[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Fri Jan 9 03:49:56 CST 2009
> We have on this list a number of extremely intelligent people who,
> while they may disagree on certain philosophical details, essentially
> agree that we all have, individually and collectively, some sort of
> right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which
> translates into _*rights guaranteed by an admittedly imperfect
> Constitution that have nevertheless been profoundly undermined by the
> American government over the past 30 or 40 years. We all want a
> fundamental shift in American foreign and domestic policy, and we
> agree on the essentials of what that shift needs to be. *_Most of us
> - and here is where there is SOME disagreement - agree that writing
> letters to our elected representatives does little good, because with
> rare exceptions they have become bought and paid for by special elite
> interests.
> So what do we do? *Do we undertake a second American revolution?*
Absolutely!!
> Do we issue a second Declaration of Independence?
The First one is still good. I walked around on it just today and
checked the edges of it, and although the style of the language is
not exactly 100% modern, it is still quite clear and understandable in
all points. Some others dropped by and looked at
it too, and although we could not agree on what we might do to improve
it, it is still quite resilient to stomping and kicking
and no one has tried to trash it or call it just a piece of paper.
> Do we riot in the streets, as they do in Europe?
Do we or should we? If we do incite riots we should be ready to pay the
costs, and
we should be aware that there could be loss of life and property,
liberty and happiness that we may not be at all
prepared for if rioting is the formula. Here is the time to apply the
time honoured principle
of sizing up the other guy when contemplating a violent act. It won't
turn out well.
In fact we should be prepared to counter any false flags, psy-ops,
black-ops and agents provocateurs.
I think we could come out much better in the long run
if we actually plan to NOT have rioting break out as a result of
anything we do.
The most I would advise is throwing shoes in a well controlled setting,
exercising the right to bare feet as the
"all men are created equal" extension of the right to bare arms.
This needs to be a peaceful r3VOJution as befits the goals of a peace group.
> Do we engage in repeated and orchestrated acts of civil disobedience?
Statewide. Nationwide. Internationally when possible.
We need to have the sympathy fully on our side when we engage.
> Or do we just continue to yammer on this list, straining at a gnat
> while swallowing a camel?
John W. wrote:
> Funny how all this yammering takes on a life of its own, and becomes
> the end rather than the means to an end.
>
> We have on this list a number of extremely intelligent people who,
> while they may disagree on certain philosophical details, essentially
> agree that we all have, individually and collectively, some sort of
> right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which
> translates into rights guaranteed by an admittedly imperfect
> Constitution that have nevertheless been profoundly undermined by the
> American government over the past 30 or 40 years. We all want a
> fundamental shift in American foreign and domestic policy, and we
> agree on the essentials of what that shift needs to be. Most of us -
> and here is where there is SOME disagreement - agree that writing
> letters to our elected representatives does little good, because with
> rare exceptions they have become bought and paid for by special elite
> interests.
>
> So what do we do? Do we undertake a second American revolution? Do
> we issue a second Declaration of Independence? Do we riot in the
> streets, as they do in Europe? Do we engage in repeated and
> orchestrated acts of civil disobedience? Or do we just continue to
> yammer on this list, straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel?
>
> John Wason
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net
> <mailto:LAURIE at advancenet.net>> wrote:
>
> Well Bob, you seem to selectively cherry pick those aspects of
> science that
> fit your argument while ignoring others. I am aware that there is
> something
> called "Science;" but last I heard, it furnished no ways to
> indicate the
> truth of such things as "inalienable rights" or "that all men are
> created
> equal" (except in the latter case of physical equivalency not
> equality or
> identity) or statements that if there are inalienable rights, they
> are life,
> liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, as best I know
> science
> cannot empirically support the truth of the notion that there is a
> Creator
> or that all men are endowed by their creator with certain
> inalienable or any
> other kind of rights - never mind that governments are instituted
> to secure
> those rights or that they derive their just or unjust powers from the
> consent of the governed. These are all philosophical positions
> that are
> assumed as articles of faith not empirically testable facts or
> truths. When
> I refer to you throwing platitudes at us, I am referring to
> statements like
> the one below which contain catch phrases, slogans, and quotable
> quotes but
> little meat and potatoes of substance:
>
> >"...all men are
> >created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
> >unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit
> >of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
> >among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> governed..."
>
> >It is more binding than the law, because the judge is reality.
>
> First, the findings of science are dynamic and constantly changing
> in terms
> of their conceptualization, their interpretation, their validity,
> and their
> applicability. Secondly, moreover, the acceptance,
> interpretation, and use
> of empirical data and findings as well as theoretical and analytical
> hypotheses and conclusions is done by man the same way as judges
> interpret
> and apply the laws that are given them to adjudicate under. In
> the case of
> Scientific findings and laws, it is man who judges and not nature
> in any
> given concrete instance. Thirdly, the same reality is open to a
> variety of
> different theoretical interpretations and conceptual
> reconstructions and
> methodologies can be constructed to test and produce empirical
> indicators
> that will lend support for the interpretations and findings of the
> competing
> visions of reality that one can find in Science - both over the
> years and
> within any particular period or discipline. Like all human
> enterprises,
> there is an establishment that generally sets the standards and
> agenda as to
> what is acceptable debate and thought and what is heretical, junk
> science.
> How many scientists had their theories and findings dismissed by the
> scientific establishment as lunacy, unscientific, metaphysics,
> philosophy,
> irrational, crazy, or fiction only to have them become accepted as an
> establishment truism later with those competing views and findings
> that were
> previously accepted being found to be wrong or otherwise rejected.
