Sunday, October 31, 2010

We're Cooked


One does a disservice to Obama to call him a rock star. The proper identifier should actually be ‘revolutionary’. As such, Obama represents far more than a rock n’ roll opera - entertainment for fiberglass-filled talking heads. He represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.

JB has already noted that Obama is likely to turn hard left after Tuesday’s midterm trouncing. He will do so, not only for ideological reasons, but to throw this nation into such chaos the likes of which it hasn’t seen since the Civil War. By the time 2012 rolls around, we will no longer have a functioning representative government, and elections will likely be a thing of the past.

We look at the man and ask, How could a nice young man be doing all that within the span of a single term in office? It is indeed tempting to focus on the lanky figure with the Dumbo ears and draw one’s conclusions. In truth, he has a whole cadre of powerful allies, both foreign and domestic.

We’ve heard - but don’t yet believe - that Islamists want us either dead or shariah-bound. We’ve heard what they say about us, and witnessed first-hand their determination to bleed us dry. We’ve seen our own official reaction to their challenge as tepid. We console ourselves by saying that these are the hateful words and actions of a handful of crazies, not realizing that this is precisely the same thing they say about us.

We taunt them at every turn. On a stop-over in Brussels last month, I once again had to go through extensive security. After gathering my things together, we were herded to an incline that took us to the departure lounge one flight up. At the end of the incline - directly in front of us - was a huge poster of a pretty lingerie model. I noted that a good portion of my fellow ascendants were Arabs, whose sensibilities were no doubt offended.

They offend us equally, by stoning women, blowing up worshippers, severing heads and hands; paralyzing spinal columns, etc. We have excuses to overlook such things. It’s their culture. It’s thousands of years old. Who is to say that, barring our addiction to Twinkies, we would not be doing the same?

As far as the upcoming elections are concerned - forget about Democrats vs. Republicans - right now, we have three groups in this country: (1) those committed to overthrowing our nation; (2) those consisting of what Stalin once referred to as ‘useful idiots’; and (3) those (and this now comprises an ever expanding majority) that are just beginning to sense an existential danger.

Nobody can yet be certain to which of the first two groups our president belongs to. In view of the complete lack of transparency with regard to Obama’s background, I have long suspected that Obama belongs to the first. I have previously stated my belief that Obama represents the third attack on our nation (the first and second being the attacks on the World Trade Center They used our own planes...; they used our own election system to plant a Trojan horse among us.) It’s difficult to come to any other conclusion given all he has managed to do thus far. Our system of governance remains at high risk; as does our economy. If any one of these should fall, we are cooked.

We already have so much on our table domestically, it’s difficult to focus on international affairs. Suffice it to say, it doesn’t look good for Israel, historically speaking, our most loyal and trusted ally.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Someone To Bury Us


There was a profound difference between Beck’s and Colbert’s/Stewart’s rally. (I haven’ heard the numbers comparison yet.) The networks steered clear of this one because they felt embarrassed. So did most Democrat politicians.

The difference between Beck’s and today’s rally is the difference between old and new. In the pre-Obama days, a large part of the American Dream was perceived as our children doing better than ourselves. That’s why many of us risked everything to get here. Today, it can be summed up by the adage: We bear our children as to have someone to bury us.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Rumors


Any truth to the rumor that all that was found in the packages were photographs of something that was labeled: ‘BOMB‘? (Said photographs were then published on the front pages of newspapers around the Western world.) Probably not.

But, it would quite suffice to scare the b’Jesus out of everyone and send us scrambling into the relative safety of POTUS’ embrace. Timing remains suspect. So close to elections. October surprise? POTUS looking manly behind his teleprompters. Rally in support of POTUS on the National Mall. POTUS traveling around the world right after. Dollar down.

U.S. midterm elections: hardly a speed bump; POTUS unfazed - continues to bow and scrape for the sins of the nation he has been elected to lead.

AQ has succeeded in reducing jihad down to the level where everyone can participate. Everyone is capable of mailing a postcard. Now, let’s kick it up a notch: Israel, Pakistan, North Korea (and soon Iran) are all said to have nukes. Do they also have Photoshop?

Watch the speech Obama will be giving in Indonesia. I wonder if he’ll be using PowerPoint.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Friday, October 29, 2010

Elsewhere


I’m wondering what John means by ‘over the top’ regarding the above video clip from "The Final Act". Does he mean it overstates the point? Or, is he referring strictly to ‘over the top’ cinematic production methods? I suspect the latter.

This brings up the question: Is it possible to overstate anything? There would need to be a top after which ‘overstate’ becomes ‘understate‘. In this particular case, the difference might be put down to fluff, hype, uncertainty or self-indulgence.

More to the point: Have we overstated the (widely expected) ‘wave’ for dramatic effect? Maybe; maybe not. Have we overstated Obama’s immediate menace to our nation, whether due to incompetence or deliberate intent? No.

The curatorial observer will note that it comes out to the same. He will speculate that the results of the November midterms will likely cause the president to take stock and recalibrate. Yet, from what we know of the current administration, it will not. In fact, it will likely double down on forcing its agenda through, in which case the difference between incompetence and deliberate intent becomes crucial.

The former can accommodate a realignment (of policy) while the latter cannot. If the latter is true, we can expect further deterioration in every sector across the board. There will emerge a need to obfuscate, obscure and shut down debate. This would translate into censorship and something akin to psychiatric re-education camps where language is redefined to suit. It would have to be done at the point of a gun.

Don’t laugh. It’s happened before - elsewhere. Is America still immune to ‘elsewhere‘?

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Waves


As elections approach, one hears it more and more: election fraud. When Bush was elected they said, he was selected, not elected. What will they say after this one? I never heard anything of the kind after Obama became our president; yet, this time, even before all the ballots are cast and counted, I’m hearing rumors.

Not sure when the system changed. Absentee ballots, yes. Early voting, no. Military ballots, maybe. There was a brief flare-up when Democrats accused Diebold of manipulating results. Not much came of it.

This time, there’s noise all around. They say it’s a wave; that Democrats will be swept from office. I’m not so sure. Already there have been too many reported irregularities. It’s generally acknowledged that nobody is looking into it. Just noise.

Wave, yes! But some say, it’s a wave of fraud. Who is in charge of maintaining the voting machines? SEIU. Could that really be true? Who’s in charge of prosecuting election fraud? Eric Holder? Could that be true? Anyway, that’s what I hear. I also hear nobody is much concerned - even among Republicans. They say the wave is big enough. Which wave?

Have we reached the point where a relatively simple system has been overwhelmed? Where the simple task of casting and counting ballots no longer works? Have we lost faith in the system all together? Will the losers be satisfied? Will the winners be satisfied? And what about that election recently in Afghanistan that, by all accounts, was so riddled with fraud - which we all signed off on?

I hate to say it folks; but it doesn’t look good. I guess it’ll depend on which wave is bigger.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Batchelor @ the Hard Rock


I cannot believe that Californians are still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. If true, it’s the only way to explain it - putting Democrats back in office. Carly Fioria is a survivor. That in itself should say it all. Boxer is a clinger. Whitman is a message. Brown is an antique.

This brings to mind something I had forgotten: Remember back when Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing? Can you imagine anything worse than for a radio host to lose hearing? Yet, he never missed a beat. True, those initial broadcasts right after his hearing loss were painful to listen to. (Someone had to transcribe what was said by his callers for him to read.) Still, it amounted to a magnificent display of pure will.

Last night at the Hard Rock was equally inspiring. Surely John’s job is a lot more difficult than how he made it seem. I was especially pleased to find myself in the same room as Malcolm Hoenlein. Larry Kudlow was better than he is on his own show, and Monica and Margaret graced the stage with their beauty and intellect.

I had expected something far more informal. McCotter doing a guitar solo, perhaps; or Sapientia taking a bow. None of that. It was professional all the way. BRAVO, John!

We’ll have to do it again!

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

A Little Left; A Little Right


Every human heart has within it a little left and a little right. Cutting out either one will kill the heart. Where we have gone wrong is by cutting off debate between the two. It has literally ignited a war.

There are those who benefit from conflict. These are the people who will tell you not to talk to this one or that. They will tell you never to mention certain subjects. They will redefine language to be confrontational.

