Desiring Machine

A nice Nietzsche quote I recently came upon.

For all things are baptized at the well of eternity, and beyond good and evil. But good and evil themselves are but shadows inbetween and damp afflictions and wandering clouds.

~Thus Spoke Zarathustra III

The BBC has a nice overview of Nietzsche.

For a very long time the notion of debate has been tainted in our popular civic culture. A seamingly common sensical but ultimately corrosive idea has dominated the popular notion of what constitutes debate. It is more often than not presented that debate is constituted through the engagement of direct and polar opposite arguments. Perhaps this view of debate stems from a hegelian dialectical intellectual tradition. The notion that progress only grows out the agonistic tension between thesis and antithesis. In the political sphere and mass media more often than not this has lead to a reactionary mode of discussion between fringe elements of the left and right that tries to pass itself off as informative to the public.

A real debate is one in which there is an oppositional tension but each side raises genuinely legitimate insights. Consensus can be built but simultaneously there are real points of difference. With a good debate the audience comes away from with a real dilemma. All sides are presented so well that coming to a single conclusion is nearly impossible.

It is in this spirit of debate that I point you to a most excellent debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges about religion and politics. A lot of subtle perspectives and insights are well served in this debate. Harris and Hedges have genuinely divergent points of view. I am sympathetic to Harris’ perspective, but I was equally impressed by how well Chris Hedges presents the case for religious moderation. I came away from this debate genuinely torn but equally satisfied and excited. The questions are difficult and the responses profound.

Ran across this little clip on You Tube. Forgot just how brilliant Monty Python was. Looking back I can see just how foundational Monty Python has been to my general outlook on life. Catchy little ditty too.

The Republican party has long tried to assert its libertarian underpinnings. But the reality has been that Freedom is just another effective political buzz word that conservatives like the bandy around. Republicans are no more the party of freedom than they are same party of Lincoln. They have been shot through with radical and often times conflicting social agendas that are self serving in the extreme. The current state of the party leaves much to be desired in the protection of freedom and liberty. One of the most shameful displays of this betrayal was the passage of a port sercurity bill that included a rider outlawing internet gambling and poker. During the debate of this unlawful gambling bill Democrat Barney Frank makes some very great points and sounds like a true patriot of freedom:

Now there is lots to be said about gambling, its addictive qualities, and the moral and aesthetic pros and cons. But my interest politically is much broader. This is a genuine opportunity for Democrats on the left to take back and own the concept of freedom and the positive aspects of libertarian philosohpy. Many on the left deeply understand the problems of fascism and the tangible ways that the republicans have eroded civil liberties in this country. Whether it is hadeas corpus, secrecy, circumvention of due process, anti choice for women, etc. But poker and gambling is one of those things that connects to a lot of people, not just the ones who subscribe to ACLU newsletters and the Nation. Taking up the cause of gambling is a way to show consistency on issues of freedom. There is a reason so much is going on in Nevada this primary season and it is time for Democrats to claim its rightful place as the party of freedom.

We need to remind people that Democrats stand for sensible policy and personal freedom. That is what “Liberalism” has always been about. Throughout the 20th century and especially after WWII and Fascism in Europe, America has been a bastion of Liberal democratic principle and enlightenment. The Democrats were the dominant party in this era, times were good, and the country and the world moved forward. Geoofrey Nunberg makes a compelling argument about the rhetorical power of “freedom” and how it was captured by the right sometime around Reagan’s presidency.

Along with the trashing of the liberal label, the modern right can count the capture of the language of freedom as one of its signal linguistic triumphs. Indeed, you could argue that it’s even more crucial for liberals to recapture freedom than to recapture their own name, and certainly more important than recapturing “values”.

..

When you [the right] invoke the ideal of freedom to defend your opposition to the minimum wage or motor-voter laws, you have to pretend that it’s exactly what George Washington’s troops suffered for at Valley forge–the same thing, not a new, metaphorical sort of freedom. That’s why “freedom” isinevitably a commodius and expansive word. As the historian Daniel Rodgers noted, it’s used to “bind together the confusions and discordances of American life with a single, powerfully flexible noun.”

