NEW HUMANIST SOCIETY

The Conscience of Capitalism

2011-12-16T00:33:00.000+02:00

The conscience of capitalism? It was never very much. But what little there was seems to have begun and ended with Adam Smith.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, at its most basic, economics is an inalienable concomitance of production and distribution. It does not require rocket science or a PhD in ethics to grasp that the purpose of economics should be to fulfill the consumption-related needs and desires (physical and mental) of a population, individually and collectively. In other words, the wealth and resources of our world should be developed for the welfare and happiness of all. Both production and distribution must serve that end.

Adam Smith recognized the important role that distribution plays in any economy, but he failed to develop a scientific approach toward it. To conceal that lacuna - and perhaps to cozy up to the rich - he declared that the requirements of distribution are largely met automatically. (As discussed elsewhere, Smith's notion of distribution was that it is adequately - or almost adequately - managed by "an invisible hand", the work of Providence far more than any market force. This was expressed by Smith in both The Theory of Moral
Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).) Today, 250 years later, it is patently clear that either Adam Smith's "invisible hand" does not exist or it is not wielded for distributive justice to the extent that Adam Smith maintained.

Although Adam Smith mentioned "an invisible hand" only once in The Wealth of Nations (TWON), it is arguably the most well-known assertion that he made. Perhaps that is because an invisible hand is almost all that Smith offered on the subject of distribution. On the very few occasions when Smith talked about "distribution", he mostly referred to a "natural distribution" and never a "just distribution" or an "equitable distribution".

Though Smith repeatedly condemned the rapacious greed of the wealthy, he became almost apologetic whenever he discussed any methodology that might tend to reduce the huge gap in income and lifestyle between the rich and the poor. For example, while discussing a tax on the rent of houses, Smith said: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." (V.2.71, TWON).

With such a beginning, is it any wonder that modern capitalist economists still tend to focus far more on production than distribution (assuming that they even consider distribution at all)? Talk about economic justice, and some wealthy capitalist economists merely laugh it off as idle speculation. Mention a principle like
production for consumption, and they will dismiss it as ill-conceived. What they won't tell you is that Adam Smith himself firmly endorsed that principle. Smith said: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for
promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it." (IV.8.49, TWON)

As a consequence of the mind-numbing influence of capitalist economics, only one out of two essential elements of economics has been developed. And even that one element has only been developed partially and, indeed, highly inadequately. A one-eyed focus on production, almost entirely ignoring its inalienable partner (distribution), is the consequence of capitalist dogma. Because of capitalist dogma, when Warren Buffett suggested taxing the rich, it was hailed as a new and noble idea. And when Bill Gates finally launched a charitable foundation and then chose to run it as a private business, he was hailed as a great philanthropist.

Adam Smith's notions of free trade conflicted with prevailing notions of mercantilism. But at the end of the day, free trade has proven to be no less elitist than mercantilism. Ultimately, both free trade and mercantilism fall under the dimension of economics that PROUT labels "commercial economy". Both free trade and mercantilism have their good and bad points. But commercial economy is only one dimension out of four in respect to a healthy economy. And a healthy economy is only one concern out of five in respect to a healthy society.

A Rudderless Ship

2011-12-12T21:45:00.000+02:00

The Occupy movement has begun targeting American West Coast ports. It is a demonstration of numbers and momentum... and a complete lack of strategic sense.

The persons likely to suffer the most from this ill-conceived operation are the dock workers, truckers, and other ordinary people whose livelihood or convenience is dependent on goods exported or imported through those ports. In short, the top 1% will not feel the pinch nearly as much as the 99%.

The justification for this self-destructive drama is a vague hodgepodge of Marxist and Gandhian fantasy. Very few of those adversely affected are likely to appreciate the rationale for this action, assuming that they can even comprehend it.

It is high time that the Occupy movement took a step back to get its bearings. The movement cannot go forward, much less succeed, without a clear ideology, a concrete platform, cohesive strategy, and capable leadership.

Concealed Hand of Adam Smith

2011-12-06T08:43:00.001+02:00

For many years I have been hearing economists refer to a modern version of the invisible hand as if they are merely extending the original argument of Adam Smith. The fact is that Adam Smith's invisible hand was always a fairy tale based on religious, ivory-tower speculation about the world. When Smith talked about an invisible hand, he meant Providence (or God).

In 1759, Smith introduced the concept of an invisible hand in his book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". The concept of an invisible hand is found in Paragraph 10 of Part IV Chapter 1. (Part IV consists of only one chapter/section.)

Below I reproduce the entire Paragraph 10 with its preceding Paragraph 9 for further context. A careful reading reveals that what Smith describes has nothing to do with market forces. Smith talks about two things: (1) the contemptible greed of a rapacious elite and (2) the physical capacity of a human belly. In psychological and economic terms, what Smith writes is arrant nonsense. He posits that unfeeling wealthy landlords produce huge fields of grain only because their eyes are bigger than their stomachs. Smith then asserts that those greedy landlords have no alternative but to distribute what they cannot eat to others (rather than maximizing their personal profit based on supply and demand, even if that means letting grains rot in silos).