We see it in our colleges and universities; we see it in our media; now we are seeing it in our politics. Never forget that Republicans were not allowed access to the decision-making concerning any bill that was passed during the past two years. Never forget that the NYT does not allow for opposing views to appear on its pages; ditto: CBS; PBS; NBC, and ABC. Never forget that Islam does not allow intellectual commerce with the outside world.

Within our own nation, Left and Right have retreated into armed camps.

I remember reading a story of an Israeli boy and a Palestinian boy clandestinely meeting in some no-man’s land abutting their properties. They were friends; they played as friends do. They knew each other on a human level. The story did not end well.

The evil resides within those who forcibly block people from basic human interaction. They do so with malice. They intend to gain by it. All their words are calculated to fuel discontent and erect barriers. They invariably threaten consequences.

Words like “Barack will never allow…” and “(Republicans) gotta sit in the back.” and, “…we’re gonna punish our enemies and…reward our friends…” should never be uttered by Americans who happen to hold positions of leadership. This kind of talk should throw up warning signals to indicate that we have already gone too far. For America to save itself, Americans must unite under the nation’s banner and keep all the lines of communications open. The threat comes from those who would happily shut it down.

In India, there actually is a communist party. It interacts freely with all other parties. Often, it aligns itself with others. It does not seek to destroy them.

I just read a novel by Khushwant Singh entitled “Train to Pakistan”. The time is just after partition. It details the bloodletting between Hindus and Muslims precisely. And it tells how it started. It’s not the Hindus and Muslims who were at fault. It was the badmashes on both sides who took advantage of a chaotic situation to sate their own appetites.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Monday, October 25, 2010

Why Bother?


It’s getting down to the wire. There are indications that nothing you hear from now on can be trusted; that things will be said solely for the purpose of manipulating the vote. It sometimes works. Exit results in the East have been known to suppress voter turnout in the West. Exit polls are not official. These can be, and often are, wrong.

Similarly, talk of a Republican landslide can work either way. It can keep both Republicans and Democrats from going to the polls. Talk of races tightening can have the opposite effect. Like it or not, turnout is key.

In short, do not believe anything you might hear. Go to the polls knowing nothing. Simply vote your conscience - but do vote.

There are some things we do know. We know that this is an important election for both parties. We know that our economy is not doing so well, no matter who may be at fault. We also do not see signs of things getting better. We’ve lost much of our 401 nest egg. Inflation is set to take the rest. And jobs are getting ever harder to find.

Internationally too - for those who follow world affairs - we’re in dismal straits. Our friends are distancing themselves and our enemies have taken to laughing out loud. We can accept Obama’s excuses and pretend he hasn’t been in office for two years, or we can make up our minds to do our share to change direction.

We also know that the media won’t tell us the truth. Make no mistake, the president is on the ballot. “D” = Obama; “R” = against. I myself have questioned just how much Republicans are willing or able to do after the election. None of that matters now. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, we must first get to the bridge.

One last point: Expect close results to be fought over. We don’t have a friend in the White House, nor at Justice. A close result means we lose.

It is my belief that there will be beaucoup surprises. When it’s over, the word ‘unexpected’ will likely be heard everywhere. The Tea Parties will know better. They know the 'force' is with them. The morning after, we’ll likely have the unmitigated pleasure of taking our foot off the gas, pulling into a 7/11 to purchase a NYT - just for a long and healing laugh.

On second thought - why bother? We already know what they're going to say.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Quotable, Quotable Quotes




People, especially pols, do so much talking, yet it’s so hard to remember what anybody might ever have said. We only remember a precious few quotes precisely; quotes, that have risen, or are in the process of rising, to achieve the status of bone (sic) fide ‘quotable, quotable quotes‘. Here are a few that come immediately to my mind:

Obama: “They talk about me like I’m a dog.” My comment: Not true, most Americans love dogs. It’s Muslims who don’t.

Bill Clinton: “I have never had sex with that woman...” My comment: It depends what the definition of ‘sex’ is.

Boxer: “I worked so hard to get that title.” My comment: You certainly did.

Bush: “Mission Accomplished”. My comment: He never said it.

Michelle Obama: “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual…” My comment: We’ll see about that.

Former Governor of NJ, Jim McGreevey: "My truth is that I am a gay American." My comment: So what?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg: …"[h]ome-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill." Notice mention of the term ‘mentally deranged’. We’ve heard some variation of it ever since. They mean to divide the nation into nuts and bolts. Government-run re-education facilities are on their way.

Soros: “Even I Can’t Stop a Republican ‘Avalanche‘…” My comment: Do you really want to?

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Friday, October 22, 2010

Newsreels


Pictorial essays of any possible consequences of hard-fought policy decisions are never hard to find. I’m thinking of the film, “The Death of Mr. Lazarescu“ to which we soon may be referring as Obamacare begins to kick in. Or, of concentration camp footage when we begin to really think about our latest (non)stance regarding Israel and Iran.

Been listening to Malcolm these past few nights. He’s right on target about a lot of things. If anything, he may be understating it. Israel has always counted on the support of the U.S. In fact, she has felt herself so sure of America’s continued support, she has hardly blinked an eye when most of the ‘Quartet’ decided to turn their backs. Even in America itself, she has felt herself so invincible as to think nothing of embracing her enemies and mocking her friends. It was all such great fun! Rahm Emanuel. What a wonderful Jewish boy! they said. He’s a little screwed up, but he’s bound to learn. After all, he was smart enough to teach that Bush dolt a lesson or two.

I don’t blame the Diaspora. We fell for it too. Obama was the clean, nice-looking black guy. We elected him to prove something to ourselves - something intangible, but nevertheless vexing. Our liberal bent demanded that we give him a shot. How could it hurt? America would always be America. If things go wrong, we can always turn it around. What we didn’t count on was his hatred for us - especially for our most annoying tendency of all: being so damn condescending.

We never really imagined that he was the messiah. We just wanted to throw him a bone, poor boy. We just wanted to see how the old squawk box would look with a different nameplate. We imagined we were in the Philippines at an electronics store; that we had just picked out our new flat screen TV; and when we were getting ready to pay, the clerk asked us - almost as an afterthought - which logo we wanted him to stick at the bottom. “What are the choices?” we asked. He showed us. “African-American,” we said. At least we got the first part right.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Left Hook (descent into madness) 1st Chapter: The Fake Divide

The concept of a “window” only makes sense if one accepts that there is in fact something out there. As such, a window presumes a distance between the seer and the observed. Mystics generally discount the existence of this or any distance. They are apt to argue that the seer and the seen are the same; that windows are merely devices that provide a means to highlight, classify, and manipulate variously selected aspects of ourselves within the illusion of a separate laboratory.
----------------------------------------
It is a politician’s job to divide us and to thus build a base for himself with the greater part of the shattered whole. He forges divisions between young and old; rich and poor; male and female; ethnic groups; etc. It may seem simplistic to say, but it is nonetheless what politicians do just as a scorpion stings and a fish swims. There are usually safeguards in place designed to check and expose politicians’ most extreme intent. Independent media and academic institutions come to mind as two such examples. When such mediating influences, however, become political themselves, the fabric of reasonable public debate begins to tear.

When a child is born, all it sees appears as a part of itself. Only by naming something does anything become separate. In this sense, everything named is thereby created and, since its separateness is essentially a product of mind, it may rightly be considered illusion (or Maya).

Man's penchant for naming (dividing) things - himself, even God - automatically puts all he names as objects on a game board, which must then compete amongst themselves according to the value (power) arbitrarily ascribed to each. It then becomes his life’s quest to establish connections between the objects he has thus created. The result is often chaotic because man, as self-designated (mere) game piece, is powerless to arbitrate absolute order. Sometimes the divine is called upon to intercede (as in prayer), often without practical result. The divine dimension recognizes that any given process does not necessarily proceed to ever higher consciousness or efficiency - that there is a discernable life cycle inherent in any functioning system: creation, deliverance, demise (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva).

Those who may find themselves caught up in a waning phase, helplessly witnessing the diminution of personal fortune, may well panic, seeking non-existent powers outside themselves to reverse that which is essentially irreversible. The misunderstanding often exhibits itself in misplaced faith, and especially in the notion that that which may not be fully understood (or not understood at all), somehow holds greater sway than the obvious, when exactly the opposite is true. Power is the only player. It, not fairness, is the elephant in the room during any negotiation. Besides, the divine has no stake in subverting its own goals as it recognizes the dissolution phase of any process as wholly legitimate and views this or any phase dispassionately.

