoy-we-will-read.html
Framing humanistic learning as such, Taylor vehemently opposes the racial arrogance of the statement supposedly uttered by Saul Bellow: “When the Zulus produce a Tolstoy we will read him.” Taylor works against Bellow’s supposed stricture not only on the grounds that the Zulus might have produced a Tolstoy that is yet to be discovered, but also from the standpoint that Zulu culture might evaluate merit differently and that we would benefit from learning their evaluative system. This is what he means by replacing our narrow horizons with a vision formed from cultural fusion, what he calls the dialogic process.
Framing humanistic learning as such, Taylor vehemently opposes the racial arrogance of the statement supposedly uttered by Saul Bellow: “When the Zulus produce a Tolstoy we will read him.” Taylor works against Bellow’s supposed stricture not only on the grounds that the Zulus might have produced a Tolstoy that is yet to be discovered, but also from the standpoint that Zulu culture might evaluate merit differently and that we would benefit from learning their evaluative system. This is what he means by replacing our narrow horizons with a vision formed from cultural fusion, what he calls the dialogic process.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Medicare comparative systems
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/14/13277101-wendell-potter-ryan-is-a-dream-come-true-for-health-insurance-industry
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447687/
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_marmor_on_medicare.pdf
http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/14/13277101-wendell-potter-ryan-is-a-dream-come-true-for-health-insurance-industry
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447687/
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_marmor_on_medicare.pdf
Monday, August 13, 2012
The Next Convergence
"...we find in the history of developed countries, as well in the current developing ones, is that growth comes from a complex interaction of the public and private sectors, with effective governments investing, building institutions, and actively filling in gaps."96
The-Next-Convergence-Economic-Multispeed/dp/0374159750
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons
There’s something new and daring about the CEOs who are transforming
today’s industries. Just compare them with the executives who ran large
companies in the 1950s through the 1980s. Those executives shunned the
press and had their comments carefully crafted by corporate PR
departments. But today’s CEOs—superstars such as Bill Gates, Andy Grove,
Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Jack Welch—hire their own publicists, write
books, grant spontaneous interviews, and actively promote their
personal phi-losophies. Their faces adorn the covers of magazines like Business Week, Time and The Economist.
What’s more, the world’s business personalities are increasingly seen
as the makers and shapers of our public and personal agendas. They
advise schools on what kids should learn and lawmakers on how to invest
the public’s money. We look to them for thoughts on everything from the
future of e-commerce to hot places to vacation.
Narcissists, he pointed out, are emotionally isolated and highly distrustful. Perceived threats can trigger rage. Achievements can feed feelings of grandiosity. That’s why Freud thought narcissists were the hardest personality types to analyze. Consider how an executive at Oracle described his narcissistic CEO Larry Ellison: “The difference between God and Larry is that God does not believe he is Larry.” That observation is amusing, but it is also troubling. Not surprisingly, most people still think of narcissists in a primarily negative way. After all, Freud named the type after the mythical figure Narcissus, who died because of his pathological preoccupation with himself.
Best-selling business writers today have taken up the slogan of “emotional competencies”—the belief that successful leadership requires a strongly developed sense of empathy. But although they crave empathy from others, productive narcissists are not noted for being particularly empathetic themselves. Indeed, lack of empathy is a characteristic shortcoming of some of the most charismatic and successful narcissists, such as Bill Gates and Andy Grove. Of course leaders do need to communicate persuasively. But a lack of empathy did not prevent some of history’s greatest narcissistic leaders from knowing how to communicate—and inspire. Neither Churchill, de Gaulle, Stalin, nor Mao Tse-tung were empathetic. And yet they inspired people because of their passion and their conviction at a time when people longed for certainty. In fact, in times of radical change, lack of empathy can actually be a strength. A narcissist finds it easier than other personality types to buy and sell companies, to close and move facilities, and to lay off employees—decisions that inevitably make many people angry and sad. But narcissistic leaders typically have few regrets. As one CEO said, “If I listened to my employees‘ needs and demands, they would eat me alive.”
http://www.maccoby.com/Articles/NarLeaders.shtml
Narcissists, he pointed out, are emotionally isolated and highly distrustful. Perceived threats can trigger rage. Achievements can feed feelings of grandiosity. That’s why Freud thought narcissists were the hardest personality types to analyze. Consider how an executive at Oracle described his narcissistic CEO Larry Ellison: “The difference between God and Larry is that God does not believe he is Larry.” That observation is amusing, but it is also troubling. Not surprisingly, most people still think of narcissists in a primarily negative way. After all, Freud named the type after the mythical figure Narcissus, who died because of his pathological preoccupation with himself.