The defense of our right to gamble anywhere we choose as Barney Frank so elengantly does in the above you tube clip is one cause Democrats would do well champion. This is the kind of issue that resonates with a wide swath of people, especially people not tuned into the minutia of the political landscape. And when it comes to poker in particular we should remind them that the buck stops here when it comes social cultural authoritarianism. And by the way that phrase “the buck stops here“… that’s was orginally a poker term that was made famous by our gambler in chief Harry Truman, an avid poker player and a Democrat.

Bill Clinton is really great in this recent speech at Georgetown. I really like what he says about philosophy vs. ideology. The idea that you are committed to a position but you are engaged in a manner that compells you to seek out evidence and argument. The idea that you are open to learning and your position can become informed with new evidence as it emerges. This attitude is marked by a kind of intellectual curiosity about the world. I really identify with this notion and think that the flexibility it generates is really important for actually creating positive change in the world. Clinton really is great. Despite all his personal flaws I think intellectually he is right on the button. He made a great president and I think his wife will make a great president as well.

Well it seems Google is becoming a victim of their own success.

And that is the problem with becoming a cultural phenomenon. The law ceases to protect you. What is happening to Google is what Gilles Deleuze would call a deterritorialization or line of flight.

“Multiplicities are defined by the outside: by the abstract line, the line of flight or deterritorialization according to which they change in nature and connect with other multiplicities. The plane of consistency (grid) is the outside of all multiplicities. The line of flight marks: the reality of a finite number of dimensions that the multiplicity effectively fills; the impossibility of a supplementary dimension, unless the multiplicity is transformed by the line of flight; the possibility and necessity of flattening all of the multiplicities on a single plane of consistency or exteriority, regardless of their number of dimensions.”

~ Gilles Deleuze Thousand Plateaus

The semantic disruption of Google is possible because of its multiplicitous nature. Googling is a nomadic experience. A process by which one moves adrift through the chance encounters of reality and linguistic relationships that bind them together. The network that Google corporation glues together traces out the very grid that we live within. In a word Google has become ours because it has weaved together through its tapestry of search algorithms, technologies, and interstitial existences the very fabric of our being. When you become that co-aligned with the grid you no longer continue operating as a separate autonomous unit of being. Your identity is lost, you become nomad.

It is remarkable the rhetoric and logic of ownership, trademark, and corporatism. To presume that things are fundamentally discrete and can be owned, or even that language can be owned and controlled because it is part of a brand. Rarely is it mentioned that Google is the product of us. What is compelling about Google is that it weaves together the products of our being, whether they be blogs, news, video clips, webpages, text, audio, utterances and disclosures. That is the soup of life and tapestry of our weaved web. Google owns it no more than you or I own it. It is a territory that defies territorialization. And Google, being successful in providing the services that effectively allow us to traverse this web, finds that their brand has become something that they no longer really have any control over. And so goes the logic of control when confronted with the force of deterritorialization. Google is a line of flight that traces, it is no longer a stable place, entity, or idea.

Hey Google, I got your google right here!

I have been reading Geoffrey Nunberg’s latest book Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show.

It is a great book because it does an excellent job outlining the specific ways language permeates our politics. I will attempt a full review once I am finished but I do want to showcase this excellent point Geoffrey makes early in the book about Orwellian “Newspeak” and political language:

That’s the paradox of our attitudes about political language: each of us believes that we’re inured to manipulation, but that everyone else in the room is susceptible to it. There’s always an undercurrent of condescension when people describe some bit of language as Orwellian: “Mind you, I’m not fooled for an instant, but Joe Sixpack is likely to fall for it.” When we picture the prison house of language, it’s always from the outside looking in.

Came across a photo mosaic picture of George Bush using dead soldiers from the Iraq war.

Reminds me very much of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan

And I suppose this makes sense because Bush’s policies seem to abide by Hobbes’ social and political theory. Hobbes presented us with the notion of the sovereign as follows with twelve principal rights:

1. because a successive covenant cannot override a prior, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
2. because the covenant forming the commonwealth is the subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.
3. the selection of sovereign is (in theory) by majority vote; the minority have agreed to abide by this.
4. every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects, and cannot be accused of injustice.
5. following this, the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.
6. because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
7. to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
8. to be judge in all cases.
9. to make war and peace as he sees fit; and to command the army.
10. to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
11. to reward with riches and honour; or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
12. to establish laws of honour and a scale of worth.

~Source: Leviathan wiki.

Hobbes argues for the sovereign because his world view presupposes Bellum omnium contra omnes, a Latin phrase meaning “the war of all against all”,

I know one thing, under King George life is nasty brutish and short.