Consider a flock of birds, not necessarily those that fly in V-formation; the smaller ones, rather, that bob and weave in dense clouds across fields and highways. Whenever I see this, I marvel at how each one of (maybe) 1000 birds knows exactly how the flock will loop and turn. Though the mass will variously separate and come back together, never once will two or more birds collide. How exactly the birds are able to do this, is for scientists to ponder. Relevant to our discussion here is that the flock maintains its basic shape like a single organism.

The question arises: Which indeed is the primary organism? Is it the flock? Is it a single bird within the flock, or is it a single living cell within its body? Where exactly does the organism begin or end? Must it not also include the air that lifts it? The fuel that powers it and the ground that provides that fuel? Moreover, what about those, now dead, that came before; and those, yet unborn, that shall come after? Where do we draw the lines without revealing our prejudice?

One of the deepest rifts regularly exploited by politicians is the one that exists between people of different faiths. Religion essentially provides the blueprint for a group’s dealings with aspects of life (and death) that may not necessarily respond directly to human intent. As this generally involves ritual, in which every member of the group is encouraged to participate, it also confirms the group’s identity and assigns to it a fixed position within eternity.

Most Christians, for example, would consider themselves either as saved, or not saved, depending on how far they might see themselves as having fallen short of any given ideal. From a traditionally Judeo-Christian perspective, being saved is said to mean going to heaven - this, as opposed to going to hell, or not (being) saved. The imagery that has come to surround either option clearly makes one preferable to the other. Curiously, neither option is said to result in total annihilation. In heaven, we continue to live eternally in sensual bliss; in hell, we continue to live eternally in sensual pain.

Interestingly, Buddhists do not draw a distinction between the balm of heaven and the fires of hell. To them, it is all the same. The problem, they say, is man’s preference for one or the other, thereby triggering the countdown to ultimate disappointment. The Buddhist answer to everything is seek nothing. Only then can one expect to be blessed with a free pass to exit the wheel of birth and re-birth. The compassion of the Buddha comes into play in his stated intention to forgo his own release until everyone of God’s (suffering) creatures has escaped the wheel ahead of himself. The fallacy of this view, as I read it, is that the Buddha would literally take us back to (a time) before creation. Existence, fortunately or unfortunately, is fact. The genie can never again be put back in the bottle. Given a choice between the Buddhists and the Islamists, I would have to choose the Islamists. They would only have us go back as far as the 7th Century.

As such, religion is (and has always been) a most sensitive subject, encompassing mankind’s most troubling doubts. Anything that may be construed as posing a threat towards any part of it, is often taken as a personal affront (like untoward comments about one’s mother or sister) and can easily elicit a defensive or, in some cases, aggressive stance. Examples are, the strong reactions to the Dutch cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and the release of “The DaVinci Code” in American theaters.

When a religious group also declares itself a political entity, seeking power and/or land with the full force of (their) God driving its political ambitions, the conflict that ensues is likely to be especially bloody. With the entirety of a comprehensive worldview supporting the drive (whether defensive or offensive), survival becomes key. A cornered animal is not about to take halfway measures. A wolf will think nothing of gnawing off its own limb that may have gotten caught in a steel trap. In war as well, all or nothing is the only path forward. From this then derives, all is fair… (I find our insistence on trying warriors for war crimes laughable. It is like accusing a baker of baking bread.) I have no doubt that the nuclear option will be used should it ever come to that.

Though often intimated, differences in religious beliefs can never be the primary cause of human conflict. Indeed, all religions at their core aspire towards unity born of an enlightened state. Divergent rituals and practices, however, remain rife for politicians to exploit as these are largely cosmetic, maintained primarily to fortify the group’s political stance. As such, these represent the most tangible targets to aggravate for the purpose of fomenting passions. The exercise becomes dangerous when, by cleverly manipulating holy scripture, the divine is recruited in support of inflaming existing grievances, often involving non-spiritual matters such as disputes over resources, (real or perceived) oppression, exploitation, etc.

It is in such instances that the third Judeo-Christian commandment, Thou shalt not use the name of thy God in vain, habitually suffers its most flagrant abuse. Popular belief interprets this commandment to mean that one should not dignify wayward emotions like anger with phrases invoking God’s name. The original text, however, appears to point to a much more serious matter. A more accurate translation of the word “use” is interpreted by some to mean “carry”, suggesting that evil of any kind is never condoned by God’s blessing. When one then reads about terrorists deliberately crashing airplanes, with hundreds of innocents aboard, while shouting repeatedly “God is great!” it would seem that radical Islamists, for example, are not encumbered by that particular religious sanction.

During any conflagration that may arise, all rules and definitions cease to exist; similarly, perhaps, to how it must have been before creation, when even the most basic laws of physics were entirely absent. Now, all that matters is winning. Moreover, in victory’s absence, utter humiliation, even death must be humbly accepted. Once the conflict has been resolved, rules governing normal life begin once again, now also involving the vanquished. Factions will again emerge to vie for dominance, their issues becoming increasingly contentious until war (or civil war) once again levels the playing field, and so on and on… So swings the pendulum of history from war to war, the strong winning repeatedly until weakened; then losing, giving rise to a new set of masters.

In this fashion, civilizations rise and fall like clockwork, providing fodder for historians to ponder and write about in the hope that the world will eventually learn to avoid the utter waste of repeated carnage. But, learning from the past has never been a particularly notable human trait and the wisest political scholars among us – those whose minds might have remained unclouded by utopian fantasies - have had to come to terms with the cadence of history, accepting this as a fact to be respected as much as any mountain range, ocean, or river.

Conflict arises when we stand divided; when we look out of our windows and see the world as being different from ourselves; when we perceive the gods of others as posing a threat to our own; when we forge tortured distinctions between young and old, rich and poor, male and female, black and white, etc. without realizing that in the deliberately manufactured tension between imagined opposites, there can be no winners - no saints to worship, no demons to slay - only the self-serving perception of same that justifies our own unjustifiable prejudice.

The impulse to divide and conquer is entirely political. We are political animals, no doubt; and we must accept ourselves as such for, without it, the pages of our history books would remain blank. The trick is to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” while maintaining some sense of the divine to temper some of politics’ worst excesses. No one can be expected to conduct their lives on a purely spiritual plane. The human corporal entity alone demands a certain amount of space within which to function. Insofar as any space must be considered political by virtue of accompanying issues involving property rights, it is nevertheless important to keep any battles that may ensue in perspective. The divine dimension not only includes the vast scope of human history, but also the oceans, the sky and beyond. With such awesome responsibility, it is absurd to think that it cares one whit whether or not some individual’s taxes will be raised (or lowered) after the next election has been decided.

Who Will Be Left Standing?


We tend to be arbitrarily selective in weighting individual events as to their relative importance. Almost every pundit concerns him or herself with simply categorizing the flotsam to satisfy some curatorial interest or bias. Officially, our country has already become a museum - desultory displays in every room - static, enforced silence; no running; no cameras allowed. No hint of the wave that continues to build.

During Clinton’s term in office, some tried to make hay of his brother’s cocaine use. It fell flat and was quickly dismissed as irrelevant - yet, it most likely occurred. Then, Republicans made a lot of Bill’s peccadilloes outside the sacred vows of marriage. That too fell flat, though it did ended in impeachment; in this case, merely a technical term - an asterisk - that essentially meant nothing.

Then there was Gore’s stolen election, which, as far as it went, only proved that a “bird in the hand…”

Then, it all started with 9/11.

In my view, Bush was an adequate caretaker, but the wave was already building: a hardening of positions, a disrespect of government in general. A whole line of American presidents had already been discredited, reaching back all the way to our founding.

The Left was the first to take advantage of our political chaos. Republicans had to be defeated at any price, even at the expense of the country - and things went from bad to worse. Obama was elected in ’08. He was supposed to be the messiah who was sent to bring us together and heal us. The country had been proclaimed a basket case - but, at least, we still had a country.

Obama changed things alright. He cut us loose from our moorings. It’s become clear to many of us that the Left has managed to hoist its red sail even without openly stating our destination. Meanwhile, the Right has dropped anchor. Horse latitudes. We’re not going anywhere.

Meanwhile, the wave is building. It is expected to crash on shore in early November, scattering flotsam all across our beaches. The clean-up may cost us more than we can afford.

