Memoirs of a Samurai Barber

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:02:00 +0000

I Had to Share This

This guy Mayer Hawthorne is a winner. I can't wait for the disk to come out.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:30:00 +0000

Historical Cycles

Yes, that's right, more Hardt and Negri. This time, it is a double edged quote: on the one hand, it should put to rest the complaint Stratkey made about these guys being Marxist and Hegelian; on the other hand, it offers a healthy view of history.

"History has a logic only when subjectivity rules it. [. . .] We find this entire mode of reasoning [historical cycles] completely inadequate, because every theory of cycles seems to laugh at the fact that history is a product of human action by imposing an objective law that rules over the intentions and resistances, the defeats and the victories, the joys and the suffering of humans."

So first, putting to rest the Marxist/Hegelian smear. Hegel's dialectical understanding of historical cycles, and Marx's own version of dialectical materialism, don't work in the era of postmodern Empire. The dialectic is a product of Modernity's own internal crisis. When Modernity ends and its crisis evaporates, so does its dialectical logic. These guys are saying that we shouldn't maintain a theory of historical cycles, Hegelian or otherwise. They go on to say that these superimposed theories of historical necessity blind us to the possibilities that are around us.

Once they make this point, I'm not sure in what sense we can label them Hegelian or Marxist.

Now to my second point: I like their view of history. History isn't objective -- it is subjective. In other words, it takes human subjectivity to create a theory of historical laws. We may use these theories of historical laws or logic, as they call it, to try to understand experience, but we must always make sure we do not naturalize these laws -- we can't mistake the creation of our minds with independent reality.

It reminds me of Old Testament mockery of idolatry: the human makes a statue out of wood one minute, then the next minute they are kneeling down before the statue as if the statue were their creator. The creation becomes naturalized.

The value of their understanding of history's subjectivity is that it allows us to identify short comings in our own theories. If we don't recognize the subjective nature of history, then we are trapped in the theoretical creation of others. Like an idol worshipper, we mistake the creation of humans with something uncreated, something natural, something objective. But once we realize that the idol was our creation -- once we see historical laws as human creations -- we are no longer enslaved to it.

If we think something is impossible, then it becomes impossible. We make it impossible by thinking it is impossible. We won't try to do things we think are impossible. If we think there is a natural law that makes certain things impossible, then we will never try to achieve those things. The first step to opening up new possibilities is to recognize that "natural laws" are the creation of subjectivities -- they do not exist independently.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:07:00 +0000

So Good:

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:34:00 +0000

Mounting Excitement

So the book Empire by Hardt and Negri is getting even more exciting. What I found particularly fun is their analysis of how both postmodernist discourses and religious fundamentalisms are unwitting handmaidens of postmodern Empire.

"How so?"

So glad you asked. Since it is, "Difficult to generalize about the numerous discourses that go under the banner of postmodernism," they boil it down to a "generalized attack on the Enlightenment." While these postmodernists are engaging in what they think is a struggle for liberation, Empire suggests that they are fighting old Modernist enemies like the idea of sovereign nation-states.

Postmodern Empire, on the other hand, ignores sovereign nation-states -- think of the "police" actions of the US and UN and the boarderless flow of NGOs like Amnesty Int., the Red Cross and Doctors Without Boarders. The latest development of capitalism is a shift from modernist notions of sovereignty to postmodern notions of empire.

Hardt and Negri claim that, "Despite the best intentions, the postmodernist politics of difference not only is ineffective against but even coincides with and support the functions and practices of imperial rule." Basically, postmodernists are fighting against the memory of modern forms of capital rule while a fundamentally new form of rule takes its place.

"How about religious fundamentalisms?"

They boil these down to different forms of Muslim and Christian fundamentalism. At its core, both are committed to a social agenda of recreating "The stable and hierarchical nuclear family, which is imagined to have existed in a previous era."

"If they are trying to go back to past ways of life, how are they helping to usher in postmodern Empire?"