As I said above, what we read below is just religious, ivory-tower speculation. It has little or no relation to what actually happens in real life. In real life, the distribution of wealth is not at all "nearly the same distribution... which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants", not even in respect to the "necessaries of life" which Smith was specifically talking about. But when we go beyond the necessities of life - addressed by PROUT within a broader dimension of people's economy - then the distribution of wealth becomes even less balanced.

It is interesting to note that Adam Smith addresses, albeit inadequately, some subjects that modern capitalist economists like to sweep under the carpet. Smith talks about "the sentiment of approbation". Indeed, that is the very subject of Part IV of "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". This "sentiment of approbation" is precisely what PROUT stresses when it comes to law (or property rights). According to PROUT, accumulation of wealth should be determined by the approval of society.

It is also interesting to note that Adam Smith recognizes the critical importance of distribution in economics. Smith also understood that justice in respect to distribution means that everyone must receive the "necessaries of life". In other words, Smith recognized that distributive justice means a more equal distribution. Of course, Smith's economic analysis is incomplete. The goods and services produced by any economy go well beyond the mere necessities of life. Economies also produce many amenities (in PROUT, atiriktam), and over time those amenities tend to become recognized as part of the current minimum requirements for all (a broader concept than the necessities of life).

Modern capitalist economists have managed to develop some elements of what PROUT classifies as commercial economy. Unfortunately, however, they have lost sight of even the little bit of humanity that Adam Smith showed in his recognition of the importance of people's economy and the need for distributive justice. Modern capitalist economists promote the slogan that everyone should be free to choose as a means to make the wealthy elite free to exploit.

--------------------
http://tinyurl.com/3n2myt
----------------------------------------
Part IV

Of the Effect of Utility upon the Sentiment of Approbation

Consisting of One Section

Chap. I Of the beauty which the appearance of Utility bestows upon all the productions of art, and of the extensive influence of this species of Beauty

...

IV.I.9

But though this splenetic philosophy, which in time of sickness or low spirits is familiar to every man, thus entirely depreciates those great objects of human desire, when in better health and in better humour, we never fail to regard them under a more agreeable aspect. Our imagination, which in pain and sorrow seems to be confined and cooped up within our own persons, in times of ease and prosperity expands itself to every thing around us. We are then charmed with the beauty of that accommodation which reigns in the palaces and oeconomy of the great; and admire how every thing is adapted to promote their ease, to prevent their wants, to gratify their wishes, and to amuse and entertain their most frivolous desires. If we consider the real satisfaction which all these things are capable of affording, by itself and separated from the beauty of that arrangement which is fitted to promote it, it will always appear in the highest degree contemptible and trifling. But we rarely view it in this abstract and philosophical light. We naturally confound it in our imagination with the order, the regular and harmonious movement of the system, the machine or oeconomy by means of which it is produced. The pleasures of wealth and greatness, when considered in this complex view, strike the imagination as something grand and beautiful and noble, of which the attainment is well worth all the toil and anxiety which we are so apt to bestow upon it.

IV.I.10

And it is well that nature imposes upon us in this manner. It is this deception which rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind. It is this which first prompted them to cultivate the ground, to build houses, to found cities and commonwealths, and to invent and improve all the sciences and arts, which ennoble and embellish human life; which have entirely changed the whole face of the globe, have turned the rude forests of nature into agreeable and fertile plains, and made the trackless and barren ocean a new fund of subsistence, and the great high road of communication to the different nations of the earth. The earth by these labours of mankind has been obliged to redouble her natural fertility, and to maintain a greater multitude of inhabitants. It is to no purpose, that the proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest that grows upon them. The homely and vulgar proverb, that the eye is larger than the belly, never was more fully verified than with regard to him. The capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires, and will receive no more than that of the meanest peasant. The rest he is obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets, which are employed in the oeconomy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessaries of life, which they would in vain have expected from his humanity or his justice. The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last too enjoy their share of all that it produces. In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for.
--------------------
http://tinyurl.com/3n2myt
----------------------------------------

1=1027?

2011-10-13T09:43:00.003+02:00

Although the prisoner swap is absurdly unequal, celebrations are going on among both Palestinians and Israelis. However, the mathematics is disturbing, not just to Israeli utilitarians.

On one side, Hamas appears to have achieved a great victory. Hence its popular support will increase. In addition, from the Palestinian prisoners who are released as well as from others inspired by this uneven prisoner exchange, Hamas will add a huge number of cadre to its militant ranks almost overnight.

On the other side, Israel must now take extra security precautions against an enemy force that will be greatly increased. In addition, Israel must arrest or capture another huge number of Palestinians to be ready for brokering the next release of an Israeli captive.

Is this a good deal for the Palestinians? Will it increase the chances of an early peace in the region? I doubt it.

To my thinking, the biggest problem I see with the uneven trade is what it reveals about the collective Jewish psyche. To the Jewish mind, one Israeli Jew is worth more than 1,000 Palestinians. This extreme superiority complex fosters huge injustices and even occasional massacres.

