Monday, October 13, 2003

mini essay: technologizing social service. Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 8:28:29 PM     The agenda of organizations, such as school counselors, is increasingly donated, as is education itself, by problems rather than opportunities. It is much easier to divide up a conference on topics like drug abuse and sexual abuse, rather than deal with the issues young people really care about: love, meaning, anomie, movies, sports... The attendees at the conference take these new professionally sanctioned attitudes back home with them, and this becomes their sense of the school and its issues. The result is  general shifting from the meaning of life to specific technical problems organized around victims and criminal perpetrators. ********

NYT Secular drift pulls Europe away from U.S. and the equator from the north Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 7:37:51 PM     If the spiritual center - religious, art, revolutionary, moves south... Christianity has boomed in the developing world, competing successfully with Islam, deepening its influence and possibly finding its future there. But Europe already seems more and more like a series of tourist-trod monuments to Christianity's past. Hardly a month goes by when the pope does not publicly bemoan that fact, beseeching Europeans to rediscover the faith. ********

WP: Senators Say Bush Needs to Take Control Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 3:21:36 PM     The drama.. why would they say this when they know Bush can't do it? Daddy take control? Good to not jump to conclusions hre. It is an opening in the prrocess, a wondow into the inerior. By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 13, 2003; Page A14 A key Republican lawmaker urged President Bush yesterday to take control of his fractious foreign policy team and plans for Iraq's reconstruction, as one Democrat deepened his criticism of the administration's arguments for going to war. "The president has to be president," Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That means the president over the vice president, and over these secretaries" of state and defense. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice "cannot carry that burden alone." In the first week of the administration's public relations campaign to explain its Iraq policy and highlight its achievements, Lugar noted that Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Rice had given speeches whose tone "was distinctly different" and that senators were rightly concerned about "the strength, the coherence of our policies." ********

NYT Seeking Support at U.N., Bush Offers Concession on Iraq Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 3:10:25 PM     ASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — A new American draft resolution for the United Nations Security Council would give the Iraqi Governing Council until Dec. 15 to make the first step toward restoring Iraq's sovereignty by developing a timetable for writing a constitution and for holding elections.   comment: the issue will be, how far will the US and Europe go towards each other to 1. prevent a failure in Iraq 2. Help Bush/ Blair out of a jam And these are not aligned, but opposing goals. ********

Schwarzenegger Unveils Energy Plans Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 10:57:33 AM     Towards reason..? Interesting that it is put together so fast, with such a mix. Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, who saw his predecessor undone by California's electricity debacle, is engaged in his own high-wire act, offering an energy plan designed for both ends of the political spectrum. Schwarzenegger's preliminary proposal takes a Republican-style reliance on free markets, which became decidedly unpopular in the energy crisis of 2000-2001, and mixes in such traditionally liberal favorites as aggressive conservation and increased use of green energy. Within two years, for example, he wants half of all new homes built in California to be equipped with solar cells. Other issues: it seems to not go forward with the request to return the nine billion dolars.. Is it a cover story we are being offered? The details here will be interesting.   One issue:  if AS turns out to be effective and progressive, mixing high tech with globalization in ways that Bush has not, what will it mean for strong man politics? The echo is Mussolini and the trains running on time. ********

Doug mini essay strategic approach terrorism. Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 10:38:53 AM     Most comments about the current US approach to terrorism seem to me to assume an unspoken strategic frame and because unspoken, each comment seems like a lunge in a field of meaning rather than a clarification of the frame. Here is my take. Slightly in jest, (but the jester ...) Two immediate critical questions 1. should the US withdraw? 2. the fate of the US economy? In the immediate background 1. Nuclear options by Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran, terrorists, US? 2. Social disadvantage is fertile ground (since the Christians joined up with the Roman Empire and abandoned the poor)for Islamic conversion, so all current policy is creating more anti-us, pro terrorist sentiment. Longer future view 1. what does china do after the West Christian and Middle East Islam fight it out? 2. The fate of the democratization project under Chinese hegemony? 3. Rethinking the separation of religion and the state given that science is a religion (with its beliefs about the world, th origin of the universe, and has its priests and catechisms). Given this the strategic question is the choice between 1. does Bush tough it out? The argument in favor is that any late empire is subject to being torn apart if it shows any sign of weakness, both from within and without, and that Bush must prevail. As part of this view, the reality is that Pakistan (secular power and Islamic fundamentalism - i.e, classical new empire) is he real threat, too big to take on, so Iraq was a foothold towards making that incursion into Pakistan (and with it the ex soviet mafia, the extended business interests through Turkey to Indonesia..). The Iraq alternative can be read as a reaction to realizing that Israel is a bad partner in dealing the larger issues. A new Eastern surrogate is necessary to take on the Islamic crescent. (note that without any Islamic problem, Latin America and interesting parts of Asia would present us with the same issues.Even parts of the US are becoming significantly alienated from the American mainstream.) 2. The war gets redefined as a police action (downgrade) and other issues, such as globalization rules for environment, indigenous cultures,equity, legitimate protection of national agricultures (with the US rethinking its mega farm approach with grotesque subsides), and we talk about the American values of democracy, participation, human development, and less about free market. There is much to favor this. The question is, would American business allow this reorientation? It would be helpful to some, but not to others who are closer to power in both parties? Bush's lousy vision capacity, that if a man with no social vision whatsoever, makes this path even harder. Half the progressives and half the conservatives like big business and free markets. Since that is the majority opinion it seems hard to go against current policy based on arguments either of peace and internationalism,the progressive side, or isolation in order to pursue a communitarian family value rural value agenda of the right. If free market wins the political struggle, i think we get militarization and empire as part of the package. Which to me argues that t the war on terror remains the center piece of policy and action. I think it is a disaster, but hard to see the political will (which always means in part harvesting current existing momentum already in motion), A real alternative would need to 1. go against free market mega-corp globalization. this means undoing the law of incorporation and reimposing state charter provisions. 2. rethinking the role of the state in relation to mainstream science (a tradition that is rooted in messianic thought and progressivism and individualism that come directly out of Christianity). 3. desires for local nd regional semi autonomy and giving up on the idea of one coherent world system (which if it were to exist would be the main object of ownership and control..). So it comes down to 1. exploring that alternative, hard as it is, or 2. learning Chinese and maybe Arabic. Please take this in the semi serious semi playful intent that created it. ********

Stephanson's Quicksilver and net resources. Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 9:16:28 AM     And something else   Neil Stepenson's new novel Quicksilver, has its own page with annotations created by him and readers.   http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Stephenson:Neal:Quicksilver:All_annotations_by_page_number Comment: The question raised by many of these links is, what will be the impact when a totally classical and informed education *in depth* is easily attained through the net? What kind of new people will this create? Shakespeare was made possible by the fowing of new european lterature into england as part of the english renaisance, and when such knowledge is fresh and fun, it is easy to absorb huge quantites. A very poor person, but withinenet access, can reach everything. For example, the Perseus project which has all the classical greek and latin texts, and click to the dictionary. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/perscoll_Greco-Roman.html or the chinese (try the Dao and click on a character.) http://zhongwen.com/dao.htm   ********