They say, "Fundamentalist visions of a return to the past are generally based upon historical illusions." When I read that, I was like, "BINGO!" The "traditional family" fundamentalists champion never really existed, but instead are a "Pastiche of values and practices that derive more from television programs" then from history. Their conclusion is that fundamentalisms are not "backward-looking at all, but rather a new invention that is part of a political project against the contemporary social order." In this sense, fundamentalism, like postmodernist theorists, are assisting with the passage to postmodern Empire.

When I read this chapter, I was giving them mental high-fives. To me, it made so much sense. I really agree with their perception that both postmodernists and religious fundamentalists are unwitting helpers of late capitalism.

In addition, I think this understanding of fundamentalism helps explain why Conservative Christianity tends to be very much in favor of the free-market. A global free-market is very postmodern in the sense that it overpowers modern forms of sovereignty like independent nation-states and fixed boarders.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:15:00 +0000

The Wisdom of Italian Prisoners

As you may know, I'm a big fan of Antonio Gramsci -- Marxist theorist imprisoned by the Italian Fascists.

I don't know what it is, but there is another Italian prisoner's political writings that are exciting me: Antonio Negri. I'm reading a book Negri co-authored with Michael Hardt called Empire, and it is really good.

I've been a lazy blogger lately -- every time I read a book that I find interesting, I want to blog about some of the issues, but I never can get myself to sit in front of my computer and put anything down. Well, tonight, I'm breaking that trend. Tonight, I'm going to tell you a thing or two that is cool about Negri and Hardt's book Empire.

Their idea is that Empire is a new logic that is structuring our world. It has some similarities to previous empires, but those similarities can't account for what is new about the truly global Empire. Empire today is unique because it has the capacity and the means to structure the entire world under its sovereignty. This Empire is not to be equated with America, though America is the chief handmaiden of Empire. Empire, according to them, has no center of power and has no barriers. Empire is truly postmodern: the decentered and deterritorializing trajectory of capitalism.

One thing I like about this book is the way it investigates the overlapping of all of life in what it calls "biopolitical production, the production of social life itself, in which the economic, the political, and the cultural increasingly overlap and invest in one another." As they say elsewhere, "In the imperial world the economist needs a basic knowledge of cultural production to understand the economy, and likewise, the cultural critic needs a basic knowledge of economic processes to understand culture." I like the interdisciplinarity approach of this book.

Finally, what I really like about this book is that it seeks to explore ways to create an alternative to the enormous power of Empire to oppress and destroy. "Our political task," they write, "is not simply to resist these processes but to reorganize them and redirect them towards new ends." I like this approach. Since Empire is all encompassing, deterritorializing, everyone is a part of it. There is no outside of Empire for us to position ourselves against it. Instead, our political strategy is try and reorganize Empire from within. In a sense, we pollute it from within, we infect it like a virus. Pollution and infection have negative connotations. The pollution and infection we seek, though, is not destructive of life, but supportive of life. It is Empire (postmodern capitalism) that treats life as a commodity. Like a virus, we need to infect Empire with a new logic, a new morality, a new way to understand life without commodifiying it.

Pick up the book and read it with me, if you like. It is heady -- a slow read. But it is exciting and enlightening.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:46:00 +0000

This is crazy-cool

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:08:00 +0000

This is keen:

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:15:00 +0000

Two Unrelated Things

Does this video take anyone else to a happy place?

This is a really interesting interview with Frankie Schaefer.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:41:00 +0000

Lys

Maybe you have seen this, but in case you haven't, her she is in all her glory: Leslie and the Lys:

This is great art, isn't it?

Check out her web page for more of her fantastic fun.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:29:00 +0000

Progressive Critique of Obama

I guess I'm a bit proud of Progressive political critique. I wasn't sure what song Progressives were going to sing when Obama became president. Would they keep up their unforgiving critique of power, or would they over look the flaws of a moderately liberal president?

I've been hearing a lot of negative critique coming from the Left concerning Obama's cabinet appointments. This interview from today's Democracy Now is a good example of what I'm talking about. I'm happy to hear this. In my eyes, it lends credibility to the Progressive position; I feel more confident that their ideology is not just partisan rhetoric; I'm glad to see that Obama is being judged by the same criteria that was used to judge Bush.