Already the tourists are leaving the continent. The tsunami flags are flying. Both Democrats and Republicans are running for the hills. Losing has become as risky as winning. Who will be left standing? Who will right the ship? Who will clean up the beaches?

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

LEFT HOOK - Introduction: Milestones

A child with a pink ball is running and laughing aloud. A few steps behind, her parents are locked in a muted but bitter dispute. All three are heading down the steep, narrow path leading to the Japanese stone garden. Upon reaching it, the child bounces her ball across the meticulously raked sand.
Her father shouts and runs to catch up with her. He grabs her roughly and spins her around to face him. He slaps her hard with his open hand. The child staggers and falls.
She is stunned and silent now, whimpering softly to herself at the edge of the garden; while her mother retrieves the ball, leaving the imprint of her footsteps in the sand.

-------------------------------------------------
My work required me to spend a lot of time in the car (listening to the radio). As such, I have been able to follow the various permutations of U.S. political debate as it has progressed through both Democrat and Republican administrations. Whereas it is entirely acceptable for the party out of power to paint the nation’s current policies in a critical light, I find that the discourse between the parties in general has coarsened and become increasingly vicious. Though I do make an effort to keep an open mind and listen to all sides of any given argument, I too have felt compelled (at long last) to choose up sides. This, not so much based on formal political affiliation but, rather, due to an appreciation for rational argument fueled by some measure of optimism and anchored in an awareness of history. I understand that “choosing sides” equates with a blessing, involving a considerable (grateful) investment of emotion and (sometimes) blood. It is not a commitment one takes on lightly; neither is it something that can ultimately be avoided. It’s been a long time since I’ve taken up pen and paper in an effort to sort through some chaos, attempting to come up with a template – short of outright nihilism - that would point the way in some (or any) direction. The eternal principle that guides this venture is my belief that nothing is random; that everything is in one way or another connected.

I have always wanted to know how things work. I am not so much interested in knowing how cars work, for example – or blenders. These are things I can always go and ask someone about should it ever become an issue. Rather, I have wanted to know about politics, God, life – my life, specifically. Who am I? What will happen after I die? What kind of world can my children expect to inherit? Are they really doomed to endure the immanent death of the planet as so many now (almost gleefully) predict?

I am a child of the 60’s. I watched things going on around me and felt myself to be so utterly outside the loop. Perhaps, having been rejected by my father at an early age had sealed my fate in this regard.

I was raised Roman Catholic and thus had been introduced to the concept of divinity and (primarily of) sin, but felt no obvious connection to God. Yet, at the same time, I saw people around me who had suffered far worse (in the wars) and drawn great strength from their religion. Not one of them, however, could tell me convincingly how and why it all worked. I continued to feel as if I had somehow fallen through the cracks and landed on fallow ground. Still, I kept getting up in the morning; eating my corn flakes; going to school and learning my lessons. At some point, the winds blew me over to America (from Europe) where I continued my seemingly empty routines. I could not imagine being alive much past 30.

In college, I majored in comparative religions, hoping to discover some secret that would make my life meaningful. I learned names and dates; snippets of scripture: Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. I even took a math course entitled “Proving the Existence of God”, but that too would turn out to be a bust. I remember nothing save the course title as it appeared on the printed syllabus. I concluded that all religions offer a blueprint for attaining enlightenment. I simply lacked the energy to adhere to the disciplines required to proceed.

Then, while still in college, I came tantalizingly close to that which I was seeking. It involved experimentation with LSD. This drug has the effect of bringing one into a state in which one feels that one is all-knowing; that each and every detail of what is and happens is connected and perfectly balanced; and also wholly appropriate to the continuance of everything. Perhaps most intriguing was the realization that nothing one could even conceive of doing (or not doing) could possibly unhinge any part of it. It is the memory of having experienced this uniquely perfect moment that gave me my first indication that the answers to the questions I had been agonizing over were indeed within my reach.

It is, of course, impractical to sustain such a state. Anyone attempting to do so (especially by chemical means) would likely be heard barking or making guttural sounds; or uttering platitudinous drivel such as, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

It is perhaps unfortunate that so many 60’s re-treads, who now count chemically induced nirvana as the defining influence of their lives, have since gravitated to positions of influence within key sectors such as education, media, the arts and politics. The missing element in many of their considerations appears to be that of time. It has made them vulnerable to outside influences with much more energetic intent, much of it hostile to long-standing Western traditions. Whereas it takes but a moment to declare one’s utopian intentions by wordage limited to the space on a bumper sticker (as in PEACE NOW), the hard work required to achieve any (political) goal may well take the span of several lifetimes. This is a principle of which any determined enemy is always extremely mindful.

There is yet a whole other story in how I came to spend an entire semester in India; in how (we were told) famine closed the University (of Mysore) shortly after we arrived. Not wishing to cut our opportunity short, we ventured out on our own to travel the length and breadth of the sub-continent for the balance of our stay. Suffice it to say, India was pure eye-candy everywhere we looked. One of my professors confided years later that he himself has never experienced anything like it since visiting there on his own dime as a young student of the visual arts.

In those days, many young people from disparate parts of the world – particularly from the developed nations - traveled to India in the hope of finding themselves. It had been well promoted by popular culture as being the place where spirituality reigns supreme. I remained suspicious of ashrams and retreats that promised everything. Yet, I too found myself engaged, if only peripherally. Thus, distracted from my usual dark concerns, I actually did end up having a good time.

There was no electricity at the Manasagangotri dorms for men. We were furnished with oil lamps for night reading. There was no television or radio. Mail to and from home still took a month and more. Those were the days before computers, iPods and Game Boy. Therefore, you might say, we were not really missing all that much. In fact, I came to appreciate India just for what it was. There was a partially clad man in the basement who would pour buckets of hot water over our naked bodies before breakfast. If we needed a shave, he would shave us with a straight razor and give us a head massage to boot.

I did manage to get hold of an English language newspaper most mornings. At the time, the big story was the run-up to the resignation of President Nixon. We all were of one mind regarding this. The world press dutifully wrote our script. We all hated Nixon. He was Republican, after all. (Our parents were Republicans too.) We knew this to be the party that was locked in some kind of incestuous embrace with U.S.-based multinational corporations (the same our parents worked for) who were systematically stripping the earth of its resources, decimating its remaining pristine acreage, even attempting to foul space with their pernicious designs.

I must admit that our initial contact with the sub-continent hit us hard. The heat, the dust, the incessant honking of cars, the ever-fluctuating smells, all combined to short-circuit any innate responses that might have mitigated our agony. Our normal bodily functions rebelled when confronted with food that scorched our palates. It took time for us to recalibrate. I have since heard stories of western tourists arriving in India and leaving again on the very next flight out. I too wonder what might have been, had I felt healthy enough to devise an escape that first fortnight when everything felt like it was coming apart.

Of all the obstacles that confronted us those first days as students of Indian culture, the most difficult had been coming to grips with gut-wrenching poverty of which begging was the most intrusive part. We understood, of course, that the American multinationals were in large part responsible for this. Theory was one thing, but now, having come face to face with so many sick and so many lame; so many so obviously malnourished, opened our blue suburban eyes to the results of decades of exploitation and neglect. It put an edge to the hatred we felt towards our own white skins; and especially towards the Republicans back home who now, finally, were finding themselves trapped in a prosecutable offence. We rooted for their downfall with all the enthusiasm we could muster. We watched with great glee the duly elected face (of what we perceived to be a distillate of pure evil) twist grotesquely on yesterday’s pages of 'THE INDIAN EXPRESS' (newspaper) as they crawled, now discarded, along the gutters of our relatively quiet Indian town. Karma was properly engaged. Justice was at hand. We believed it with all our hearts! Beyond that, we knew very little about the case and the elements of the actual crimes alleged. Nixon never got the chance to explain; and, even if he had, it would likely have been reported out of context or not reported at all. In any case, we would likely have dismissed it out of hand. By the time of Nixon’s death in ‘94, cooler heads would prevail and much more balanced histories of these very same events entered into the mainstream.

We regained our legs, of course, and our Indian experience blossomed into something truly wonderful. When it came time to leave, we felt like old India hands. We patted ourselves on the back and vowed to return soon.