For example, in 1994, Dr. Baruch Goldstein opened fire on unarmed Muslims in prayer, killing 29 and wounding another 125. At the funeral of Baruch Goldstein, who was overcome and beaten to death by the outraged congregation, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in his eulogy: "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."

Unfortunately, many Jews do think like Rabbi Perrin. And, because of the vastly unequal value commonly ascribed to the life of Palestinians, many if not most Israelis are blind to the apartheid practiced by the Jewish State.

Scientism and Carl Sagan

2011-04-30T08:30:00.003+03:00

Carl Sagan often repeated the catechism: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." On the surface, the assertion sounds reasonable. But think a bit deeper, and it becomes evident that this is not just irrational but a justification for fascism (or, perhaps more accurately, scientism).

First, is there any objective measure of what is ordinary and what is extraordinary? Is this a black and white dichotomy, or do we have ranges of events and ranges of experience? For example, in the case of homeopathy, on what basis would it be decided that a 200-year old medical science, well respected in many countries of the world, is extraordinary? I submit that in this world, everything is natural - nothing is supernatural. So even the extraordinary events (including experiences) - events that fall outside of what is common or expected in a particular locale, at a particular time, or for a particular community - are natural.

Second, what qualifies as extraordinary evidence, and how much extraordinary evidence will suffice? Demanding extraordinary evidence is a recognition that the already existing evidence would be sufficient to substantiate conventional wisdom. At what point does the demand for extraordinary evidence become just an excuse to suppress knowledge and propagate dogma?

Third, even if a reported event is extraordinary, why should it require more evidence than anything else? An extraordinary event is bound to be a rare event, at least, for the person(s) reporting the event or for the person(s) receiving that report. So already it is likely to be difficult to acquire even ordinary evidence for an extraordinary event. In my estimation, acceptance of probable validity should ordinarily require evidence that is very substantial. Why set a higher standard than that for an event that is extraordinary, in other words, uncommon because it is outside the range of someone's day-to-day experience? Does this not set an unreasonably high hurdle for progressive innovation?

Fourth and finally, who decides what is ordinary and what is extraordinary (or what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, what is decent and what is indecent)? Would it benefit society to have an ardent advocate of national socialism in such a role? Clearly, it would not. So then who would be the appropriate authority to classify anything as extraordinary (assuming that such a classification serves an important purpose - something beyond the awarding of a gold medal to an exceptional athlete or the sentencing of a serial killer to prison - which I do not)? In my estimation, an authority with that much power would have to possess extraordinary qualifications. Only an extraordinary person would be capable of determining what is extraordinary and what is ordinary. Such an extraordinary person would have to be not just intelligent but also worldly wise and courageous. Most important of all, s/he would have to be a moralist with a universal social outlook. Giving so much power to anyone else could do immeasurable damage to society.

EU Legislation on Herbal Remedies

2011-04-30T08:19:00.000+03:00

The fact is that this legislation recognizes the efficacy of herbal remedies. That is a good thing. But once you recognize the efficacy of the remedies, you have to worry about the way in which those remedies may be abused and also the way in which those remedies may conflict with other drugs that a patient may require or be taking. Hence, regulation is required, and the EU recognition of that need is ultimately a recognition of herbal remedies.

The main problem is with the regulatory process, which is very costly and largely devolves upon the consumer (via the small to medium scale producer or distributor). Medical care is a fundamental requirement of life and hence the cost of medical care should be borne by society as a whole and not by the individual citizens. Unfortunately, due to capitalism and considerable variation in the laws of the EU member states, the way in which the EU legislation is enforced will largely depend on the system of medical care in the EU member states.

Protesting the EU legislation is not a solution. And taking up that protest across Europe is a pointless and possibly counterproductive measure. What is needed is the establishment of PROUT to ensure a patient-oriented rather than profit-oriented medical system.

JTBS

2010-12-26T10:08:00.004+02:00

The 7000-year tradition of tantra prohibits the sale of any instruction connected with yoga, and I uphold that tradition. So, to make ends meet - and maybe to become rich along the way - I have long contemplated the establishment of a new Church.

The Church is called Just To Be Sure (JTBS). It is similar to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in that it distinguishes itself by its interpretation of the Sabbath. Let me explain.

In all of the three Semitic religions, the Ten Commandments is a common thread. All three Semitic religions accept the principle: "Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee." [Deut. 5:12, KJV] But all three Semitic religions celebrate the Sabbath on a different day. The Muslims celebrate it on Friday. The Jews celebrate it on Saturday. And most Christians celebrate it on Sunday.

Our new religion says that, given the different interpretations, we cannot be sure which day is correct. We may believe that Friday or Saturday or Sunday is the real Sabbath day, but we cannot know it. Perhaps, originally the Sabbath was celebrated on Saturday, but later God changed it to Sunday, and later still to Friday. Or perhaps, God changed the Sabbath day to Sunday, and the change to Friday was not valid. Or perhaps neither of the changes was valid, and it always remained Saturday.

So "just to be sure" - just to be sure that we actually are "keeping the Sabbath day and sanctifying it" - JTBS observes a compulsory 3-day Sabbath (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday).