Back in the early 2000s, when I was a staunch Republitarian, I quickly learned that Rightwing ideologues lacked this credibility that I'm attributing to the Progressives. For the AM talk-show hosts, who I listened to way too much, I noticed that different criteria was used to judge Bush and Clinton. When Bush would do similar things to what Clinton did, the Right spun the news so hard it made me dizzy. This lack of integrity (or awareness of their own biases) was one of the many factors that severed me from the Religious Right.

Something else that has impressed me with Progressives is their ability to recognize mixed qualities in Obama. It isn't either all-out-support or all-out-opposition. Instead, I've seen them recognize and acknowledge good things about Obama, yet maintain an uncompromising critique of his shortcomings.

P.S. Based upon Obama's appointments, I'm getting the sense that Obama is going to be more Moderate than he campaigned. I really didn't think he was going to be radically more liberal than he campaigned. We'll see, but it doesn't look like he is going to be anything like a Socialist. Too bad for us.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:13:00 +0000

My Parade Got Urinated Upon

Since the election, I've been feeling good: I felt like America grew up a little bit. Most of us were able to see through the illusions of the fearmongers. That gave me hope.

But this little piece of news just tinckled all over me.

Before the election, I remember hearing about a spike in gun sales because people feared that if Obama won, he would make assault rifles illegal to sell again. But hearing it again, and from all those news sources, really woke me up to a disturbing fact: a lot of America grew up, but there is still a significant minority that have been twisted and blinded by fear.

Many of these people stocking up on assault rifles are also people who think Obama is an anti-American terrorist. My own mom thinks he wants to submit Americans to some form of servitude, (the spirit of Hayacks, "Road to Serfdom" trickles down into the minds of those who have no idea they are being indoctrinated.)

Why do they want these guns? What do average people do with assault rifles?

I bet many of these people stocking up on assault rifles love the 2nd amendment and all the Jefferson jazz, like, �the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.�

You know what Jefferson is saying, right? That when the government becomes tyrannical, it is our duty to pick up arms against it. Hence, the justification for the Revolutionary War: we had a moral obligation to throw off the tyrannical English government.

So: an anti-American, terrorist president who is all set to tyrannise America + neo-revolutionaries stocking up on assault rifles =

What does it equal?

fron the crowd: The plot of a Clancy-based action/adventure movie?

announcer: That is right!

I hope my imagination is running wild, because the equation suggests some disgusting possibilities. I want to hope that Americans won't use guns against other Americans in a nationaly organized front, but I know there is no promise that we will be free from internal strife.

Let's all pray to Jesus that the unhinged section of our society who are getting whipped up into a panic will not pervert itself with violence.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:33:00 +0000

Saint Revolutionary

Frank Schaeffer has a very interesting article about his dad, Francis Schaeffer.

In this article, Frank draws an interesting parallel between his father and the Republican party on the one hand, and on the other hand, Obama's former pastor Rev. Wright and Obama himself.

You're all familiar with Rev. Wright, I'm sure, and all the controversy he stirred up for Obama. Since Rev. Wright didn't think America was the most righteous nation on earth, Obama was labelled anti-American.

Frank Schaeffer points out an interesting double-standard. Back in the late 1970s/ early 1980s, Frank was helping his father, among others, to create the American Religious Right. One of the key issues Frank highlighted as a rallying point is the subject of abortion. It is fair to say that Frank had a good political head on his shoulders because no issue has become as foundational for the political power of the religious right as abortion. As many are aware, there are many God-fearing X-ians who vote one issue: abortion.

But then Frank had a falling out with the Religious Right. From his post-Religious Right perspective, he has been able to be honest about some of the stuff that was going on back when Francis Schaeffer was a theological big-wig.

So what does this have to do with Rev. Wright?

Well, back in the 1980s, Francis Schaeffer was sowing the seeds for armed rebellion against the USA. Frank quotes his father, who made such claims as when a nations turns its back on God's law, it forfeits its authority, and that in such circumstances, physical force is justifiable against that ungodly country. Links were made between America's abortion of infants and Hitler's mass murder of Jews, thus electrifying X-ians to stand their ground against America is if they were Germans resisting the Holocost. That is a powerful force to stir up among the trusting masses in the pews -- potentially a destructive force.