The world, by and large, could still have been considered a relatively peaceful place. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were perfectly balanced in terms of the military might each could project. All other countries had been bullied into choosing sides, one way or another - while China stood in the wings, biding its time. We never encountered overt hostility during any of our globetrotting marathons, even in places like Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. Only the Russian professor’s wives, with whom we shared our meals at the University Guest House, let us know in no uncertain terms how much they disapproved of us (snot-nosed American kids, as they put it) flying here and there. In truth, their quarrel was not with us. Clearly, they resented being stuck in one place, or doomed to travel third class by overcrowded bus or train. We conveniently failed to make the connection between what had the Russians so up in arms and the political reality that determined their situation.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, many prominent voices (even some originating from within our own borders), openly lamented America’s asymmetrical advantage on the world stage, fearing the potential misuse of unchecked American power (particularly in the hands of Republicans) much more than any other global threat. Whereas at one time such sentiments would have been considered seditious (or summarily dismissed as the ravings of lunatics), today they hold equal sway with the notion of (what has been termed) American exceptionalism.

I returned to India only two years later. This time, I resolved to approach her from the east (starting in Japan). It took me eight months to reach Calcutta. In the end, I concluded that India was essentially as far East as anyone can possibly go.

In Japan, however, I stumbled upon the second milestone in my quest to discover how things work. It came in the form of a visit to the Ryoanji Temple in Kyoto, which contains a stone garden that touched me deeply. The words I wrote in my diary after my first of two visits there come back to me:

“There is one garden in particular that struck my eye and imagination. It is the famous rock garden at the Ryoanji Temple. It was constructed by a landscape artist in accordance with the principles of Zen Buddhism. The scene, briefly, is this: a rectangular sea of raked sand in which 15 rocks of varying sizes are arranged in groups. One is encouraged to sit quietly and meditate. The mind struggles for comparisons. Depending on the vividness of one's imagination, anything is possible. Given that one sits there long enough, the mind will at some point cease its struggle and see the garden simply for what it is: a semi-random arrangement of stone. This final stage is difficult to achieve even under the best of circumstances and here, at Ryoanji, conditions are far from perfect. Loudspeakers drone on intermittently. Hordes of tourists are continually either arriving or leaving. Their faces are infinitely more arresting than this simple study in serenity. And the eye and heart are so easily nudged away from the disciplines required to...”
And a few paragraphs later:

“Finally, just two and a half minutes before closing, I do manage to attain some sense of clarity when a slight movement distracts me. The dead, static visuals of the garden become briefly unhinged and I recognize an opportunity. My senses respond to a single sound: a dry leaf is scratching across the white surface of raked sand, propelled by a hesitant breeze. Its brittle points leave no mark (the way the rake did). Soon it will have reached the wall where, in time, it will disintegrate to become the stuff from which new living shapes are spawned.”

The overriding lesson of the stone garden was (of course) it is what it is. This principle can presumably be applied to all things: rocks, the pendulum of history, politicians as well as regular folk: the rich, the poor, the pious, the profane, the corrupt, the innocent, the dead, and everything else we have named or described in some fashion. Somewhat disconcerting, however, was the nagging feeling that this revelation too was completely unexpected. I realized that if I were ever able to put it all together and determine answers to the questions I was asking, it would likely not be attributable to my own efforts alone. The best I could hope for was to continue on my journeys, staying sufficiently alert for signs that could conceivably hasten my enlightenment - all the while knowing that all things are signs for those who are lost.

After nearly a year on the hippy trail, I began receiving urgent pleas from my parents to return home. They were afraid that the Orient would swallow me up before I would ever have a chance to hold a job, a wife, a child. Similar thoughts had been crossing my own mind and I caught a flight back home.

The third indication of the possibility that I would yet be redeemed came with the birth of my first child. I remember standing in the delivery room, my palms sweating. We were expecting a boy and had already selected a name. At some point, the nurse gave me my daughter to hold and something quite unexpected came over me. I felt as if a light were shining on us from above. I experienced a peace - a connectedness - I had never before known. It was doubly surprising as I had never been particularly fond of children. I had not wanted this one. She was an accident. I had only grudgingly agreed to do the right thing.

It turned out ever so right - a joy that grew from day to day, year to year. There came another - a son. I felt satisfied and complete, watching them grow - all this, despite still not knowing how things work. I was living as I swore I would never do - on faith.

My work at the time was somewhat less than all-consuming, leaving me plenty of time to think. Suddenly, I felt compelled to take up pen and paper. My notebooks came to resemble Einstein’s blackboards with thought equations all over the map. It soon became clear what I was driving at - I needed to complete that class assignment from back in my (Gettysburg) college days. I wanted to prove the existence of God.

I approached the project with no preconceived opinions regarding this (or any) matter. I simply let my own words lead me – and lead me they did. The initial breakthrough came when I remembered that “Proving the Existence of God” was the brainchild of the mathematics department.

Consider the one thing we do know about God: His ability to create something from nothing. When man creates something, he does so - working from the outside with previously existing materials - leaving the seams to show. When God creates, He creates from the inside and leaves no seams.

‘Nothing’ is the raw material with which God begins. Natural law dictates that in order for any two things to interact in some way, a common element must be present in both. Therefore, ‘nothing’ must be one of the properties of God.

‘Nothing’ is not the opposite of ‘something’. It is a reality with properties unique to itself. In the universal language of mathematics, its symbol is 0. Zero is not the opposite of any number (just as ‘nothing’ is not the opposite of ‘something’), making it unique among numbers with properties unique to itself.

As we strive to understand everything, we remain largely ignorant of ‘nothing’ which cannot be measured or quantified by our senses or by the extensions thereof. The scope and significance of ‘nothing’, some say, can only be grasped by what Zen refers to as ‘no mind’ (or ‘no thought’).

It is ‘nothing’ within which what some call "God" resides. So, even if we - who look to rulers and scales as the ultimate test of reality - should ever succeed in figuring out everything there is to know about all there is, we would still fall infinitely short of figuring out what is not.

I include the latter insight simply to illustrate the relative enormity of the unknown (God) as compared to the finite number of word combinations that may exist today and can never be expected to increase to anywhere near approaching infinity. It takes a leap of faith, as Kierkegaard suggests, to even have a prayer of embracing the entirety of one’s human (or any) experience. Yet, it is a fact that those most highly educated are least likely to profess faith of any kind. Once again, based on relative potential alone, it would seem utter lunacy to dismiss the vastness of the unspoken - and, hence, the uncreated - from the catalogue of verbal and non-verbal consideration. Taking water as a metaphor, who would dispute that the entire scope of man’s knowledge would barely fill a thimble?

Who would be arrogant enough to propose that the contents of this thimble be used to turn back the tides or to lower the oceans or some such improbable scheme? Should it not be a clue to those who would seek to strike any reference to God from public discourse, that no human has yet been able to construct a single blade of grass? No one has yet been able to tame hurricanes. No one has yet been able to alter the course of the sun. Yet, some are so egotistical as to assign blame (even) for bad weather, not to God (who, they claim, does not exist), but to other men with whom they might have political differences. Bottom line: To deny the hand of God in every one of our perceptions is as farcical as a midget strapping on stilts and claiming to be Mt. Everest.

My wife, Parvathi, volunteers at a school for what are euphemistically referred to as “special children". Many of these are so profoundly disabled; they are unable to communicate, certainly verbally, but also via commonly accepted facial expressions or gestures. Yet, at the same time, many of these kids are highly intelligent, capable of working through complex mathematical problems and understanding film and literature. Moreover, they know exactly what is going on. They know what someone’s disposition towards them might be. It is just that they are unable to respond in kind. They are young people, not unlike others of similar age, with hopes and dreams and feelings, except they are trapped inside inappropriately configured neural pathways. As such, their intended caresses could translate into blows; hugs can result in hair pulling; and heartfelt verbal declarations, intended to convey tender sentiments, could find expression in unearthly howls.

Anyone unused to dealing with such children is likely to remain disengaged at best, or recoil in horror at worst. In any case, these kids’ hearts must be breaking every time their best effort to connect either emotionally or intellectually with another person goes awry. It occurs to me that God has a similar problem. Lacking a fully functional human face or even a (happily) wagging tail, He can make the birds sing and the flowers bloom all He wants and, still, a sizable percentage of us will deny Him His due.

Thomas Merton was once to have said that "looking for God is like seeking a path in a field of snow; if there is no path, and you are looking for one, walk across it and there is your path." Given that each one of us is defined by a process involving God (non-being) on one hand, and the human corporal and psychological entity (being) on the other, the central paradox underlying the human condition seems to be one of God wanting desperately to die, and man wanting desperately to live. Neither God, nor man, can ever realistically expect to realize his ambition. Even as man continues to die and God continues to live, man can only approximate the illusion of the eternal by attempting to identify some part of himself with God. Nor does God appear to be able to advance his own agenda beyond continuing to create dying men.