All members of our new Church are free to determine the degree of strictness with which they will observe the Sabbath, but they would be prohibited from salaried work on those three days. All members of our new Church are free to practice whatever Semitic religious preferences they may have (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) or even any pagan preferences. All members of our new Church may be orthodox, conservative, or reformed in their outlook. In the JTBS priesthood, we will accept women and men, blacks and browns and yellows and whites, straights and gays. If any dogs or cats or other animals can pay for the course and pass our very easy exam, they may also become priests.

The only universal requirement of our Church is a three-day weekend, consistent with our three-day Sabbath. In other words, on religious grounds, our members will only be allowed to have a four-day workweek.

Depending on the JTBS denomination to which one belongs, members may be restricted in other ways. For example, one or more denominations of JTBS might prohibit military service. Other denominations of JTBS might insist on a special diet from kosher to low sodium to Asian vegetarian. JTBS embraces the full range of possibilities in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. And JTBS will also do a fair amount of scriptural reinterpretation on its own account.

For example, one of the first revisions you may expect to see implemented is a revelation regarding tithing. Heretofore, tithing was taken to mean the donation of 10% of one's income to the Church. But in JTBS, tithing will be only 3% of one's income. In this way, we hope to corner the market of blind believers at this time of great economic insecurity. And, speaking of the economy, one immediate benefit of JTBS will be to increase employment figures by reducing the number of hours that people may work.

That is JTBS in a nutshell. Converts are welcome.

A Personal Letter To Julian Assange

2010-12-26T08:21:00.000+02:00

Pardon me for yawning; but come on, Julian, where is the good stuff? I mean, the junk you are putting out with your WikiLeaks - it's so ordinary. Who doesn't expect governments to engage in backroom dealing, backstabbing, and - heck - even some spying. But where is the nitty gritty about how the US Government was behind the Twin Towers - how they blew up one of the buildings with planted explosives - and what about the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Get with it, dude. Thus far your gospel is just god-awful. Snore.

Spiritual Fraud

2010-11-07T13:40:00.003+02:00

So now the Pope has gone to Barcelona to consecrate an unfinished church as a basilica.

One of the privileges granted to a basilica is that supplicants may go there to purchase a plenary indulgence - the alleged full remission of sins for deceased persons allegedly languishing in purgatory. This is fraud built on fraud. There is no supernatural place called purgatory, and the Roman Catholic Church has no power to remit sins. What a nasty business! It is like selling dehydrated water to people suffering from thirst.

Indecision 2010

2010-10-28T15:46:00.002+02:00

Yesterday, Wednesday October 27, President Obama appeared on John Stewart's The Daily Show.

Over the nearly 30-minute show, Obama seemed uncomfortable with even the mild criticism that Stewart offered. More significant still, throughout the entire show, Obama was on the defensive. Rarely, did he say anything that sounded path-breaking or new. "Yes we can, but..." was Obama's new and not very impressive slogan.

Obama's arguments - mostly excuses - were pretty weak. For example, he stated that the rising unemployment figures over the last two years took place mainly in the first few months after he came into office. "Most of the jobs that we lost were lost before the economic policies that we put into place had any effect." Looking at the unemployment graph provided by the United States Labor Department, that statement is not very convincing. Rather, it seems that Obama's economic policies have had little or no success in stemming rising unemployment.

Despite being on the defensive - or maybe because of it - Obama came off sounding very arrogant. "We have made a lot of progress over the last 18 months that, from a historical perspective, ranks up there with any legislative session we've seen in history." But, as with his excuses, the boasts fell short of convincing.

The word I heard most often from Obama was "fair"... "in fairness", "to be fair", "here's what I think is fair", and so on. In my experience, one of the most insightful lines from Shakespeare is: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." On last night's The Daily Show, I think the President did protest too much. I think that whenever he used the word "fair", it meant two things: (1) that most of what he had just been saying was unfair (2) that what he was about to say would be very unfair.

Good News

2010-10-14T17:27:00.001+02:00

We don't often see such good news on the world front. The 33 miners trapped underground for more than two months deep underground have all been rescued.

I am very happy for the miners, for the people of Chile, and for all the concerned people of the world. Today a great victory was achieved.

Do Nations Have A Conscience?

2010-09-14T17:45:00.002+02:00

The French Senate is set to vote on banning the wearing of burqas... but not crucifixes. The Iranian Government released from prison an ailing American hiker... at a hefty "bail" price. And the Israeli Government is deporting children under 5 who were born in the country to resident mothers on valid work visas... in order to "preserve the Jewish identity of the State".

Buddha and the Gestalt Therapist

2010-09-09T18:17:00.004+03:00

A man goes to the Buddha and insults him. The Buddha remains unaffected.

The man gets confused. He asks the Buddha: "Don't you realize that I just insulted you."

The Buddha says: "If you give me an apple but I don't accept it, where does the apple go?"

The man replies: "Naturally, the apple remains with me."

The Buddha then says: "I did not accept your insult."

That's a story most of us have probably heard many times. The story probably inspired us also. But how do you suppose a Gestalt therapist would interpret it?