So what does Francis's anti-American rhetoric have to do with the Republican party?

Schaeffer explains, "We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American."

Why is it OK for a white preacher to denounce American's sins and call for the violent overthrow of the government only to be rewarded with luncheons with Presidents, but for a black preacher to denounce America's sins without calling for any sort of armed resistance, he gets labeled anti-American and the candidate associated with him becomes suspect?

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:20:00 +0000

Fighting the Good Fight

At what point do God-fearing, otherwise law-abiding citizens of the USA pick up arms against their own country?

I don't know about you folks, but it seems to me that certain groups in the USA are being whipped up into a panic. Some think Obama is anti-American and a friend of terrorists. They fear that Obama is going to literally destroy America.

If anti-Americans and terrorists took over this country, would that be justification to pick up arms against them? Even if they were democratically elected?

I was reading this letter from Focus on the Family. The letter was written from the perspective of an American Christian in 2012 after four years of Obamarama. As I was reading it, I thought to myself, "If I believed what it says, I would be absolutely frightened about an Obama presidency."

Is this why McCain supporters are calling for Obama to be killed?

When James Jorden encourages all Christian males to learn how to use firearms and join local militias so that when God calls, they will be ready to fight in defence of home and hearth, is he prepping trusting Christians to use weapons against an anti-American terrorist who highjacks our country?

Personally, I think these sort of scare tactics are working against the Right. To me, at least, it has become clear what sort of leader McCain is by the hate he and the Republican machine foster in their followers.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Seed

Think about a seed -- a jalapino seed. Now think of a jalapino plant. There is a difference between these two, right? Though the plant springs from the seed, there is a difference between a plant and a seed: if I crush your jalapino seed, you can't say, "You just crushed my jalapino plant."

I've been thinking about unborn babies lately, with prop 4 in the air and all. I'm torn on the issue. For some reason, I can't go along with the idea that an unborn baby is a human in every sense of the word -- that a fetus and a child are the same thing. But at the same time I can't go along with the idea that a fetus is the same thing as an apendix -- mere tissue.

I think it is something inbetween: neither a full-fledged human or mere tissue.

While I was thinking about it, I thought that a fetus is to a human what a seed is to a plant. There is life in a seed, but the seed is not alive. A female plant/flower must be fertalized by male plants/flowers in order for to become ripe with a seed; just as a female human must be fertalized by a male in order to concieve. After fertalization, the plant become pregnant: it develops some sort of seed pod that swells as the seed develops within; female humans also sweel as the fetus develops within them. In order for the seed to develop into a full plant, it must exit the seed pod and be planted into the ground -- it must become independent of the female plant; a fetus too must exit the swolen womb in order to become an independent human, or at least to begin independent life.

A result of this analogy would be reducing the strength of the claim that the death of a fetus is murder just like killing a 10 year old; instead, we would have to say it is like killing a potential human -- like crushing a seed. It is something that shouldn't be done willy-nilly, but at the same time it isn't as grave a matter as cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:49:00 +0000

Happily Surprised

Amid all the financial carnage of late, there have been several things that have happily surprised me.

1 -- I've heard that the US Government is considering purchasing an equity stake in the failing banks instead of just exchanging money for their bad loans. This is a good move, in my opinion. It is a step towards nationalizing the banking industry, which I support. I'm glad to see our $700 billion might be used in such a way that it benefits the taxpayer as much as the billionaires.

2 -- I've been happy to see that many free-market ideologists, including Bush, Bernake, and Paulson, have done a 180 degree turn on government intervention into the economy. Thank goodness! I'm so glad they didn't maintain their theory in light of recalcitrant experiences.

3 -- I've also enjoyed hearing positive things about FDR's quasi-socialism for a change. Finally. Here and there, among different media sources, ones that I haven't heard praise socialism in the past, I'm hearing positive opinions disseminated about FDR. I guess it is hard to criticize him for institutions that are saving our butts right now, like the FDIC.