I realize that I may just have committed a gaffe in some minds. Already you are thinking of loggig off and heading for the kitchen. I have used the word “God”, which to some connotes a lack of sophistication, education, or eloquence. You picture nihilists blowing themselves up in His name. You picture zealots protesting in front of abortion clinics. You picture a bumbling President carrying a Bible under his arm on his way to or from Sunday services.

I would respectfully ask you to hang on just long enough to consider how all I have said here thus far might actually apply to you personally: If you do exist, you are either (+1) or (-1), depending on whether you are living or not. In any case, you can never be zero, a realm that is solely reserved for the creative impulse that produced you and all you have named, and purport to know… from nothing. Metaphysically speaking, therein may well lie the only legitimate divide within what we loosely refer to as existence.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Left Hook

Foreword:

I cannot claim an elaborate academic pedigree. For this reason alone, this writing will likely be dismissed by the academic elite, who tend to see themselves as the repository of all human knowledge. Much as the Brahmins of India once did, it is they who now determine the correctness of said knowledge and then disseminate it in measured doses for the benefit of those who can afford it. But unlike the Brahmins, who based the root of what they purported to know on what springs from the well of divine inspiration, its western counterpart has in recent times sought to sever any spiritual ties to the human condition, including to all that pertains to thought. This, in my view, is a dangerous and shortsighted approach in that it leaves what today passes for correct knowledge to stand precariously alone and unsupported, openly inviting the temptation to mold and shape it by political concerns with nothing but self-serving interests at heart.

No doubt, much has been written to augment our innate understanding of the physical world as well as emotional states, economic and social theory, mathematics, etc., much of it clearly at odds with itself. Debates ensue in hidden places, often concluding without clear resolution. Academe has set itself up as the final arbiter of any such dispute. Once a ruling has been rendered, all views not in strict compliance with the ideologies of the highest bidder, are labeled heretical and summarily condemned. A current obvious example is the issue of Global Warming (which also intimates huge policy implications). Opponents of the theory are routinely given short shrift in any public forum even though enough evidence now exists that would point to it as being a hoax. This nevertheless illustrates the unequivocal power modern academe exhibits in determining the templates favored by the moneyed classes.

Any (scientific, social, economic, etc.) theory must by convention rest on specific assumptions. Academe has happily adopted the role of certifying the set of assumptions on which its house of playing cards has come to rest. When Galileo posited that the world is round, he shattered a significant assumption that had been previously certified by the elites of that time. He was roundly condemned for his scholarship. History would then go on to prove him right. Einstein too managed to shatter long-standing assumptions about our world by clever wordage, as did Freud, Marx among any number of men and women whom we currently regard as visionaries. Who is to say that today’s assumptions can not be challenged at some point in the future? It is interesting to note that nothing that is said about anything essentially changes it. Therefore, all our blather is just a way of talking – window dressing, if you wish. We can cheerfully engage in it without risk of substantial consequence to anything not strictly pertaining to the human pecking order.

(It must be remembered that political expediency always trumps performance. If someone were to set out to make a name for himself - as in some area of academic scholarship, for example - it must be done to show some benefit to those currently in power. Independent efforts that stray from this principle are invariably destined to fall by the wayside.)

Anything that we may define - even allocating considerable effort to the production of meaty academic tomes - can hardly be regarded as being more than mere shorthand for what we may choose to be our focus. It can, however, never encompass the entirety of any given subject as this would require an infinite number of printed volumes to accomplish. We do what is reasonable in this regard simply to create an event to act as a bridge between two separate and conscious minds with the hope of striking a sympathetic chord.

My own brush with academe was thankfully brief, consisting of public high school and four years of private college. It began with the notion that I would become a medical doctor, like my grandfather on my mother’s side had been. He survived two world wars (in Europe, that was no easy feat) and in the process also had the opportunity to save many lives. I loved my grandfather and the stories he told and, lacking any greater burning ambition, decided I would follow in his footsteps. Unfortunately, failing to summon sufficient self-discipline, I flunked my first test: Biology 101. My academic advisor told me that I would either have to repeat the course or leave the department. One of my grandfather’s cousins was a bishop of considerable renown. Rationalizing, that saving souls was roughly equivalent to saving lives, I switched over to the Religion Department where I would end up earning my undergraduate degree.

There was never a chance of pursuing higher academic goals. Life would intrude to block any such aspirations I might have had. The demands of raising a family required me to go out and work. Still, I must say, it turned out for the best. It brought me into close contact with what poets and writers refer to as the salt of the earth. These are the people who day after day get up and do an honest day’s work. Mindful of timetables, they keep our nation functioning, keeping us safe (at home and abroad), delivering and collecting our mail, stocking the shelves in our groceries, hauling the freight, guarding our prisons, cutting our hair, etc. At the same time, most are reasonably successful at raising their families and providing for their children better opportunities than they themselves might have had. I’ve had the privilege to work with people of many nations, opinions, religions and races. Some were brighter than others. Some were here legally; some not. The work itself put us all on an equal plane. It allowed me to approach my mates legitimately, not as one sent from on high to snoop into their business in order to justify some social theory or to satisfy some statistic. We were not out to save the world, after all; we simply focused on the work at hand. We improvised; learned new, more efficient ways to get the job done. Most took pride in what they did. Few viewed themselves as victims of the maze of regulations imposed by governmental and corporate bureaucracies – which were deemed appropriate because our business involved the distribution of large amounts of cash currency - not so much out of concern for their safety, but for the sake of (any) authority’s own incessant need to collect its pound of flesh to suit its own endless elitist fetishes. The experience left me largely optimistic about America as I recognized in my co-workers the strength and ingenuity that will ultimately save the country from the corrosive designs of its own ruling class.

Much is being said about ideology these days. It’s a term, largely empty of content, which is being used to separate people into competing political camps. It has had the effect of subjecting broad numbers of our own citizens to hatred and ridicule. Though, not an issue that particularly resonates with the working class, it has clearly produced gridlock in Washington. This, in my view, is an indication of an elite structure that is breaking apart under its own weight. My wife’s son recently brought home a whole stack of books of required reading. I looked through it and, sure enough, one of the volumes was titled, “Ideology”. I picked it up and started to read. In it, the author begins by recounting a story that unfolded in class during one of his lectures at some prestigious university; then, launching straightaway into Marx-Hegelian dialectic. I could not go on. Though I was mildly curious what this thing called “ideology” might actually mean, I knew I wouldn’t find the answer here.

As far as governance goes, there is in essence only left and right. The two will forever be at odds, one side claiming to draw its legitimacy from the State, the other claiming to draw its legitimacy from the people. The two poles are commonly defined as being ideological opposites. One views people as a resource to be managed; the other sees people as managing the government. All would agree that any resource is precious and must be thoughtfully tended. Who would dare claim the responsibility for safeguarding so precious a resource as people? Who would even be qualified to know what a people might require in order to prosper? Who would place him (or her)self in a position to allocate the tools any individual might need to build his or her dream? We haven’t even been able to claim consistent results with the crops we grow! It is no wonder that communism, on the far left of the spectrum, diffuses accountability within the ambiguous notion of party. Committees are always simplest to blame when something goes wrong. (And communism has exhibited so much more than its share of misery.) The extreme right too, courts disaster by openly subscribing to excess which invariably invites anarchy. Neither extreme were possible if people were just left alone to settle their differences in their own way - with only conscience as their guide - and then be allowed to go on to follow their bliss (as Joseph Campbell was fond of saying). The human form has never taken kindly to ideological straightjackets.

Ideology is like an airless tomb. It destroys nations by smothering thought. Discussing ideology is pointless, like discussing the making of roadside bombs with people who will never encounter them. Politics has become a poison. No doubt, it will develop into a full blown infection in due time. The only question to the dying is when.

A nation in which the people are hesitant or fearful is a nation that is gripped by ideology. And yet, any argument can be turned on its head. I have no doubt that I will be accused of being an ideologue by some. It is a predictable tactic (by people who judge their own position as weak) to accuse others of the very same sins of which they themselves are most guilty. Accusing others, itself, runs the risk of exposing one’s flanks. And that is how the tempest of intemperate rhetoric begins. Ignore their remarks. The purpose of this volume is not to accuse anyone of anything. By this exercise I am simply attempting to figure out how things work.

