Posts Tagged ‘gaddafi’

A vengeful people: la venganza es mala, mata el alma y la envenena. El chapulin colorado, mexican heroe.

October 28, 2011

Vengeance, revenge, is violent business, and equalizes perpetrators and victims in the irreversible space of death. International revenge is tricky business, it involves: history-unknown for most- countries, philosophies and real people willing to exercise “revenge” by sanctioning the moral right to validate the killing of the perpetrator-now vicitm-; a deserving fate. American Indian women I have met told me: “dont get mad, get even”: perfect vengeance. Vengeance, it has been said it is best served cold and inflicted a posteriori. However, our addicition to morally sanction the world without us in the equation sends us in a slippery moral slope.  Should we be surprised by, say, Sebag Montefiores’ article in the NYT declaring that Gaddafi got what he deserved. That is, allegedly, being raped,  and nonallegedly shot? My answer is no. And being enough reasons to execute Gaddafi, according to many, is what makes Sebag’s position truculent and a cold calculation that emerges his conclusion. Although Sebag M is british, he represents a common stance of enlightened neocons arguing for a reason-based, cellular equivalent of morality, which of course is as of today, non existent. And this cellular morality enacts itself in the just killing-of Gaddafi-and the written vengeful opinion supporting it. (De Dora at RSpeking keeps pontificating about a morally based law (as if it had not been all along the purpose of the legislator)).

portmans beautiful face behind the mask

 Should we be surprised that Krauthammer at the WP says the same thing? And much worst: “So he was killed by his captors. Big deal. So was Mussolini. So were the Ceausescus. They deserved far worse. As did Gaddafi. In a world of perfect justice, this Caligula should have suffered far more, far longer. He inflicted unimaginable suffering upon thousands. What did he suffer? Perhaps an hour of torment and a shot through the head. By any standard of cosmic justice, that’s mercy. Moreover, Gaddafi’s sorry end has one major virtue: deterrence-On the contrary: there is good evidence that the effect may be the opposite-You are a murderous dictator with a rebellion on your hands. You have a choice. Relinquish power and spare your country further agony, and you can then live out your days like Amin — or like a more contemporary Saudi guest, Tunisia’s Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Otherwise, you die like Gaddafi, dragged from a stinking sewer pipe, abused, taunted and shot. It’s not pretty. But it’s a precedent. And a salutary one-rathammer, what are you on??? One that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for example, might contemplate. Continue to fight and kill, and expect thereafter no belated offers of asylum — not even the due process of a long, talky judicial proceeding in The Hague with a nice comfy cell, three meals a day and the consoling certainty that your captors practice none of your specialties: torture and summary execution. Call it the Gaddafi Rule: Give it up and go, or one day find death by “Libyan crossfire.” Followed by a Libyan state funeral. That’s when you lie on public view for four days, half-naked in a meat locker.” 

no contaban con mi astucia

Krauthammer is beyond bigotry; dont forget you are part of the establishment that allowed Gaddafi in the first place. And part of the politburo that advised on foreign policy for a long time. To advance an opinion like this, you must pass a consistency morality check. You cant possibly pass it, Kraut.

The same bigotry you inflict in the world you inflict upon your fellow citizens with your discourse of hate, privilege and revenge.


We are not getting smarter: ask the roasted camel.

October 27, 2011

Once again Dr Gutting, at the NYT gutts Pinkers’ book, the better angels. This is gutting ridiculous. Dr. Gutting assumes that the Pinkers’ proposal,  “we are getting smarter”  is true. But, we are not getting “smarter”: we may know more about the universe, but thats’ it. There is no data to assume our generations are getting smarter, if we could find a “resonable” definition of “intelligence” or “being smart” (to not screw up?). I find it amazing that Pinker and Gutting and all others promoting the success of neocapitalist science can get away with weak arguments, flawed logic and desperate data. I call it neocapitalist science because these guys endorse the capitalist race science based to heaven-but many are atheists-on earth.

 Goes Gutting : ”   The two key empirical claims that Pinker puts forward are suggested in the title:  that the level of human violence (war, murder, etc.) has been decreasing over the centuries and that the human ability to reason has been correspondingly increasing.   He goes on to explain the first claim by the second.  Our ability to reason causes us to be less violent: “A smarter [more rational] world,” he says, “is a less violent world.”

it is not the camels fault we are as dumb as ever

We know very well that Pinkers’ arguments in favour of decreasing world wide violence are thinly thin. The fact that even in the case if it was true, to attribute this to reason, is a bit logically and historically preposterous. Hence, the clincher: we are morally”better”-enlightened-because of reason-we are smarter-.

While at the grind, i read in the Sunday NYT Review an article by S Marche “Wouldnt it be cool if Shakespeare wasnt Shakespeare” taking on the conspiracy theories that other than the Bard himself wrote his work. He concludes:

“The problem is that not everybody does deserve a say-in anything-. Just because an opinion exists does not mean that the opinion is worthy of respect. Some people deserve to be marginalized and excluded. There are many questions in this world over which rational people can have sensible confrontations: whether lower taxes stimulate or stagnate growth; whether abortion is immoral; whether the ’60s were an achievement or a disaster; whether the universe is motivated by a force for benevolence; whether the Fonz jumping on water skis over a shark was cool or lame. Whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is not one of these questions. Unfortunately, the nonquestion of Shakespeare’s identity is now being asked on billboards all over the world. It will raise debate where none should be. It will sow confusion where there is none. Somebody here is a fraud, but it isn’t Shakespeare.”