4 -- It seems to me that the free-market theology of Hayek and Friedman will be buried for the next generation or so, just like Capitalism was buried for a generation or so when it plunged us into the Great Depression. Now that unregulated markets have proved again to be devastating, it seems that we will opt for a rational approach to managing our world rather than letting the forces of nature have their way with us.

5 -- I'm very glad that Bush's goal of privatising Social Security is dead and buried now. Can you imagine if he succeeded? I get nauseous just thinking about it. I'm so glad that didn't happen.

All this being said, I would much rather have had these things come to pass in anticipation of a crisis rather than waiting for the crisis to happen (see the previous post about crisis). Some worldviews can anticipate crisis and seek to avoid them, and others can't. It seems to me that the recent crisis has shown which worldviews are woefully deficient -- a trial by fire, as it were. Hopefully we will learn from this and seek to head off other crisises at the pass, like looming ecological devastation. Let's hope and pray.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:19:00 +0000

Business Suits and Trust

It is really hard watching money I've saved and invested getting torn to shreds. I followed all the advice from the "experts"; my financial advisor at WaMu Financial even knew me by name. I purposefully chose conservative, small-risk, small-reward, stable investments, and I was diversified. A lot of good trust in the authorities did me.

It is funny that all the experts/authorities/professionals didn't see any of this coming. How hard is it to understand that people, let alone nations, can't borrow more money then they can pay back? Though I knew it was trouble, I thought to myself, "who am I to second guess all the professionals? Do I think I know more then they do?"

I've come to a point in my life where a business suit has taken on a new meaning: beware! I don't do it intentionally, but whenever I see someone in a business suit, I think to myself, "Schmuck." When I listen to people in business suits, I automatically distrust them. I can't help it. I know I need to work on it -- not everybody in a business suit is bad and untrustworthy, right?

Yet, deep down inside, I know there is something wrong with people who wear business suits; it says something about their character, about their soul. What it says isn't good. It says they support the hierarchical power structures that screw the world over. It says they are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. It says they want to maintain respect for authorities.

Those things business suits say aren't absolutely wrong. I know that, and a little voice in my heart tells me to cool the hasty judgements. I usually do temper my knee-jerk opinions, but it is a constant struggle.

I've also noticed that people who don't wear business suits are usually more trustworthy and ethical than those who do. People who don't like suits usually aren't the sort of people who turn a blind eye to exploitation in the pursuit of profit. I know this prejudice isn't accurate: there are plenty of plain clothes schmucks. Yet, I can't help but notice the cold-hearted free-market dickheadedness of suit wearers as opposed to the sympathetic-hearted concern-for-the-masses of those who dress down. Maybe it is because those in suits tend to profit off of those who dress down.

Still, I can't help but notice the relationship between business suits and untrustworthyness. I guess we all have our prejudices to work through. I'll keep working on mine.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:30:00 +0000

Fresh Jams

Just thought I would help take our minds off of the sadder side of life with some fresh jams. The following are a series of videos of musicians I have been digging lately.

Brazilian Girls: I just saw these cats last week with Free the Robots. They put on a hell of a show.

Free the Robots: my enjoyment of these guys have been growing over the past year or so. I just saw them again last week with Brazilian Girls, and their live performance is even better then their recorded music. Here is a little sample, albeit the sample pales in comparison to what they do live.

Gaslamp Killer: If you like FTR, you will love GLK. I can't get enough of this guy. Watch it in high quality and give it 20 secs or so -- it starts out kind of scratchy.

Enur: I hesitated putting this one on because it may be a little, um, . . . spicy for the barber shop. But, alas, I dig the song and the whole CD is swell. Maybe someday they will make it to SoCal to see live.

Busdriver: Haven't seen him yet, but he plays around here a lot. Hopefully I'll see him soon. He's a bit crazy, as you will see in the video.

Saul Williams: Hip-hop poet prophet -- can't beat that.

Amon Tobin: I've been loving Amon Tobin (also known as Cujo) a lot lately, especially his jazzyer-break-beat stuff. I couldn't find videos to the songs I prefer, but this one is decent.

Let me know if you enjoy any of these -- it will make me happy. That's it for now.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:41:00 +0000

Crisis and Change

Milton Friedman: Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change.