If a Gestalt therapist had observed this exchange - or if the Gestalt therapist had been the man giving the insult - then my guess is that the therapist would recommend lengthy treatment for the Buddha. And the Buddha would just smile, thereby confirming what both believe.

Hawking on God and Gravity

2010-09-04T07:23:00.002+03:00

London, England (CNN) -- Religious leaders in Britain on Friday hit back at claims by leading physicist Stephen Hawking that God had no role in the creation of the universe.

In his new book The Grand Design, Britain's most famous scientist says that given the existence of gravity, " universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he wrote.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."

Hawking's understanding of cause and effect is as primitive as that of Western religicos. He recognizes only efficient cause and not the even more significant material cause. In this universe, something does not come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing, and something comes from something. Gravity is not God. It is just one expression of the natural law of attraction.

Iran Sanctions - Irrational And Immoral

2010-06-10T07:10:00.006+03:00

I don't expect the new sanctions to accomplish anything good. Even if Iranians were not a proud people and Ahmadinejad not a raving fanatic, still sanctions would be a poor strategy.

Economic sanctions have become a bulwark of United States foreign policy. Some estimate that about 200 nations - and almost half the population of the world - are currently under economic sanction by the USA.

Do economic sanctions work? In other words, do they achieve the stated objectives? That is hard to quantify. Even when the stated objectives take place and economic sanctions are already in place, it does not mean that the two events are causally connected. But the concurrence of these two events is rare. It has happened in only 20-25% of the cases.

What we do know about sanctions is that they tend to hurt not only the ordinary people of the targeted nation but also the ordinary people of the sanctioning nation. About the only people that sanctions rarely inconvenience are the politicians in both nations. Both sets of politicians generally make quick and easy capital out of sanctions.

Israeli Attack On Aid Flotilla

2010-06-01T09:08:00.001+03:00

Israel's unbalanced action is yet another painful reminder of the defective notions of "national sovereignty" and "united nations". Such fictions inexorably lead us toward another global war. World government is the only solution.

Oil Spill Measures - Too Little, Too Late

2010-06-01T09:07:00.000+03:00

Every step of the way so far, it seems like those responsible and those in a position to do something have understated the problem and minimized their response. BP - just business as usual. Obama - tall talk with no connection to his actions or lack thereof. And Al Gore - Al who?

Obama Report Card

2010-01-05T06:10:00.002+02:00

Unlike most new presidents, Obama seems to be doing just as poorly on the international front as he is on the domestic front. Oslo (Nobel Prize) and Copenhagen (Environment Conference) were both disastrous in terms of public relations, if nothing else. On the home front, the health care bill seems to be mired again, unemployment is increasing, prices are rising, terrorism - or allegation of terrorism - is once again a daily occurrence, and ordinary civil liberties are set to
erode further.

Instead of Barack Obama, we might as well call him Bush Obama. That's "Bush" on two counts - historical and semantic.

First, Obama's key economic and military advisers and hence his policies in those areas are little different from that of his predecessor, George Walker Bush. And, though Obama speaks more coherently than his predecessor, the content of his speeches is comparably inane and his conduct with others is comparably tactless.

Second, Obama's performance is indeed bush, that is, "falling below acceptable standards" and "unprofessional". Little wonder that the majority of Americans now disapprove of their president's performance.

At the rate with which Obama's approval ratings have been sinking, he is soon likely to make Bush look good. In that case, I may have to find a new moniker for the man.

Nobel Peace Prize?

2009-12-11T03:50:00.003+02:00

Thirty-five years ago, I wrote an article about the political nature of the Nobel prize selection process. But over the years - with all the questionable choices that were made - none struck me as so thoroughly undeserved as Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. What has he done? Sent more troops to Afghanistan?

Obama's acceptance speech spoke more of war than peace. Obama described himself as a Commander In Chief, engaged in two wars, who, "like any head of state, reserve[s] the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend [his] nation." To soften that saber-rattling remark, his only concession was a platitude: "Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do and isolates and weakens those who don't."

An honest man would have refused the Nobel Prize as undeserved. Had he done so, I would have thought higher of Obama. Today, he just looks like a pompous hypocrite, rather a polished satan. "Great humility"... I think not.

Roman Polanski - Exposing the Hollowness of American Ethics

2009-10-02T05:23:00.006+02:00

When it comes to ethics, are the rules not common to all? Or is there one set of conduct rules for celebrities and another set of conduct rules for everyone else?

With few exceptions, Americans seem to be universally appalled when a Catholic priest abuses children. But when the same abuse is committed by a celebrity, many Americans would turn a blind eye. Yes, the priest's hypocrisy does have a compounding effect. But that is not a sufficient explanation for the double standard. The misuse of power or influence to sexually abuse children is more appalling than any priestly hypocrisy.

Michael Jackson or Roman Polanski - child abuse is child abuse. Regardless of any artistic skill, there is no excuse for drugging and molesting a thirteen-year-old.

Chavez=Ahmadinejad?

2009-09-06T19:16:00.000+03:00

According to Hugo Chavez, currently in Iran:

Tehran and Caracas should help revolutionary nations through further expansion and consolidation of their ties.