Clinton's Legacy (Redux)


It seems incredible to me that the Dems would stoop to bringing back a man who single-handedly destroyed their party. To be sure, back when he did it, the party was in much better shape than it is today. It must also be noted that Bill Clinton is not out there campaigning for Obama or any of his lackeys; he is campaigning for his wife who he hopes to take over party leadership after Obama has been disposed of.

To remind readers of just how it went; what ruptured the old-style Democrats and allowed the anti-American, hard Left to take sole possession, I reprint a post written back in January of this year:

“I am just now beginning to see how the Bush presidency was doomed from the start. My clue came from an off-hand remark made by my wife. 'Clinton was the one who damaged America’s standing in the world,' she said. This thought had never occurred to me, especially since he (Bill) is routinely held up as the gold standard of American politics by the mainstream media. Yet, what he did - what he will forever be known for - was so outrageous; it blindsided everyone. Any corporation executive, anywhere in the world, could not have survived a similar situation for ten minutes. Any self-respecting wife would have walked away. Any court would have been justified in sending Bubba to prison.

“None of this happened. Republicans were too cowardly to act. Those assigned to the matter were ceaselessly attacked. Meanwhile the Clinton spin machine went into overdrive, besmirching America’s founders one by one. 'See, what Bubba did wasn’t so bad' went the drumbeat day in and day out on the front pages of newspapers and on network TV. It went on for months; the public felt hurt and humiliated; ashamed that the man, in whom they had placed their trust, would act like a cad. They felt sorry for his wife and especially for his daughter. Eventually everyone would get tired of this sordid business and tried to pretend it never happened – just like they do now with respect to 9/11.

“The entire world watched in disbelief as Bill Clinton continued to be defended by his party. The effort continued throughout the Bush/Cheney years: In order to excuse the inexcusable, the man who would come after (Bush) had to be destroyed. It was the only chance the Clinton legacy (as well as the Democrat party) would ever have for redemption.”


http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Thinking Outside the Box


It has been noted that if the Chilean mine collapse had happened in the U. S., the trapped miners would have died. After a suitably scripted period of rhetoric and hand-wringing, Obama would have imposed an immediate moratorium on all mining operations, and appointed a committee to propose a series of new regulations; and another to determine ways of exacting damages (fees) for the government to exploit. Such assessment is an obvious slap at our current administration and can obviously never be substantiated . It nevertheless is based on what we have come to know about our leadership thus far - thinking strictly inside the (wrong) box.

It’s the same with our current fiscal problems. Our government’s only solution appears to be beggaring the dollar (as in printing more money). This policy is sure to cause dislocation worldwide. It is likely to hurt us even more than others by making things more expensive, killing jobs even further, and reducing our influence abroad.

Some say that this is actually what Obama wants to happen. If it is so, he’s on the right track. If not, he’s barking up the wrong tree. The only thing that can turn things around in the U. S. is not mere smoke and mirrors; but a single-minded emphasis on growth. Growth is the only sane way of absorbing our debt. Yet every policy proposed by this administration so far, without exception, has been is anti-growth. Go figure!

In order to stimulate our economy, we have to, first and foremost, bring back confidence. This would involve primarily an all-out political effort. We have to convince the business community that the government is not out to destroy it. We have to erase uncertainty by stating in plain English what government policy toward business across the board will be going forward. We have to make investment in American businesses attractive. We have to improve the business climate to attract the best minds along with capital from overseas. We have to quit punishing success. We have to reduce taxes. And we have to stop bad-mouthing capitalism.

To turn our economy around, it will require bold, decisive action. This is what Obama promised us during his campaign for the presidency. Thus far, we have seen only small thinking; tinkering on the margins and all of it wrong. Perhaps he’s aware of the Vedic parable which claims to show that ‘every act of ours reverses itself in its results‘. But I doubt it.

When Shankaracharya (Hindu theologian; 8th or 9th Century), was still young, he decided to renounce the world and become a wandering monk. Monks are never allowed to return home. When his mother died, none of her relatives came forward to cremate her body. Shankaracharya then decided to break his oath. As his mother’s body was too heavy for him alone to carry to the pyre by the river, he is said to have cut it up into portable pieces.

He was a man credited for his ability to think outside the box in search for solutions

He would later be credited with the revitalization of Hinduism which had become corrupt and ineffective and Buddhism was rapidly gaining ground. He established four mutts (monastic schools), one in the north, one in the south, east and west of the sub-continent. These still exist today.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Bob Dylan

Like A Rolling Stone (Album Version) by Bob Dylan

This is the first Dylan song that caught my ear. Not because of Dylan at first, but because of the Rolling Stones. I bought Dylan albums up to and including "Nashville Skyline".

Taxation Is Theft


Truth be told, nobody has any idea of what all lies buried in this toxic landfill we loosely refer to as our ‘economy‘. Even as far back as WWII there wasn’t enough honest money to fight the war. Every metric concerning our debt and spending is bogus. I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would still accept paper money for goods and services rendered. JB is generous when he says this might take years to unravel - try decades or never.

Every dollar in our wallets should have I. O. U. printed on it in large letters. We’ve been drifting, running on fumes for so long and nobody remembers anymore where the anchor is. And, honestly, Obama’s contribution to the whole mess has been minimal. His sole failing was the result of his political bent which caused masses of people to stop working, which then exposed the whole thing as a fraud.

Not capitalism, nor communism, no ism at all can take root on what we’ve managed to build here. It’s turnrd into pure, unadulterated quicksand, this pathetic ponzi scheme; this pitiful house of cards; this colossal failure that has yet to fully reveal itself. Banks are guilty only insofar as they’ve colluded with their political masters of both parties ever since Wilson.

It’s finally dawned on us that we’re dealing with outright theft. Taxation has become theft.

Even the most corrupt and heartless among us would hesitate to enslave certain demographic groups for a second time. And that is just how it’s worked out. To maintain the illusion of impartiality, the plan going forward is to beggar us all.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Friday, October 15, 2010

Bull


When you hit the ‘search’ button for ‘Obama’ on my blog, nearly everything I’ve ever written turns up. This got me to thinking how easy it is to demean anybody these days. I remember how easy it was turning Bush into a monster. Now, with Obama it’s the same. The public’s gotten immune to it. Hardly anybody pays attention anymore. It’s all method. I suspect even JB is quite skilled in it. He seldom uses those particular arrows, to be sure. …and that’s entirely to his credit.

It’s become sport. In literature there is Jerzy KosiÅ„ski‘s “Painted Bird”. A group of boys will catch a bird and paint it some garish color and send it aloft. It’s mates will find it and peck it to death.

‘President of the U. S.’ is one of those garish colors - perhaps the most garish of them all. We collectively paint these scarlet letters on his chest. Then, everyone happily participates in the spectacle of watching him plummet. We tear up our presidents as if they were toilet paper. We really do.

I really can’t think of anywhere on earth where it’s any different. At some point we must realize it boomerangs. And even if the president happens to be lacking in certain graces, we should really restrain ourselves.

Some of it is orchestrated, I know. Some of it is downright macabre. (Has anybody bothered to check if Lisa Murkowski’s ad was photo shopped?) Most of it is downright immature. But the fact is that most of us no longer know the difference between a serious grievance and piling on.

I too have been guilty of it, I know. Most of the time I’ve even thought I was right. Now I’m no longer so sure. There are people I respect who absolutely love this president. They have won the coin toss. Let them have it. Let them be the first ones to complain. If they were wrong, it is they who should be the ones to proclaim it.

What we’ve done instead is lock horns. We choose this man or that; and then we turn on him. He is suddenly no longer one of us. He becomes a laughing stock; or worse: the enemy. It’s kinda like bull fighting. Before we’ve even bought the tickets, we already know the bull is dead. We go home afterward, and eat and drink. If it should turn out the other way around, we are shocked. We don’t eat because we’ve lost our appetite.

Well, I can’t resist saying, there’s a bull in the WH china shop and it is winning. He’s happily knocking about, breaking all our precious stuff. Though most of it can be mended, some of it is irreplaceable - like our respect for the office.