Update:

For those interested here is the full text of the 12 principals as stated by Hobbes himself:

The Consequences To Such Institution, Are

I. The Subjects Cannot Change The Forme Of Government From this Institution of a Common-wealth are derived all the Rights, and Facultyes of him, or them, on whom the Soveraigne Power is conferred by the consent of the People assembled.

1. First, because they Covenant, it is to be understood, they are not obliged by former Covenant to any thing repugnant hereunto. And Consequently they that have already Instituted a Common-wealth, being thereby bound by Covenant, to own the Actions, and Judgements of one, cannot lawfully make a new Covenant, amongst themselves, to be obedient to any other, in any thing whatsoever, without his permission. And therefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; nor transferre their Person from him that beareth it, to another Man, or other Assembly of men: for they are bound, every man to every man, to Own, and be reputed Author of all, that he that already is their Soveraigne, shall do, and judge fit to be done: so that any one man dissenting, all the rest should break their Covenant made to that man, which is injustice: and they have also every man given the Soveraignty to him that beareth their Person; and therefore if they depose him, they take from him that which is his own, and so again it is injustice. Besides, if he that attempteth to depose his Soveraign, be killed, or punished by him for such attempt, he is author of his own punishment, as being by the Institution, Author of all his Soveraign shall do: And because it is injustice for a man to do any thing, for which he may be punished by his own authority, he is also upon that title, unjust. And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their Soveraign, a new Covenant, made, not with men, but with God; this also is unjust: for there is no Covenant with God, but by mediation of some body that representeth Gods Person; which none doth but Gods Lieutenant, who hath the Soveraignty under God. But this pretence of Covenant with God, is so evident a lye, even in the pretenders own consciences, that it is not onely an act of an unjust, but also of a vile, and unmanly disposition.

 

2. Soveraigne Power Cannot Be Forfeited Secondly, Because the Right of bearing the Person of them all, is given to him they make Soveraigne, by Covenant onely of one to another, and not of him to any of them; there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection. That he which is made Soveraigne maketh no Covenant with his Subjects beforehand, is manifest; because either he must make it with the whole multitude, as one party to the Covenant; or he must make a severall Covenant with every man. With the whole, as one party, it is impossible; because as yet they are not one Person: and if he make so many severall Covenants as there be men, those Covenants after he hath the Soveraignty are voyd, because what act soever can be pretended by any one of them for breach thereof, is the act both of himselfe, and of all the rest, because done in the Person, and by the Right of every one of them in particular. Besides, if any one, or more of them, pretend a breach of the Covenant made by the Soveraigne at his Institution; and others, or one other of his Subjects, or himselfe alone, pretend there was no such breach, there is in this case, no Judge to decide the controversie: it returns therefore to the Sword again; and every man recovereth the right of Protecting himselfe by his own strength, contrary to the designe they had in the Institution. It is therefore in vain to grant Soveraignty by way of precedent Covenant. The opinion that any Monarch receiveth his Power by Covenant, that is to say on Condition, proceedeth from want of understanding this easie truth, that Covenants being but words, and breath, have no force to oblige, contain, constrain, or protect any man, but what it has from the publique Sword; that is, from the untyed hands of that Man, or Assembly of men that hath the Soveraignty, and whose actions are avouched by them all, and performed by the strength of them all, in him united. But when an Assembly of men is made Soveraigne; then no man imagineth any such Covenant to have past in the Institution; for no man is so dull as to say, for example, the People of Rome, made a Covenant with the Romans, to hold the Soveraignty on such or such conditions; which not performed, the Romans might lawfully depose the Roman People. That men see not the reason to be alike in a Monarchy, and in a Popular Government, proceedeth from the ambition of some, that are kinder to the government of an Assembly, whereof they may hope to participate, than of Monarchy, which they despair to enjoy.

 

3. No Man Can Without Injustice Protest Against The Institution Of The Soveraigne Declared By The Major Part. Thirdly, because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a Soveraigne; he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the rest. For if he voluntarily entered into the Congregation of them that were assembled, he sufficiently declared thereby his will (and therefore tacitely covenanted) to stand to what the major part should ordayne: and therefore if he refuse to stand thereto, or make Protestation against any of their Decrees, he does contrary to his Covenant, and therfore unjustly. And whether he be of the Congregation, or not; and whether his consent be asked, or not, he must either submit to their decrees, or be left in the condition of warre he was in before; wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever.