Everyone knows that Hugo likes to portray himself as a revolutionary. And, as Hugo is a revolutionary, therefore Venezuela is a revolutionary nation. If Hugo says that Iran is also a revolutionary nation, then presumably he considers Mahmoud to be a revolutionary like himself. The question is: Does anyone else in the world define revolutionary the same way as Hugo?

The Continuum Is The Goal

2009-08-26T06:50:00.000+03:00

While Obama tries to push through a reform bill on health care, it seems that there is an urgent health issue that is not being adequately addressed:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The H1N1 flu virus could cause up to 90,000 U.S. deaths, mainly among children and young adults, if it resurges this fall as expected, according to a report released Monday by a presidential advisory panel...

And that apparently is on top of:

Up to 40,000 U.S. deaths are linked to seasonal flu each year, with most of the fatalities occurring among people over 65...

Unfortunately:

... the H1N1 vaccine isn't expected to be available until mid-October, and even then it will take several weeks for vaccinated individuals to develop immunity, the report says. The potential "mismatch in timing" could significantly diminish the usefulness of the H1N1 vaccine, the report says.

So what does the report recommend?

Speed up the production of the H1N1 vaccine and have an initial batch - enough to vaccinate up to 40 million people, especially those who are at risk of serious disease - by mid-September...

One can only wonder why it takes a report by a presidential advisory panel to come up with a recommendation as obvious as this? Why hasn't this been done already? Perhaps the answer is hidden in the words of Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

...the government's preparation and guidance for the public was based on the need to strike a balance "on a continuum of being paralyzed with fear versus complacency."

What type of continuum is that? Typically there would be opposites at the two ends of a continuum. For example you could have a continuum from bad to good. In this case, rather ironically, the Health and Human Services Secretary is offering a continuum from bad to bad, from static to static.

So perhaps the continuum is the goal. Perhaps it is all about having the government and the general public both paralyzed, either with fear or with complacency.

PROUT (The Movie)

2009-08-18T18:09:00.003+03:00

A new movie to introduce the Five Fundamental Principles of PROUT is currently scheduled for release around the end of October. Have a look at the promotional video at PROUTfilms.

At What Cost?

2009-07-17T18:15:00.000+03:00

For the last two days the US stock market is going up again, but...

Yesterday's news:

The number of U.S. households on the verge of losing their homes soared by nearly 15 percent in the first half of the year as more people lost their jobs and were unable to pay their monthly mortgage bills.

Foreclosure filings rose more than 33 percent in June compared with the same month last year and were up nearly 5 percent from May.

Today's news:

June unemployment topped 10 percent in 15 states; Michigan rate exceeded 15 percent

1 in 6 People Hungry

2009-06-19T17:36:00.000+03:00

It is almost inconceivable that human society can tolerate such a
condition:

UN: World hunger reaches the 1 billion people mark

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
ROME

A UN food agency said a record 1.02 billion people are hungry across
the world, or one-sixth of humanity.

The Food and Agriculture Organization said the historic high is the
result of the financial downturn combined with persistently high food
prices.

The number of hungry people is about 100 million higher than last
year.

The agency's Director-General Jacques Diouf said the hunger crisis
"poses a serious risk for world peace and security."

The Rome-based FAO said in the report released Friday that almost all
the world's undernourished live in developing countries.

Some 642 million are hungry in the Asia and the Pacific region, and
265 million in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Election Day in Israel

2009-02-10T10:12:00.000+02:00

It's a national holiday... a major element in the hoopla that sustains the illusion that democracy offers a meaningful choice.

The mood of the Israeli public is decidedly hawkish. So Netanyahu will probably win another term as Prime Minister. The only difference that is likely to make is in the tenor of the rhetoric from Government. Expect more saber-rattling.

As to anything else - ethics, for example - Olmert did not set a high bar, but Netanyahu has shown no ability to surmount the self-seeking. Expect more scandals.

A Sense Of Proportion

2009-01-04T08:26:00.000+02:00

After the next Israeli elections, the primary reason for the latest war between Israelis and Palestinians will have disappeared. So the military action will probably diminish around then... until the next time some people in power (on either side) see a political advantage in starting an otherwise pointless military campaign.

However, my focus is mainly on the ethics of the war and the military strategy - largely from an Israeli standpoint. Most Israelis staunchly support the war (as is common in the early days of such type of action). However, when I ask any Israeli if s/he thinks that the war will bring about a reduction in Palestinian aggression against Israel, the response is invariably No.

When no one believes that this military strategy will be effective, how should we classify the killing of nearly 500 persons (and counting), the wounding of thousands of persons (and counting), and the large-scale destruction of both public and private property? Are we not talking about murder, assault, and theft out of hatred and, at best, for revenge?

The Complete Mantra

2008-11-27T09:31:00.000+02:00

While running for office, Obama regularly chanted out loud his campaign mantra. He also encouraged others to join in. Yes we can.

What we are learning during these transition days is that Obama's mantra has a second part, repeated silently after the first part. The complete mantra is: Yes we can... but no we won't.

Change We Can Believe In?