Friedman's strategy is to use moments of national crisis to implement changes that populations would ordinarily resist. In the shock of crisis, people feel helpless and lean desperately upon their leaders to do the right thing. Seizing this influx of trust, leaders can create changes in society that long, thoughtful deliberation would usually prevent.

In contrast to Feidman's Machiavellian/Kissingerian manipulation of power is the sober and wise counsel of Herbert L. Schillar.

Herbert L Who?

Yeah, you probably never heard of him before, but I just finished a fascinating little book of his called, "Mass Communications and American Empire." At the end of the book, in a chapter titled Towards a Democratic Reconstruction of Mass Communications, he says this: Traditionally, social change has followed one sort or another of social crisis. [. . .] Change induced in this fashion may not be sufficient to prevent the recurrence of the initial crisis. It always comes after some manifestation of social breakdown. It generally is accompanied by strife and violence. Crisis, therefore, is a very primitive mechanism for creating new social conditions."

Quite different from Friedman, huh?

He goes on to ask these questions, "Is there a way for the social sector to emulate its scientific component? Can anticipation and design replace crisis and conflict as the instruments of social change?"

He answers the question in the affirmative, yet he also points out the difficulties preventing these peaceful means of social change: Never before in history have the basic educational and cultural needs of humanity been so widely appreciated. But while the resources to satisfy these requirements are physically available, they are directed to other ends. The engineering means exist, but the will and the enabling social structure are absent. The resources and technology, known and available, are capable of monumental physical transformations. The modern obstacles, no less imposing because they are social rather than material, are the institutions which govern human affairs.

I'd like to quote more, but who reads blogs to read quotes? Anyway, I think Schillar is spot on with his diagnosis. Not only that, I love his sober hope for a better way of constructing our world -- not Utopian, optimistic or trusting in inevitable progress, but realizing that we are capable of making the world better or worse, and that the course of our world is not predetermined. Freidman, well, I think the crappy world his ideas perpetuate are all too obvious at the present moment. Hopefully, (please Lord, sooner rather than later) we can start to structure our world with anticipation and design rather than through crisis and conflict.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:12:00 +0000

Three Cheers for Congressional Republicans!!!<br>

I just wanted to give a big shout-out to my Republican hommies on Capital Hill: thank you for resisting the bail out!!!

Even though I mostly disagree with their rationale for resisting the bail out, I am totally happy they are the ones responsible for keeping this crap from becoming law; we both are uncomfortable with this thing, but our discomfort stems from seperate roots. Regardless, Republicans are in the High-eous!

To everyone else, resist this thing. The longer we think about it, the more outrageous it becomes. Why are the CEOs who are responsible getting huge bonuses, like Lehman Brothers getting a $2.5 Billion bonus after they run their company into the ground. Why isn't this huge amount of tax payer money being given to the homeowners who are getting foreclosed upon so they can stay in their homes? Why do the people responsible for the mess get their ass covered, but those who barely keep their head above water get stuck with the booty end of the stick?

If their plan becomes law, as Bush/Paulson/Bernake want it, then those who use the money will be completely unaccountable to any sort of review, be it congressional or judicial. Here is the text from the legislation: �Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.�

Who are these people? Who should be above the law like that? I never want to hear Bushies claim to be Constitution supporters again. First the Patriot act, now this. How can they claim to take the Constitution seriously with a straight face? Even worse, how is it that people believe them?

And, if I hear Christians telling me to just trust our authorities on this one -- oh man, that will knock the chip off my shoulder. I'm praying that the Church doesn't make itself complicit in all this; I hope the Church doesn't use its Spiritual authority to encourage trust and faith in our secular leadership. Church authorities don't need to discredit themselves any more then they already have regarding this stuff.

I better stop ranting before I start raving. I was going to keep this short and sweet -- just a little props to the Rep. peeps -- and look what happened. I should be ashamed of myself.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:08:00 +0000

Three Things

About the $700,000,000,000 bail-out of all the major investment banks, I'd like to say three things:
1) I am actually a little pleased with how the Congressional Democrats are responding to Paulson/Bush's request -- even some of the Republicans are uncomfortable with the plan. I'm glad they are resisting the haste and rush. I'm glad they are seeking to write some sort of accountability and oversight into the bill, as well as ensuring the corporate executives reponsible for this mess don't get gigantic payouts.