4. The Soveraigns Actions Cannot Be Justly Accused By The Subject Fourthly, because every Subject is by this Institution Author of all the Actions, and Judgements of the Soveraigne Instituted; it followes, that whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his Subjects; nor ought he to be by any of them accused of Injustice. For he that doth any thing by authority from another, doth therein no injury to him by whose authority he acteth: But by this Institution of a Common-wealth, every particular man is Author of all the Soveraigne doth; and consequently he that complaineth of injury from his Soveraigne, complaineth of that whereof he himselfe is Author; and therefore ought not to accuse any man but himselfe; no nor himselfe of injury; because to do injury to ones selfe, is impossible. It is true that they that have Soveraigne power, may commit Iniquity; but not Injustice, or Injury in the proper signification.

 

5.What Soever The Soveraigne Doth, Is Unpunishable By The Subject Fiftly, and consequently to that which was sayd last, no man that hath Soveraigne power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by his Subjects punished. For seeing every Subject is author of the actions of his Soveraigne; he punisheth another, for the actions committed by himselfe.

 

6. The Soveraigne Is Judge Of What Is Necessary For The Peace And Defence Of His Subjects And because the End of this Institution, is the Peace and Defence of them all; and whosoever has right to the End, has right to the Means; it belongeth of Right, to whatsoever Man, or Assembly that hath the Soveraignty, to be Judge both of the meanes of Peace and Defence; and also of the hindrances, and disturbances of the same; and to do whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done, both beforehand, for the preserving of Peace and Security, by prevention of discord at home and Hostility from abroad; and, when Peace and Security are lost, for the recovery of the same. And therefore,

And Judge Of What Doctrines Are Fit To Be Taught Them Sixtly, it is annexed to the Soveraignty, to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are averse, and what conducing to Peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how farre, and what, men are to be trusted withall, in speaking to Multitudes of people; and who shall examine the Doctrines of all bookes before they be published. For the Actions of men proceed from their Opinions; and in the wel governing of Opinions, consisteth the well governing of mens Actions, in order to their Peace, and Concord. And though in matter of Doctrine, nothing ought to be regarded but the Truth; yet this is not repugnant to regulating of the same by Peace. For Doctrine Repugnant to Peace, can no more be True, than Peace and Concord can be against the Law of Nature. It is true, that in a Common-wealth, where by the negligence, or unskilfullnesse of Governours, and Teachers, false Doctrines are by time generally received; the contrary Truths may be generally offensive; Yet the most sudden, and rough busling in of a new Truth, that can be, does never breake the Peace, but onely somtimes awake the Warre. For those men that are so remissely governed, that they dare take up Armes, to defend, or introduce an Opinion, are still in Warre; and their condition not Peace, but only a Cessation of Armes for feare of one another; and they live as it were, in the procincts of battaile continually. It belongeth therefore to him that hath the Soveraign Power, to be Judge, or constitute all Judges of Opinions and Doctrines, as a thing necessary to Peace, thereby to prevent Discord and Civill Warre.

 

 

7. The Right Of Making Rules, Whereby The Subject May Every Man Know What Is So His Owne, As No Other Subject Can Without Injustice Take It From Him Seventhly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the whole power of prescribing the Rules, whereby every man may know, what Goods he may enjoy and what Actions he may doe, without being molested by any of his fellow Subjects: And this is it men Call Propriety. For before constitution of Soveraign Power (as hath already been shewn) all men had right to all things; which necessarily causeth Warre: and therefore this Proprietie, being necessary to Peace, and depending on Soveraign Power, is the Act of the Power, in order to the publique peace. These Rules of Propriety (or Meum and Tuum) and of Good, Evill, Lawfull and Unlawfull in the actions of subjects, are the Civill Lawes, that is to say, the lawes of each Commonwealth in particular; though the name of Civill Law be now restrained to the antient Civill Lawes of the City of Rome; which being the head of a great part of the World, her Lawes at that time were in these parts the Civill Law.

