The Right-Wing Media-Industrial Complex - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

The Right-Wing Media-Industrial Complex - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

"Under Bush, the conservative media machine's partisan loyalty enabled the GOP to put domestic spending on steroids, launch two enormously expensive unending wars, drastically increase the power of the executive to trample on civil liberties, and added a huge unfunded entitlement, Medicare D. So while Fox was giddily celebrating power, conservatism was busy abandoning whatever policy principles it once had."

"I also believe that the health insurance reform was about as centrist a bill for universal care as you could get (but needs improvement and cost-vigilance) and that a winning party gets to pass what it ran on. For a Democrat, Obama is as moderate as it comes."

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for continuing clarification of modern conservativism

The Physics of the Impossible

Last Book Read: The Physics of the Impossible - Michio Kaku

In The Physics of the Impossible Michio Kaku continues his enthusiastic discussion of cutting edge science and theorizs how technology might continue to advance through the next few millenia and beyond, to the point of being able to manipulate everything in the universe.  He discusses such topics as invisibility, teleportation, beam weapons, starships, time travel, and precognition.

Interestingly, while discussing technological means to reproduce psychic phenomema, he notes the ease with which scientists are fooled by magicians, just as Gardner has mentioned. The advancement of our technology with require fundamental leaps in acquiring energy and as we move to new levels we will be able to achieve more advancements that are currently deemed impossible.  We may be at one of the most difficult points now. Discussing the transformation from a Type 0 to Type I civilization, Kaku remarks, "a Type 0 is still wracked with the sectarianism, fundamentalism, and racism that typified its rise, and it is not clear whether or not these tribal and religious passions will overwhelm the transition." "There will emerge a planetary language and culture. . . There are also forces that oppose this march to a planetary sytem.  These are the terrorists who unconciously, instinctively, realize that the progression to a planetary civilization is one that will make tolerance and secular pluralism a centerpiece of their emerging culture, and this prospect is a threat to people who fell more comfortable living in the last millenium."  I think his analysis here is very insightful, not only from a technology perspective, but in regards to the evolution of humanity in general.

Kaku really shines while discussing parallel universes. Here he divides them into three types: hyperspace, multiverse, and quantum parallel universes.  But these distinctions seem unnecessary as types, if there is are multiple universes than they all must exist inthe multiverse.  The only difference between the types is how they are formed and their relation to each other.  Hyperspace suggests universes in a spatial dimension higher than the three we experience.   All of the universes are possibly pre-existing as independent ones, stacked in 11-dimensional space.  Kaku mentions the possibility of one googol universes predicted by string theory.  But it is unclear if this is the number required to contain all possible parallel universes, or if it amounts to one googol possible types of universes (each with a unique set of physical properties and constants).  Another explanation is that the universe splits.  One theory, the Copenhagen School, is inseparable from conciousness.  The state of the universe cannot be known until the wave function collapses.  Since we are in the universe, we cannot make the external measurement.  This implies a "'cosmic conciousness' pervading the universe," some type of god, which brings external difficulties into the theory.  Another theory is that our universe has "decohered" from other universes, essentially our wave functions are on different frequencies that do not interact with other universe, like separate radio signals.  The explaination here seems incomplete.  This seems to indicate that all universes in the multiverse exist in the same physical space, rather than sheets of three-dimensional space hyper-stacked on each other.  Only the "stuff" in these universes exist seperately because of decohered wave functions.  I imagine this is the kind of parallel dimension illustrated in the Star Trek episode "The Tholian Web".  This theory also doesn't explain what it means to exist in a multiple universe that has yet to decohere.  It would imply that there is simply one universe and if decoherence happens,  I suppose, certain things will just disappear, as they will be left in the original universe.  What was one universe becomes two and we wouldn't notice much of anything unless we were able to retune to the orignal coherence wave.  This leaves us in the same isolated condition as separate sheets of spacetime.  The third category suggests that universes can be created out of a quantum flucuation of the vacuum, out of nothingness.  Interestingly, noting the sum totals of properties of our universe in measurements of charge, spin or total matter-energy, the end result is always zero, suggesting a possible creation from nothing.  Both decoherence and quantum flucuation seem to suggest different ways that a baby uiverse could form in an ever growing multiverse.

Finally, while discussing a possible "theory of everything" he notes the difficulty caused by  Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.  Mathematics is self-referential and "since the observer cannot be separated from the observation process, it means physics will always refer to itself, since we cannot leave the universe.  In the final analysis, the observer is also made of atoms and molecules, and hence must be an integral part of the experiment he is performing."  This means that any mathematics used in the development of the TOE must be carefully constructed to avoid self-reference.


I find Kaku's predictions highly optimistic, yet this is necessary optimism.  Without it I fear there would be no drive to test these wild theories, and we have come so far in the twentieth century, with the verification of quantum theory and the existence of quarks, that we may be near the next leap.