I was watching the news out of France. Sarkozy is trying desperately to get his fiscal house in order. The changes he’s proposing aren’t huge if you compare it to what will happen if he can’t make it happen. Yet, the people won’t let him do what needs to be done.

If we continue to tear down Obama, it’ll make it that much harder for the next guy. Eventually, they’ll all be running for the hills. Only the fanatics will be left to dictate terms. …and they won’t take as kindly to our fun and games.

All I’m saying is that we’re in serious danger of losing it all - if we haven’t already.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Thursday, October 14, 2010

To my readers:


As you know, my posts are largely in response to John Batchelor's comments on his blog. These then appear here oftentimes in expanded and edited form. I have since branched out and posted opinion independent of John's blog. My latest, "Samskara", is an example. This is not to say that I won't use it later on the John Batchelor Show site. Nevertheless, it wouldn't hurt for John's readers to check this blog as well. You'll never know what you might find.

Samskara: A Rite for a Dead Man


The quote, “The more corrupt the State, the more numerous its laws,” is attributed to Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56 - 120 AD). From the sheer volume of legal documents, briefs and revisions that is being passed through the hands of Indian editors, it is apparent that we are moving in the wrong direction. Rather than streamlining our legal system, we are tying ourselves into knots.

I am currently reading “Samskara: A Rite for a Dead Man” by U. R. Anantha Murthy. The plot involves a Brahmin who dies under irregular circumstances. Since his station demands that his body be touched only by Brahmins, and the irregularity prohibits any Brahmin from performing the rites of cremation, the body is left to rot in the agarahara (Brahmin‘s quarters, district or village). The Vedic texts also prohibit Brahmins from eating until the body had been properly disposed of.

It is a quandary in which we now also find ourselves. Our nation is literally starving. Our economy is essentially dead. When Americans voted for Obama, they essentially voted for dictatorship. Dictatorship does not make the dictator infallible. Though the signs (even then) were obvious, Americans believed that there was something immutable that would mitigate any wayward impulse by a president: America. They did not foresee the possibility that America itself could actually be dismantled bit by bit.

America is the dead Brahmin in Murthy’s story. We are doomed to suffer its rotting corpse at least until our laws permit us to proceed with a proper burial. It is not until Obama is removed from office that we can move forward and re-make America into the entity we so desperately desire(d).

In Murthy’s story, the acharya (head of the Brahmin colony) consults the Vedic texts over and over again, yet he can find no solution. The strictures are difficult and numerous, but precise and unyielding. Expedience cannot be a factor - neither can common sense. Even when rats begin to overwhelm the agarahara, it is not enough to break the stalemate.

Our problem is simple to define. Obama is killing the country. Most people get it. Yet, our own laws - that we passed to serve us - proscribe his removal for at least two more years.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

We Will Succeed


In a normal political climate the polls would mean something. Americans’ dissatisfaction with government would cause the leadership to moderate and reassess its policies. But just the opposite is happening. Democrats are doubling down.

“Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction.” This is the third of Sir Issac Newton's laws of physics. Where’s the reaction in our political world? Only the Tea Parties at the moment. And we’re the ones that Bill Clinton calls insane, and Obamaites call racist. All these folks are going to needing our support if they want to continue in politics. Unless they know something we don’t. So, why do they talk that way?

Hillary is staying out of it. She may be the most dangerous of them all. She’s not talking because she’s stealth - like Obama was once upon a time. They all think they’ve got us by the short hairs; that we’ll heel - like obedient dogs. I don’t think so.

What makes them so arrogant? They don’t even try to hide their radicalism anymore. That’s because they think they’ve got the ‘Big Idea’; the momentum. Speed bumps no longer matter.

I think they’re wrong. I believe in Newton’s laws. I think there is a reaction that’s building - a wave. Our ‘Big Idea’ is AMERICA! There’s no bigger idea than that. I believe, the way they’re going, speed bumps are going top rip out the under carriage; their wheels will go flying.

I believe someone will step forward and focus our raw power against them. (I know some of you don’t like the idea of being led. That’s why I phrased it the way I did.) I’m really talking about leadership. Look at it in terms of liberation; rolling back all the myriad of oppressive laws, regs, and taxes; and getting our country to function again.

So far, all we’ve seen from our side is Lilliputians. This would include Palin among others. The person we’re looking for will be Gandhi-like, or Churchill. He hasn’t declared yet for strategic reasons. He’ll (and, yes, he’ll be a he) be the one who leads us out of this wilderness. Well all know it as soon as he declares. We’ll know it’s him by the deafening howls from the Left. They will know it too. They will know that they have lost.

I have my suspicions as to who he might be. I’ve alluded to it in previous posts. I won’t go any further at this time. He’ll choose his own moment.

All I can say is, we will defeat them - our Bolshevik tormentors. And we will restore our nation (and science) to it’s proper place. It’ll be a nail-biter, but we will succeed.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Joe Manchin Speaks Out: Cause for Celebration


JB makes no secret of the fact that he loves this ad. It takes on Obama and Democrats in two ways: (1) It rebels against a significant bellwether Democrat taking point, and (2) rubs sand in the eyes of those seeking to upturn the second amendment. Both issues taken together can be seen as a frontal attack on the party leadership by one of their own.

Joe Manchin’s effort should be celebrated and rewarded. It marks a break with Democrat orthodoxy. And, recognizing that what is facing this country cannot be solved by merely playing a numbers game - that change must come organically from within - it is important to note that Manchin is the first to speak out forcibly against the radical fringe that has co-opted his party for too long.

For nearly a decade, even while stipulating that the majority of Muslims means us no harm, we have been waiting for someone in the Muslim community to speak out against its radical fringe. While their reluctance to speak out can be understood, their silence nevertheless makes them accomplices.

Where Democrats are concerned, they now have the opportunity to rally around someone who has dared to speak out. I agree with John, it’s a watershed moment. Our fight is not with Democrats per se, most of whom love our nation as we do. It’s their silence that is vexing; their willingness to follow their leadership into the grave.

If we are to survive as a nation, we must root out the extremes and work together to solve our problems. We can no longer afford to depend on the woefully inadequate ‘R’ and ‘D’ shorthand to show us the way. (Note my use of the term ‘bellwether” in the first paragraph.)
--------------------------------------------------------
The Nobel Prize committee’s lurch to the Right re its awarding prizes to Llosa and Xiao-bo has veered Left again in announcing its economics prize. Peter Diamond, Dale Mortensen and Christopher Pissarides were rewarded for their “search theory” which seeks to couch the “new norm” of jobless recovery in new, more politically acceptable terms.

In doing so, they have provided cover for the misdeeds of the Obama administration. The new theory applies the meaningless, asexual term, ‘friction’ to the present economic crisis - such as to housing, trade (in general), and even to marriage - to spin and finesse what is already self-evident to most: that Keynesian economics does not work.

I might also note that Peter Diamond's nomination to a spot on the Federal Reserve Board has been held up by Republicans questioning his qualifications.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Monday, October 11, 2010

Gulliver's Travels


The Chinese, I'm sorry to say, are doing exactly what we should be doing. They’re doing it under their system in which everyone there is participating to the best of his or her ability. Grant it, it is not our system.

By the same token, I am loath to condemn the Iranians at this point. They too are doing what they think is right (under their system). It is not up to us to tell them anything. Both the Chinese and the Iranians are working hard to expand their spheres of influence. We, at present, have no alternative to offer them. We no longer project a credible example.

When they look at us they see a nation in decline. Our allies are running for the tall grass. We are no longer confident; optimism is draining daily. In fact, we seem to be actively fueling our own demise.

Both China and Iran are on the upswing. They are courting alliances on every continent; alliances from which we are excluded. They are building their military capabilities, with an eye to the future, to protect their strategic interests. We have abandoned strategy.

We no longer have anything to say to them. Our economy is running on fumes. Our educational system is beyond corrupt. Our media is blatantly rubberstamp. We are divided to the point of gridlock. Our best and brightest are hobbled by a mass of incomprehensible regulations - like Gulliver was by the Lilliputians.

We have voluntarily amputated our tongues. Even a whispered insult against us speaks louder than anything we might say in our own defense.

Our expectation that Republicans will restore us stems from the same root that elected Obama. We veer madly left, then right; and likely back again. Every day we hear the dollar’s death rattle. Our American tradition has been blighted by our political battles in which constructive compromise is routinely shunned. Yes, we need change alright, but it’s not left change, or right. We need to rediscover what it means to be American.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/