I suggest this applies quite to the question of “ascending intelligence” and less violence today as developed by Pinker. Remarkable: somebody floats a “reasonable idea’ and lord and behold it takes a life of its own. Examples: we live in a “less’ violent world-ask the people of Sinaloa, Mx-selfish gene-which still waits for further explanation, meme, multiverse, the singularity, the megafauna extinction by humans, Jared Diamonds’ floting ideas from the disseapereance of humans in Rapa Nui to other more bizarre ones, so forth.  It seems to me all these ideas surge from the angst of their creators trying to find a ‘scientifically” informed meaning in the world that mirrors  the clockwork of reason and the scientific method (more to follow).

This line of reasoning  applies, a propos of violence, what Sebag Montifiore writes in the NYT-again- that “dictators deserve the death they get”. Here we have a subversive, revisionist (if possible both together) statement to appease our fear witnessing  a horrendous unavoidable event.

This somehow startling pustch  to invest morality with a reasonable scientific “foundation” is well,  “unreasonable”.  Shouldnt we advocating saner laws, equality, equity, diversity and all that will enhance the shared human condition, rather than proselityzing with confused scientific bs? At Rationally Speaking, pun intended, De Dora writes : “But the relationship between morality and law runs much deeper than one failed amendment. Indeed, this country’s foundational philosophical concepts — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness —(very self evident for everybody else in the universe) are rooted in morality!!!!!!!!!! So are fundamental principles found in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to freedom of speech and belief, the right to assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to a fair trial. This list continues on, from basic crimes like murder, rape, and robbery, to insider trading and so-called sin laws,  like cigarette taxes or seat belt fines. Each one of these examples is based on some prior moral notion about what is right or wrong, or what is good or bad. In short, as Barack Obama argues in his book, The Audacity of Hope (for reference, page 218, though I suggest you read the entire book), I propose that most law, either in spirit or letter, is nothing but encoded morality.” (arghh..200 years later actually 1000 if you count the Carta Magna.). This guy works fo the NYC branch of the CFI; no wonder. He says ABSOLUTELY nothing.

As the world becomes paradise, joy in Libya…..yeah right (we are getting smarter)

October 20, 2011

galileos' armillary

If you watched-with horror-the video of whatever happened to Gaddafi being dragged before or after being killed, youll also watch  that the claims of widespread joy in Lybia are completely bogus? The same ones that heralded theArab spring -my ass-now herald joy in Libya.  It is arab people with no hope, recreating  themselves thru death and misery to more misery and death, until it stops.  But it wont. There are many (all?) overadrenalized fighters running wild asking : what the fuk do we do now? Of course nobody has any idea. The death of Gaddafi consolidates the end of the postcolonial cycle of these former territories administered by  european benefactors countries that left Lybia and the whole East in shambles. And it will go on. Look at Egypt. I pray nothing worst happens to Israel, Palestine, but I doubt it. Iran may blow up and/or Pakistan bombs the hell out of everybody else: those nies are nuts.

Oh but let us  no worry, the world is a safer place now, we gotten smarter, according to Pinker. Just read his paper, in Nature, announcing his book which claims we are getting smarter as a species, I assume. Or is he talking about white men? He is a racialist.  Are we getting smarter? as measured by IQ tests that Pinker endorses (what a prick). His arguments are so silly I just have a terrible time dealing with this corrupt trumpeting of “data” and higlighting till no more, the de novo enlightnment, of course driven by Pinker and others. (arghhhh).

Goes Kim: “Not to wory, sahib we are fine” , just fine. drinking imported british tea made in China. (before Ceylan).

From Alito to Gaddafi

March 9, 2011

I wasnt gonna mention Hitchens (sick of it, no pun intended)) (I refuse to call him Hitch since he stole shamelessly from the movie) again. The guy has “metastasized” stage IV esophageal cancer, for crissake (actually is metastatic) and he should be left alone. Maybe. But, semiotics aside he got a mostly rabbinishisk looking beard, hence there is hint of life inside the bottle of black label in his pancreas. Hitch is being called the Collins miracle. Hitch mentioned the word “miracle” in a recent CBS interview and Jewish network ‘debate”. I think Hitch is flaking. What an irony, being saved by a total christian scientist; as good as it gets. By the way Coyne, who is secretly in love with Hitch, adoringly claims the Jewish network “debate” (what a macrobore) was a smackdown for Hitch and Sam. Coyne lies. Watch the video. If it wasnt for Harris hallucinatory incursion in afterlife consciousness the “debate” would have been a total loss. Instead was a near total loss.

In any case I wanted to draw attention to Hitchs’ call for Libya’s invasion at Slate. Piggybacking in Alito’s use of “brutal’ in the minority ruling on the infamous church of crazy (8 to 1!!!), Hitch delivers a passionate call for arms and invasion of Libya. Is he for real? I wont elaborate; many readers at Slate have counterargued Hitch to the fine print. I am still puzzled by his churriguresque detour from Alitos’ dissent. Really.
By the way, Fish has a rather interesting review of this ruling at the NYT; Fish of all: “Alito knows the answer. He begins his dissent by declaring, “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for . . . vicious verbal assault” and he ends by insisting that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.”.Fish writes :” In short, you shouldn’t be able to produce speech with the intention of causing harm to a specific person and get it away with it because you slipped in a word or phrase that has or could have a more general application”. I kinda agree with him.

Not that I follow G. Will at the WP, but he asks cogent questions regarding consequences of “intervention” as he calls it. Intervention? Funny. Its sounds psychiatric.