Reverse Reaganomics

The latest poll about the Tea Party shows no surprises. For instance, most Tea Party members have above average income.  This is not at all surprising given their obsession over materialism.  Despite Fox News's attempt to make the poll look revealing and the "mainstream media" look insulting, the poll remains obvious.  The real problem with the Tea Party is that it's built on a foundation of ignorance.  They claim that the Tea Party is highly educated, but only 1/3rd have graduated from college. This doesn't seem "highly" educated to me.  The Tea Party attempts to make themselves look smarter than they really are as they spread disinformation.  They throw around terms like communist and socialist, without a real academic understanding of them.  But these are great words as a scare tactic.

President Obama is far from a socialist.  He has been denounced by the Socialist Party, and has been called Bush's third term.  The main point here is that he is continuing the 20th century tradition of corporatism.  He is continually supporting corporate America.  There has been no attempt to overtake corporations, nationalize them and make them public for redistribution.  The capitalist profit is not in danger.  But, the mythical small-business loving captialism that conservatives love to dream about is simply not real, it was surpassed early in the twentieth century, being replaced by corporatism and supercapitalism.  As these idealogies swung to the right of capitalism, we became even less socialist than in pre-World War I history when that party was much larger and more influential.

The only differences, economically, between Obama and his conservative predecessor are healthcare reform and tax cuts for the lower classes.  Public healthcare is no more socialist than Social Securty or the Post Office. In fact, the current reform still relies on the private insurance industry, funneling money into that system, making it a purely capitalist system.  Furthermore, public healthcare is actually less socialist than the current employer-based system. [1]  The fact that Obama gets called vile names and compared to Hitler for attempting to expand a publlic service, one that is difficult for many to afford, is mind-boggling.

The Tea Party claims to be for smaller government and lower taxes.  As for government, where was the party when the Republicans were handing out massive bailouts to the private sector?  Nowhere.  And now the polls show that Tea Partiers don't want cuts in Medicare or Social Security.  They don't want "their" benefits cut.  Clearly they really are not for smaller government.  If they were, the best strategy would be to denounce corporatism, end corporate welfare, and realize that government exists to serve the people - through public services like healthcare.

Concerning taxes, they protest even though 95% of Americans received a tax cut under Obama.  I suspect most Tea Party members fall into that category.  For the Tea Party to protest increased taxes while their own have decreased only shows their distorted view of reailty.  If the top 5% want to complain, that's fine.  But they have brain-washed the lower classes into fighting their battle.  The rich have never enjoyed as much prosperity as they have in the last thirty years.  To stand as a prosperous country, we need a strong social system.  And we have to pay for it.  Being the richest country in history this should not be a problem.  But, the wealthy have to pay their share.  Even Adam Smith understood the need for progressive taxation.  What Obama has done is reverse a little Reaganomics.  When Reagan made the largest tax cuts on the rich in the 1980s, economic inequality began to widen immensely, and has continued to expand since.  At best, Obama will be able to undo some of the damage.

I don't hear anyone calling Canada communist. Or Japan. Or England, or the rest of Europe. But even though those systems are more socialist, any attempt at advancement here prompts hysteria.  When the Tea Party gets useless airheads like Victoria Jackson to call Obama a communist it is not only ignorant, but blatantly deceptive.  And then, when the media propagates these terms in defense of the Tea Party, the result is beyond bad journailsm, it is plain lying.

It seems that countries are like people, with older ones exhibiting more maturity.  In Europe this maturity manifests as attempts to improve their public service and soften economic inequality.  Meanwhile, America acts young, loud and arrogant, without trying to improve.  As history continues, the human race matures and we find that we have better means to provide a society that is morally and practically necessary. We should not be afraid of trying new and better ways to improve society.   Conservatives should embrace American ingenuity and have faith that we can do things better than others.  We could make a public health system that is uniquely American and better than any socialist one.  But we can't achieve that level of thinking while manevolent manipulators are dividing the country by deceiving the American public.



[1] See Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, for an explanation of non-taxed employer benefits as publicly funded redistribution.  This is something I will return to in the future.

Episode 0

I have to take a minute and recommend the film reviews at  redlettermedia.com.  So far I've only got through the 70 minute review of Star Wars The Phantom Menace, and it's absolutely brilliant.  It's far more enjoyable than watching the film itself, and elucidates many of the thoughts, complaints and confusions I have about that film.  After sixteen years of intense waiting, The Phantom Menace was a kick in the crotch from George Lucas.  I believe it should really be relegated to being Episode 0, and we should get a free replacement made for our wait, troubles and disappointment.  Jar Jar is punishment enough, with Lucas's response being that it is a film aimed at children.  If that's true, then why the hell does the plot revolve around some obfuscated story about trade routes and taxation?  I've been to college and I can't understand what the hell it's about.  Anyway, if you are as frustrated as me then check out these reviews.