2) The Republican response is a bold departure from their rhetoric. I've often heard Neo-Con types speak about not trusting government, personal responsibility, and accountibility, yet their bail-out plan doesn't mesh with those lofty ideals. For one, it calls for no oversight of how the money is used -- it just gives the Prez. unnacountable power -- immense amounts of unnacountable power. If the government can't be trusted, shouldn't those powers be subject to review, oversight, transperency, or some sort of accountability?

3) I hope this leads to some sort of nationalization of the banking sector. If we really want lower taxes, nationalization of reasources is a great way. Rather than private entities reaping the profits of national resources, the government reaps those profits. And when the government reaps the profits of national resources, it enables funding for government programs through those profits instead of through taxes. In addition, since public corporations must act transparently and are motived by public good rather than profit, risky financial decisions will likely be limited. If the tax payer is going to be responsible for the risk, we should also reap the reward. It is a poor organization of society when private individuals get to reap the reward, but when investments go bad the public absorbs the risk.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:12:00 +0000

Preventative Detention

I was going to call this post, "Tools of Civil Disobedience."

In St. Paul, anarchist groups were detained because they were going to disrupt the RNC. Tools of Civil Disobedience were seized from them: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.

These anarchists were detained in an act of preemptive deterrence -- to stop them for possibly doing something criminal. They didn't do anything wrong, yet. But they might. So the feds and the local police bust in on the group and cuffed them all at gun point.

At some point, military and police personal have to question their orders. Unquestioning obedience to authority is a hallmark of authoritarianism; it makes the political Right appear to get closer and closer to fascism.

The RNC doesn't want protesters. These "anarchists" were planning a protest. To stop the protest, all the authorities have to do is say, "we had reason to suspect they were going to do something wrong." If it turns out their suspicion was wrong, the case is dropped. But in the mean time, while the case is pending, people and resources are detained. The value of tactics like this is that it hinders and retards legal, organized resistance and/or protest. A very neat and tidy way of using the police for political ends.

Preemptive deterrence -- how far can this be stretched? At what point will the foot soldiers of power look their commanding officers in the face and say, "get thee behind me Satan!"

Sources: Minneapolis StarTribune
Democracy Now! Watch the clip on this one -- some interesting interviews.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:53:00 +0000

Obama the Liberal

I'm listening to B.O. give his speech right now, and I can't help but roll my eyes -- political speeches are so heavy on the rhetoric that they are barely tolerable. Usually, I don't listen to them; I try, but I can never stomach the stuff. This time, it isn't tremendously different.

But I will say this: Obama is making some big Liberal promises that are sort of encouraging. In fact, I'm a bit surprised at the degree of Liberalism in his rhetoric. Before, I thought he was a little more central, but now I see that he is in fact Left-of-center -- not super far to the left, but left nonetheless.

A very conservative friend of mine thinks Obama is just pretending to be centrist; once B.O. gets into office, so the theory goes, he is going to show his true radical-Left colors and implement a slew of extremist laws.
When my friend told me his theory, which was meant to scare me into McCain, I replied with, "I sure hope so."
His eyebrows moved up when he heard my response. Then he followed it up by saying*, "I even have some super conservative friends who hope B.O. gets elected, so all his policies will screw America up so bad so that everyone will know that the conservatives are right."

I think it is funny that the concern that Obama is really a closet radical affects me and my friend so differently: he fears radical Left policies; I would welcome it.
Even more funny is the fact that, as much as I would love B.O. to be more Liberal then he lets on, I highly doubt it. In fact, my real concern is that he is going to be more moderate then he lets on.

Only time will tell.

Until then, I think it is worth pointing out that B.O. seems to be about as Liberal as mainstream America is willing to go at this point. As such, I think he is the best choice we have available to us. If he does get elected, I think I will sigh a big sigh of relief, and then start worrying afresh that B.O. will play the moderate-Republican role, as did his democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:39:00 +0000

21st Century Invasions

I like the part where McCain says in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.