2008-11-27T09:21:00.000+02:00

While running for office, Obama could hardly speak a single sentence without using the word change. Most troops will be home from Iraq by the middle of 2010... he pledged. There will be a fixed timetable... he pledged.

Barack Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq:

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

But how likely is this to happen if Obama retains Robert Gates, who staunchly opposes a fixed timetable for bringing the troops out of Iraq? And, really, how credible was Obama's word on this, given his personal preference to send more US troops to Afghanistan? (Needless to say, sending more US troops to Afghanistan is a preference that Gates shares.)

Obama's spin on this is continuity. But so much continuity even surprises a skeptic like me. I doubt that McCain would have retained as much of the Bush legacy.

From all of the above, at least Obama's strategy for reviving the economy is getting clearer. And, no, there is nothing original - no change in substance or ethics - in that either.

Rational Cost Cutting

2008-10-13T07:25:00.000+02:00

As the bubble of capitalism has now burst, managers of large corporations are eager to improve their dismal decreasing profits by cutting costs. At first, they reduce perquisites, but soon they invariably resort to layoffs. Here I propose a rational, phase-wise approach to staff-related cost-cutting.

Phase 1: Reduce the salaries of high-level managers.
In this phase, reduce the salaries of such managers. Managerial bonuses and perquisites should be sharply reduced or even eliminated as the management goals clearly have not been met.

Phase 2: Consolidate high-level management.
In this phase, assign the duties of two or more such managers to a single manager. Managers who are relieved of their duties should be lowered in rank by one level, with the corresponding pay cut.

Phase 3: Reduce the salaries of middle-level managers.
In this phase, reduce the salaries of such managers. Managerial bonuses and perquisites should be sharply reduced or even eliminated as the management goals clearly have not been met.

Phase 4: Consolidate middle-level management.
In this phase, assign the duties of two or more such managers to a single manager. Managers who are relieved of their duties should be lowered in rank by one level, with the corresponding pay cut.

Phase 5: Consolidate staff on all levels.
In this phase, some employees will be laid off. Layoffs should be based on three factors: seniority, efficiency, uniqueness of contribution.

NOTE: This proposal is not a complete process of cost-cutting. Obviously, other methods may also be adopted simultaneously (for example, laying off anyone deemed to be responsible for significant profit loss and discontinuing product lines with minimum contribution to profitability). This proposal merely attempts to offer an efficient and humane approach to employee remuneration and job security.

Bailout Needs A Bailout

2008-09-28T18:42:00.000+03:00

Looks like Bush's bailout for the US economy needs a bailout.

The fact is that the US economy is a bubble overdue to burst. Just printing another $700 billion - based on little if any real wealth - is not going to solve anything. It will not restore confidence. It will only inflate the dollar.

Inflating the dollar might help a bit with exports... as long as prices do not go up as quickly as the dollar value goes down. But once the prices do go up, then the only effect will be that the purchasing power of US consumers will be reduced.

When consumer purchasing power is reduced, companies sell less. To increase or even just maintain profit, companies must offset their loss of income. For that purpose, they adopt cost-cutting measures like layoffs, reduced bonuses, hiring cheaper labor in another country, and so on. And that further reduces the purchasing power of US consumers.

Thus the downward spiral will continue.

Part of the solution to the problem is to maintain a more simple and transparent economy. This can be accomplished by tying the dollar value to bullion deposits and closing all speculative markets. But those measures are also only temporary stabilizers.

There is still one great problem to overcome. That problem is the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor that is inevitable under capitalism - a system where the individual's right to hoard vast portions of a finite aggregate wealth is largely unfettered.

The truth is that there is no fix for capitalism. The truth is that capitalism must be discarded. And so the US is fast heading toward a major social transformation. 1776 was a war of independence. Soon we will witness the real American Revolution.

Mene Mene Tekel Uparsin

2008-07-16T12:36:00.000+03:00

Israel gets 2 corpses. In return, it hands over 199 corpses. Okay, Israel gets the best of that part of the deal. No country needs extra corpses rotting in the ground. Indeed, burial space is at a premium in Israel, so much so that some politicians are even promoting cremation as a progressive alternative (much to the chagrin of the religicos).

But where is the prisoner exchange in all of this? Well, it seems that Israel must not only hand over 199 corpses, but... to pay for the service of clearing out their cemeteries... Israel must also hand over five captured enemies, including one callous child murderer whom the Lebanese - or, at least, the Lebanese Hezbollah supporters - will be welcoming home as a national hero.

So actually, there is no real prisoner exchange. There is only a prisoner gift. It is military madness. Can an army win a war when it trades captives for corpses? And, if that were not crazy enough, what justification can there be for carrying out such an uneven trade at a rate of more than 2 captives to 1 corpse? What sort of soldiers would give their lives for their nation... but only if their dead bodies are buried at home, regardless of how many compatriots must die to make that happen?

As with all other religious states throughout history and throughout the world, the writing is also on the wall here in Israel. The message is unchanged. Arrogant nation, your downfall is imminent.

Someone is sick...

2008-05-05T11:41:00.000+03:00

... but who and why?