>
> I am not sure but is sounds to me as if you are proposing that
> science be
> substituted for the law and that the scientific enterprise be
> substituted
> for the legal system in societies under the assumption that the
> law is about
> truth and its discovery and not about the regulation of human
> interaction
> and the arbitration of disagreements so as to obtain a more or less
> harmonious society. The law and legal systems are about the
> enterprise of
> adjudication and conflict resolution for the most part with the
> finding of
> practical truths - not absolute Truth being something that is a
> secondary
> function done in support of the primary function. That is the
> socio-political reality.
>
> As for Occam's Razor, you have managed to over-simplify it in a
> way that
> fits your argument. Occam's Razor is a heuristic principle that
> generally
> pertains to competing statements or explanations of the same
> general valid
> thesis and not to either invalid theses or to statements or
> explanations of
> competing theses. According to Wikipedia, Occam's Razor "is often
> paraphrased as 'All other things being equal, the simplest
> solution is the
> best.' In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal
> in other
> respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that
> introduces the
> fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in
> this sense
> that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect.
> Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity
> of a good
> explanation as such; it only demands that the explanation be free of
> elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the
> explanation).
>
> Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism,
> it is more
> often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises
> economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific
> theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality
> with mere
> simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex
> mechanism
> behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed
> to capture
> all the essential and relevant parts.)"
>
> You make the assertion that my argument violates this principle;
> but you
> fail to say in any detail how or in what ways it violate the
> principle of
> Occam's Razor supported by evidentiary examples that illustrate
> your points.
> You seem to be prone toward categorizing a diversity of
> discussions and
> arguments under one category or label and then attempt to use whatever
> negative connotations that may be associated with the label as a self
> supporting condemnation of those things that you have so
> classified without
> ever offering any evident of comparability between the different
> discussions
> or their fitting the characterization. We get it that you do not like
> conspiracy theories, arguments that link US policies with the
> actions of
> Israel, arguments and statements that question the articles of
> faith and
> myths that you believe in; but we fail to get how these various
> discussions
> and arguments are related or connected except as a result of your
> labeling
> process.
>
> >Calling my brief argument "platitudes" or the revolutionary fighters
> >"illiterate and uneducated farmers and townspeople" doesn't refute
> >anything. Somehow, Paine's "Common Sense" as well as the Bible
> and quite a
> >bit more was absorbed by the folks who gave us the American republic.
>
> I already clarified what I considered to be platitudes and why I
> referred to
> them as such earlier above. As for calling the revolutionary fighters
> illiterate and uneducated, I will stand by that. There are a number of
> uneducated and illiterate people in the world who are true
> believers and
> have memorized the Bible, songs, prayers, maxiums and a whole lot
> more who
> (a) do not understand what they have memorized and repeat, (b) cannot
> discuss or evaluate what they have absorbed, or (c) explain and
> justify
> their actions in terms of the slogans and phrases of the day.
> Most of the
> fighters in the revolutionary armies in all likelihood were not
> sophisticated erudite persons who had more than rudimentary
> schooling and
> reading and writing skills. Those who made the history books and
> those who
> wrote or read the treatises that contained the philosophies and
> phrases that
> you attributed their fighting for were not the majority of the actual
> fighters (i.e., the grunts in the army). It was in all likelihood the
> generals, the politicians, the clergy, and the shopkeepers who
> were informed
> and enlightened, who read and wrote, who got more than mere
> rudimentary
> schooling, who would get and read tracts like Paine's "Common
> Sense;" but I
> suggest that they probably were not the people who did any actual
> fighting,
> who lived and fought in the trenches or on the front lines, who
> got injured
> and killed, etc. to any large degree. In fact, many who could
> afford it may
> have even hired someone to go out and fight in their behalf.
>
> I have to note that it was you who said that most of the revolutionary
> fighters were fighting for "...all men are
> created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit of
> Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
> among
> Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> governed..." and not
> I. I was calling this into question as both a factual matter as
> well as a
> truism and suggesting that most of the fighters may not have been
> fighting
> for those things at all but for more self-interested mundane practical
> reasons rather than for any lofty ideals and philosophies. What
> historic
> records and other documents tell us about the population at the time
> suggests (no one has any way of proving it one way or the other
> which is why
> I questioned your statement) that the majority of the population
> was in
> effect illiterate and uneducated for which would lead one to
> conclude that
> if the armies who fought the war were drawn from that population
> they would
> have those characteristics for the most part and, hence, would not be
> concerned with or knowledgeable about political philosophies or
> know and use
> the terminologies, notions, and concepts that you say they were
> fighting
> for. I wonder if a majority of the fighters even knew who George
> Washington
> was - let alone that he was their Commanding General. At best,
> they knew
> their friends and neighbors who formed their community militia
> unit and knew
> the officers of that unit.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net>
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] On Behalf Of
> Bob Illyes
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:05 PM
> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>
> Laurie writes "As far as I am concerned, you are doing nothing
> more than
> throwing
> platitudes at use and adding little to the substantive
> discussion", and
> generally dismisses arguments other than legal.
>
> Well, Laurie, you seem to be unaware that there is something
> called science
> that is a much more reliable indicator of truth than the law. It
> is more
> binding than the law, because the judge is reality.
>
> One of the key elements of the scientific method is called Occam's
> Razor,
> which indicates that the simplest explanation that describes the
> evidence
> is most likely to be right. Your arguments fail on this test, as
> do the
> conspiracy theories regarding Israel and the US that are common on
> this
> list.
>
> Calling my brief argument "platitudes" or the revolutionary fighters
> "illiterate and uneducated farmers and townspeople" doesn't refute
> anything. Somehow, Paine's "Common Sense" as well as the Bible and
> quite a
> bit more was absorbed by the folks who gave us the American
> republic. I
> assume you're maintaining that they had to hire someone to read to
> them? I
> don't think so.
>
> Bob
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090109/ade9e145/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list