Best-selling business writers today have taken up the slogan of “emotional competencies”—the belief that successful leadership requires a strongly developed sense of empathy. But although they crave empathy from others, productive narcissists are not noted for being particularly empathetic themselves. Indeed, lack of empathy is a characteristic shortcoming of some of the most charismatic and successful narcissists, such as Bill Gates and Andy Grove. Of course leaders do need to communicate persuasively. But a lack of empathy did not prevent some of history’s greatest narcissistic leaders from knowing how to communicate—and inspire. Neither Churchill, de Gaulle, Stalin, nor Mao Tse-tung were empathetic. And yet they inspired people because of their passion and their conviction at a time when people longed for certainty. In fact, in times of radical change, lack of empathy can actually be a strength. A narcissist finds it easier than other personality types to buy and sell companies, to close and move facilities, and to lay off employees—decisions that inevitably make many people angry and sad. But narcissistic leaders typically have few regrets. As one CEO said, “If I listened to my employees‘ needs and demands, they would eat me alive.”
http://www.maccoby.com/Articles/NarLeaders.shtml
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Puritan (and evangelical) values and prejudice
08/05/opinion/sunday/
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Superclass: the global power elite and the world they are making by David RothKopf
..or in a nod to the intellectual leaders who have driven the phenomena [trickle down economcs] , call them "Volker-Greenspanism" after the high priests at the U.S. central bank." 60
(p55)It is true that governments have been unable to do much of what they should to improve the welfare of their people, and in a vast number of cses markets have done much more. But it creating a false choice between governments and markets, as so many politicians have done, productive or practical when neither can do the job of creating a thriving or just society alone?"
"Markets within nations inevitable produce groups of people who have more money and power than other. So, it would be odd if global markets did not create an international upper class of people whose economic interests had more in common with each other than with the majority of people who share their nationality." 12
The lessons of the Chicago boys were so well learned, in fact, that they became practically a religion. p53
(p55)It is true that governments have been unable to do much of what they should to improve the welfare of their people, and in a vast number of cses markets have done much more. But it creating a false choice between governments and markets, as so many politicians have done, productive or practical when neither can do the job of creating a thriving or just society alone?"
"Markets within nations inevitable produce groups of people who have more money and power than other. So, it would be odd if global markets did not create an international upper class of people whose economic interests had more in common with each other than with the majority of people who share their nationality." 12
The lessons of the Chicago boys were so well learned, in fact, that they became practically a religion. p53
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics
"The real voyage of discover consists, not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Economics/dp/157851777X
evolution is a "blind watchmaker" Richard Dawkins p.188.
Lego theory of evolutionary design: limited # of building blocks but many permutations.
The foundational texts of evolutionary economics and complexity economics.
Social technologies are designs, processes, and rules that humans use to organize themselves. Villages, armies, matrix organizations, paper money, the rule of law, inventory managment, etc. 238
the multibillion dollar question is which social, physical (technology), and business norms, interact in symbiosis to create the optimal economic-social development in our evolutionary space? 430 (ask this question of conservative vs. liberal?) Individual norms, cooperative norms, innovation norms.
One final norm is important for all three: how people view time. 430.
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Economics/dp/157851777X
evolution is a "blind watchmaker" Richard Dawkins p.188.
Lego theory of evolutionary design: limited # of building blocks but many permutations.
The foundational texts of evolutionary economics and complexity economics.
Social technologies are designs, processes, and rules that humans use to organize themselves. Villages, armies, matrix organizations, paper money, the rule of law, inventory managment, etc. 238
the multibillion dollar question is which social, physical (technology), and business norms, interact in symbiosis to create the optimal economic-social development in our evolutionary space? 430 (ask this question of conservative vs. liberal?) Individual norms, cooperative norms, innovation norms.
One final norm is important for all three: how people view time. 430.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)