I think McCain must sincerely believe that our invasion of Iraq was an act of defence.

The defence thing is just a little too psychotic for me. Yes, it is true, there is a psychotic jump in the rationalization of invasion as an act of defence. Here is the line of thought: the military's purpose is to secure the freedom of the People of the USA; enemies that seek to harm us are a threat to our security; therefore, in order to protect the People of the USA from any future harm, the US Military needs to destroy potential enemies before they harm us.

If you followed that argument, and at the end said, "well, yeah, of course," then you might be a bit psychotic. This is the rationale that can convince people en mass to support efforts to dominate the entire world. It is psychotic because it: 1) thinks the interests of Americans trump the interests of everyone else; 2) thinks that the security of America is worth destabilizing other nations; 3) thinks that constant war is the best means of peace; 4) thinks that all enemies can be destroyed. This is the rationale that can convince people en mass to support efforts to dominate the entire world.

The best defence against this sort of evil is awareness. It is harder to be fooled into the belief that America should rule the world after you realize such beliefs are psychotic.

Now back to the clip: does McCain really believe America is only defending itself by trying to dominate the world?

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:36:00 +0000

Another Problem with Church Authority for Conservative Presbyterians

If God gave his people shepards who interpret His revelation, then conservative Presbyterians are in double trouble. First off, God's sanctioned interpreters anathematized us at the Council of Trent -- after all, we gave the bird to God's authoritative interpretive body at the time. I've brought this up before, but my next point gets a little more interesting.

The OPC and the PCA gave the bird to God's sanctioned interpreter of His Word when they split from the Liberal Presbyterian churches. If the Church has the authority to normatively interpret God's Word, then the conservative minorities had no right to split off. They thought they knew better than God's sanctioned authority, and that is not good submission.

A good Presbyterian will say, "but the Liberal church denied God's Word, thumbed its nose at traditional orthodoxy, and believed other bad things."

That's fine, a Presbyterian can say that, but they must recognise that at that point they are undermining church authority -- they are saying that the minority, or the individual, has the ability to judge the collective Church's interpretation.

When a minority splits from the mainline church, it forfeits any claim of authority.

noreply@blogger.com (Johnny T) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:32:00 +0000

Councils and Continuing Revelation

Inspired by JJS's recent spat of posts on Sola Scriptura, I wanted to raise a section of the issue to my devoted throng of readers (yes, all four of you) to see whatchy'all think.

The debate is about the universially binding authority of post-apostolic church councils: are all church councils universally binding, are only some of them universally binding, are any of them universally binding?

My opinion has a cessationist flavor to it: post-apostolic councils do not have universally binding authority in the same way that post-apostolic church officers do not have universal binding authority. The reason neither post-apostolic church councils, nor post-apostolic pastors, elders, prophets, apostles or whatevers don't have universally binding authority is because the revelatory gifts have ceased.

Allowing the decrees of councils to have universally binding authority is tantamount to claiming that revelation has not ceased. Rather than new prophets or apostles telling us God's nonnegotiable, universally binding truth, we have councils who deliver to the people of God new things that everyone has to believe -- in effect, they are bringing new revelation to the people.

It seems that councils play a role in orthodox circles that prophets play in other Christian subdivisions: Islam, Mormonism, SDA, Pentecostals, etc. All these subdivisions, including the Orthodox, have some sort of secondary standard (councils, prophets, apostles) that have universally binding authority: their word is basically the word of God, even if they say otherwise (derivative, secondary, subordinate).

One counterargument might say something like, "the authority of councils is derivative." I think such an argument doesn't answer the question -- it addresses how the religious authority determined the new content being delivered to the world. But the real question isn't how the council determined its content; the question is: do councils have universally binding authority?

I would say no, they don't. The apostolic church had universally binding authority in a unique way, and that universally binding authority ceased when that special dispensation ended. In our post-apostolic era of history, we are without any religious authority that is universally binding because the age of new revelation has ceased.

This line of thinking would not consider Acts 15 normative for post-apostolic councils in the same way as Paul's instructions about using the special revelatory gifts isn't normative for post-apostolic believers.

So, how does this opinion fly with you'alls?