How to Read Literature Like A Professor

Last Book Read: How to Read Literature Like A Professor - Thomas Foster

This book is a good read about reading.  While not revealing anything too earth-shattering, it does provide a good insight into the process of reading and story construction.  Foster emphasizes how each work of literature is part of the meta-story of humanity.  He shows the relevance of the obvious literary allusions to classical mythology, Shakespeare and the Bible.  The collection of myth is highly relevant to all of humanity, it is "a body of story that matters."  "It is the ability of story to explain ourselves to ourselves in ways that physics, philosophy, mathematics, chemistry - all very highly useful and informative in their own right - can't."  Foster points out Egyptian writing that complains that everything has already been written, "that papyrus describing the postmodern condition is forty-five hundred years old." So while everything is reused and retold, there is a collective wealth of meaning that is accessed by common symbolism and metaphor.  These pre-defined patterns can be used to efficiently place a story on a determined path, without reinventing all of human history and share understanding.  Foster discusses many of these common and cliche ideas: weather, seasons, sex, illness, geography, etc, while ignoring others, as a comprehensive attempt would be immense.  Written in a conversational tone, this book is not a referential text, but it makes an easy and enjoyable read.

The Safety Dance

Political celebrity/imbecile Sarah Palin has attacked President Obama's latest Nuclear Posture review, claiming "we miss Ronald Reagan." Ignoring the fact that Reagan almost got us all killed, he was the first president to advocate the abolishment of nuclear weapons.  His goal was to meet with Gorbachev by 1996 and dismantel the final remaining weapons in each nuclear arsenal.  Now, Obama is only the second president to advocate the complete abolishment of nuclear weapons.  Therefore, as far as nuclear ideology goes, he is directly in line with Reagan.  So, once again Sarah Palin reveals her ignorance and her lack of political and historic understanding.  As for the new START treaty, there is little reason to criticize Obama.  The 1500 warhead limit still provides far more WMD firepower than we need.  A massive nuclear arsenal in a post-Cold War is beyond absurd and a necessary element of final completion of that conflict is the reduction of a complete strategic stockpile [1].  This 1500 limit is similar to what would have been the START III treaty in the 1990s, had it been ratified and not discarded by the Bush administration. What this new treaty does is just catch us up to 1990 levels, and we are still 10 years behind in reductions.  The neo-con reactions can only indicate their warmonger intentions and their continued wish for a U.S-dominated armageddon.


 For more, I turn to commentator extraordinaire Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bang Treaty
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

[1] I would not push for complete nuclear disarmament in an increasingly chaotic world with renegade countries developing WMDs.  As Carl Sagan stated while discussing nuclear war: a few nuclear weapons make you safer than none.

De revolutionibus

While searching for information about John Gardner, I came across a suprisingly high number of websites denouncing postmodernism.  These were mostly church and religious sites, and some academic ones (with educators that have some personal interest in religious evangelicalism).  These sites give lists of resources about the dangers of postmodernism (like the works of Sire, whom I've mentioned before).  Some of the resistance is probably due to multiculturalism and relativism, although the first is an inevitable fact of globalism and the latter is just one response.  But, they totally miss the point.  This is like lecturing about the dangers of a sky that is blue.  Postmodernism is a description of the contemporary world, it is not a prescriptive philosophy. If there has been a theory proposed from it that is complete and coherent, I am not aware of it.  [1] This is an exact repeat of what happened when the Sun was found to be at the center of the Solar System. The Church and traditional thinkers denied the facts of heliocentrism. I can imagine similar arguments circa 1600 denouncing the dangers of modernism.  Now, it would be silly to argue against the dangers of science (although some do, and they are doubly lost).  Postmodernism describes the current understanding of existence.[2]  It serves no purpose to argue against it.

Modernist art and literature, reaching its apex in the mid twentieth century, mourned the loss of traditional understanding, and uncovered the discontinuity and fragmentation of reality.  This sense of loss was the same as experienced by the existentialists.  They hoped for a foundation of absolute meaning, but knew that there could not be one.  These inevitable results of modernism were already predicted by Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.  Underlying nihilism would be the outcome of progress and deeper understandings of the world.  But, that doesn't mean we can stop progress, we must deal with it.  Overcome it.  This is what the existentialists did. Camus went in his own direction with absurdism, welcoming the inevitable alienation and celebrating experience in the moment.  Similarly, postmodernism celebrates fragmentation.  A number of postmodern commentators have picked up on this "living for the moment."  That might be a superficial response.  But, it doesn't have to be hedonistic.  Even Camus had deep reasons for advocating life in the moment for his "barbarian gods."  This is one track we can take, but there are always more.  One is already waiting. Existentialism is a pre-anticipated modernist solution to the problem of postmodernism.  Contemporary religious leaders might be wise to turn to Kierkegaard, rather than deny reality. [3]





[1] Deconstructionism is just an overly complicated jargon-filled method of literary analysis, and Foucault's philosophy seems to me to be fairly incomplete as anything useful.
[2] Historically, I would argue that the postmodern age started in 1991.
[3] I realize that the term "reality" is dicey in this situation, given hyperreality, etc, but I use this in the common traditional sense.