 

 

8. To Him Also Belongeth The Right Of All Judicature And Decision Of Controversies: Eightly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the Right of Judicature; that is to say, of hearing and deciding all Controversies, which may arise concerning Law, either Civill, or naturall, or concerning Fact. For without the decision of Controversies, there is no protection of one Subject, against the injuries of another; the Lawes concerning Meum and Tuum are in vaine; and to every man remaineth, from the naturall and necessary appetite of his own conservation, the right of protecting himselfe by his private strength, which is the condition of Warre; and contrary to the end for which every Common-wealth is instituted.

9. And Of Making War, And Peace, As He Shall Think Best: Ninthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the Right of making Warre, and Peace with other Nations, and Common-wealths; that is to say, of Judging when it is for the publique good, and how great forces are to be assembled, armed, and payd for that end; and to levy mony upon the Subjects, to defray the expenses thereof. For the Power by which the people are to be defended, consisteth in their Armies; and the strength of an Army, in the union of their strength under one Command; which Command the Soveraign Instituted, therefore hath; because the command of the Militia, without other Institution, maketh him that hath it Soveraign. And therefore whosoever is made Generall of an Army, he that hath the Soveraign Power is alwayes Generallissimo.

10. And Of Choosing All Counsellours, And Ministers, Both Of Peace, And Warre: Tenthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the choosing of all Councellours, Ministers, Magistrates, and Officers, both in peace, and War. For seeing the Soveraign is charged with the End, which is the common Peace and Defence; he is understood to have Power to use such Means, as he shall think most fit for his discharge.

11. And Of Rewarding, And Punishing, And That (Where No Former Law hath Determined The Measure Of It) Arbitrary: Eleventhly, to the Soveraign is committed the Power of Rewarding with riches, or honour; and of Punishing with corporall, or pecuniary punishment, or with ignominy every Subject according to the Lawe he hath formerly made; or if there be no Law made, according as he shall judge most to conduce to the encouraging of men to serve the Common-wealth, or deterring of them from doing dis-service to the same.

12. And Of Honour And Order Lastly, considering what values men are naturally apt to set upon themselves; what respect they look for from others; and how little they value other men; from whence continually arise amongst them, Emulation, Quarrells, Factions, and at last Warre, to the destroying of one another, and diminution of their strength against a Common Enemy; It is necessary that there be Lawes of Honour, and a publique rate of the worth of such men as have deserved, or are able to deserve well of the Common-wealth; and that there be force in the hands of some or other, to put those Lawes in execution. But it hath already been shown, that not onely the whole Militia, or forces of the Common-wealth; but also the Judicature of all Controversies, is annexed to the Soveraignty. To the Soveraign therefore it belongeth also to give titles of Honour; and to appoint what Order of place, and dignity, each man shall hold; and what signes of respect, in publique or private meetings, they shall give to one another.

Interesting statements by Rush Limbaugh as reported by Think Progress. Basically Limbaugh is pointing out that kids have a way of making fun. And it is not unheard of for teenagers to participate in a little gay bashing or perhaps find it funny to “lead on” someone over a chat room session. I didn’t think I would ever find myself saying this, but Rush kind of sorta has a point.

However, that does not excuse Foley and more importantly does not erase the fact that the Speaker of the House tried to cover things up in hopes that the issue would go away. Democrats and those on the left should be careful to not let self righteous indignation get in the way and cloud our message. It is a battle of talking points and the Republicans are scrambling to try and spin this anyway that they can that muddies the issue. And by “issue” I mean that it is the cover up stupid. That is the point and the main impetus behind the firestorm. Not to mention that the right has so cynically gay bashed, and spewed political hate that this scandal is all the more delicious because of the hypocrisy.

Far be it for me to defend predatory pedophilia and sexual harrassment in congress. However, I will point out that pederasty was an accepted practice in ancient Greece. One only has to read Plato’s Symposium and look at the relationship between Socrates and Alciabides to understand pederastic practices in ancient Greece.

Foley has shamed himself and his party. His political career is over. The real culprit is Hastert and the other enablers in congress who were willing to say or do anything to preserve power and cover up a troubling episode to save face. The sex talk and chat messages between Foley and his pages are profoundly boring. But what is fascinating to us is that the Republican leadership will go to any ends to lie and cover up any incident that might present egg on their face. The attitude of power at any cost is the real threat to our democracy because it begs the question of what other nefarious deeds and arrangements have so corrupted the congress that they feel emboldened to lie and obfuscate without end.

It is the coverup stupid.

Put that in your talking points memo and smoke it.