More kids using anti-psychotic drugs

American children take anti-psychotic medicines at about six times the rate of children in the United Kingdom, according to a comparison based on a new U.K. study. With scant long-term safety data, it's likely the drugs are being over-prescribed for both U.S. and U.K. children, research suggests.

Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/05/psychdrugs.children.ap/index.html

Does A Body Good?

2008-05-03T10:09:00.000+03:00

Researchers are experimenting with deep brain stimulation (DBS) to counter depression. According to CNN, "From the cerebral cortex, wires are tunneled behind the ear into the chest, where there's a power source for the electrodes that emit electrical impulses into the brain."

For now at least, this would not be used on people with only occasional and mild depression. Currently, this is only for people whose problem is not just severe but life-threatening - people for whom all other treatment (psychotherapy, drug therapy, and electroconvulsive therapy) has failed. But the possibility of this type of treatment does raise an interesting question about where we are heading.

In future, will each human body be tweaked with mechanical devices for better physical and mental performance? If so, what percentage will be mechanical? Will we even need a biological body?

Silver Rain

2008-05-03T10:02:00.000+03:00

A major cosmopolitan center has a new, Conservative mayor with a penchant for elitist views. And two named men were just jailed there for blackmailing an unnamed royal.

Someone somewhere has to know
Silver rain was falling down
Upon the dirty ground of London Town
Paul McCartney & Wings

Obama and Wright

2008-04-30T15:36:00.000+03:00

Apparently, the Reverend Wright controversy is still dogging Barack Obama. It seems to be the number 1 topic on many talk shows. However, none of the panelists or interviewers that I have seen came to grips with the issue better than Jon Stewart when he asked Obama: "Should you become president, is it your intention to enslave the white race?" Obama's reply was: "No, it is not." But, then, what else could he have said?

Political campaigns are like religious proselytization. In the final analysis, voters are expected to make a leap of faith in the choice of a savior. Pardon me, but I neither get nor expect to get rapture from any of the main candidates.

A Good Week for Supporters of the Pope and Conspiracy Theories

2008-04-20T11:19:00.000+03:00

I would have titled it differently, but the terms, "papist" and "conspiracy theorist", are typically used in a disparaging fashion. Despite my personal skepticism in both directions, that is not my intent here.

From a distance, it seems that the Pope's visit to the USA has been successful. His well-planned - presumably well-scripted - diplomacy has gone smoothly, without a single gaffe that I have heard about. He has reached out to just about every segment of North American society, speaking compassionately about local issues, perhaps most notably pedophilia by priests. A Pope who before was largely unknown has now, to some extent at least, touched the hearts of the people.

Of particular interest to me is the somewhat socialist theme that threads its way through many of the Pope's pronouncements. That lends insight into the current strategy of the Vatican - a strategy that was necessarily revised after the fall of the Soviet Union, leaving Russia bereft of its superpower status.

Another development this week is a rekindling of interest in the RFK assassination. I cannot say much about the credibility of the arguments being made. I wait to hear a rebuttal from experts. But the main thrust of the argument seems to be that there must have been a second shooter - someone other than Sirhan Sirhan.

I wonder how much this really matters today, thirty years after the event. Of course, if Sirhan is innocent, it would matter to him. But another smoking gun would not prove Sirhan's innocence. On the contrary, it only makes it possible for Sirhan to remain legally guilty for the shooting of RFK in the back, even though Sirhan might never have been behind RFK (as has been alleged). Perhaps more important, proving that there must have been a second gun is still a long way from establishing who fired that gun.

109 Million

2008-04-05T08:43:00.000+03:00

"Clintons Earned More Than $109 Million Since 2000"

And they call it "public service". Seems more like big business to me.

To What Standard?

2008-03-29T10:48:00.000+03:00

When Chelsea Clinton was asked about the impact of the Monica Lewinsky scandal on her mother's campaign, her reply was "I do not think that's any of your business." I disagree entirely.

The question was valid, if somewhat insensitive. Personally, I would have asked a much broader question. And I would address that question to each of the candidates. My question is: To what standard of ethics should presidential candidates - and presidents - be held?

Dalai Lama On Violence In Tibet

2008-03-29T10:39:00.000+03:00

It seems that the Dalai Lama is engaging in a metamorphosed sentimental politics.

He says that he does not support violence anywhere or at any time. A week ago, he said he would resign if the violence in Tibet continues. Then a bit later he said he would resign from his role as secular head of state in absentia. Then more recently he claimed to be "powerless" to stop the violence in Tibet. And now he wants to do some negotiation with China. He says that he does not want independence for Tibet - he just wants some sort of autonomy. But why should China negotiate over Tibet with a man who no longer accepts secular leadership of the country and who claims to be "powerless" to control the Tibetan protesters?

Obama's Race Speech

2008-03-29T10:33:00.000+03:00

A long speech, well-delivered, but I would sum it up in two words - selling reformism.

Quite frankly, there were a lot of remarks in the speech that were certainly false, especially when Obama was talking about himself and why he does things. There were also a lot of remarks that were just an unabashed attempt to play on the sentiments of the audience. But at the heart of it all was Obama's pseudo-reformist strategy.