went a bit post-mad upon aldaily session on yet another rainy nov afternoon.. mostly getting pissed about ridiculously out-of-tune writing of the "i'm a scholar" sort of crack..

MJM, the LRB Victorian/Xn ethics and dev of science is pretty similar method to archeology of econ and mechanistic influence you publ earlier- relationship of emerging ideas to contempy culture- req reading if you haven't.. sure you can see bacon!

shiva - crazy, crazy story. I look forward to discussing with you on MSN soon.

I have had an amazingly interesting and nuanced week. Shall have quick recap, with formerly large things becoming small small occurences now... so girl I was interested in datin a bit, and she's interested in me, turns out she's a mom! Has a two year old, we all had a nice dinner (my Finnish friend and his girl, myself, Chiharo, and her daughter) and really don't know quite how that will play out, just know that fatherhood ain't for me at this point, and must be careful with the lady's feelings. We'll have a talk...
Then, my friend (who I constantly cuddle with but will never progress beyond that, well, never say never, but unlikely...) she's decided to quit the job. Perhaps not fully, depends how things play out, but she's definitely leavin a large chunk of it behind, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out as well. However, the likelihood that I shall lose my best friend in the town is fairly high now.
And here comes the meat. My Finnish friend, when attending a bible study camp many years ago, was in the adjacent room to a friend who was "possessed" or whatever you wish to say. Thru the ways the demon's voice called out Antti's name, saying "I'll kill you!" and other such things, as reported by my friend. A short time later, he also became possessed, and had to undergo an exorcism.
Now, you can think whatever you like about this. Once again, I don't think terms are that important - they simply frame our responses. Call something possession, and you are likely to respond from the spiritual side. Call it psychological disorders, and you are likely to respond from the chemical side. Both methods - and many others - have their uses in different situations. I don't much care what you want to call it.
Anway, my friend has had some reversion recently, and last night it happened when I was available. I was asleep in my boxers in my neighbor's bed (I tell you it is an odd relationship) when Antti's girlfriend came in crying. She asked me to go downstairs - she said he was going crazy. He had told her to get me. After grabbing jeans I went.
One corner of the room was filled with vomit. Antti was naked on top of his futon, stripped of sheets. The futon was soaked in urine and sweat. He never really saw me come in - his breath was as an animal's, gutteral rasping hard death breath. His eyes were moving crazily and his arms were flailing this way and that - his hands in awful contortions, sometimes pulled far behind his back exactly as one would see if there were a person there twisting it. His face and mouth were wild, his tongue usually stuck out far far. He would jump from his position - sometimes propelling himself from his knees, on which he sat, sometimes it seemed as if he were lifted by his arms. Occasionally, Antti would break thru - he would look at me quickly and say "I'm sorry! I can't control it!" and then he'd be back under.
I tried many things. I failed many times. He is deeply Christian and I tried casting the demon out in terminology I know he would find agreeable. In Christ's name I cast the demon away from this world, using many incantations. None worked. I tried calling Antti out, trying to fill him with strength - a few times he did come out, and he would say "I can think, I can see, but I can't control my arms" and indeed they would be flailing all over the place. I tried to keep eye contact with him and it worked, but eventually the renegade arms got in the way of the view and he descended again. I lay my hands on his head and got hit - expecting it I stepped back quickly and was only nicked, but Antti is a strong man and in this state I somewhat feared he would take me if it came to it.
Still, I kept strong in myself. I talked to the demon and stared it down - many times it wanted to attack me, looked for a sign of weakness or fear, but I knew it was only the fear itself that could allow something to happen, so I stayed centered and strong. I never feared. Even as I thought "If it ever gets good control it could smash that glass and cut my throat" and I realized there was palpible danger in the air, somehow that was ok.
However I was feeling demoralized. Safe myself - strong in myself - I was not helping Antti, not enough. His girlfriend came back in the room and he descended down again, to his original hard flailing state from the exhausted one at spiritual war with me. I sat and meditated on white light coming from buddha to my third eye and sending it on to Antti. My meditation was not concentrated enough - I should have practiced more, I should have been ready for this by now, but I wasn't and I simply accepted that. I felt what could have been some entity attacking me at my left elbow - a strange pain that wasn't like the usual aches one gets for no real reason. There was a similar echo in my right knee. Who knows if it came from within or without, but I managed to meditate it away, sending my strength to the affected areas.
In a lucid moment Antti asked us to call Tim - a devout Christian, quite hardcore. Tim had no insight, save that possessed people are supernaturally strong so beware - previously I had slapped Antti just as he was descending in an attempt to wake him as I was shouting "Open your eyes!" trying to get the contact back. The eyes opened, but it was the demon which said in an otherwordly voice "Don't make me angry!" and raised itself up, all veins in the head and neck popping, everything turning red from crown to collarbone. I raised myself up with it and kept hard eye contact, let it know that I had no fear, but at that time I knew it was damn close to attacking. I raised myself higher than it to reassure myself, give myself a better position from which to spring should I need to, and also because the demon really had no control over the lower limbs so it could not match me. From my towering glaring point it did retreat from the attack on me, but again went to work on Antti. So Tim's words were something I knew, but did make me shudder a bit thinking back to that.
He also said to just keep praying, as hard as you can. I rededicated myself to it. I meditated and recited mantras I made on the spot, breathing in impure and filling with pure, breathing in love and filling the room with love, filling the room with compassion, filling the room with wisdom, filling the room with strength etc. I called on enlightened ones to use me as a humble conduit and deliver the balm that Antti needed. After a time of this - I have no idea how long, 15 minutes, half-hour, maybe an hour - Antti had calmed sufficiently that he was asking for water - not free yet, but getting closer. His girlfriend gave it to him, and as he started to descend his hands starting to move she took one - I was scared that would cause the beast anger, but it was too weak. I saw the opening, and with tears in my eyes and cheeks from the concentration I was calling upon, my own weakness in the face of this and gratitude at the power I had found - I raised myself up and started the final incantation in the name of Christ, knowing that Antti was listening now. I assumed a pose that I felt bring me power and at one moment I noticed I was standing in the form of a cross. I kept repeating "In the name of Jesus, I command you to leave!" in various forms, refining it, eliminating the "I" so as to more fully use the power of all, eventually eliminating the "we" so as to fully become the power, eventually I knelt down and again placed my hand on the top of Antti's drooping head and with each breath I surged all my energy as best I could thru my arm, my hairs standing on end from the jolts. Whispering rapidly now I felt everything ending, and Antti fell to the floor, to sleep.
Today he is fine. I don't claim to know what happened. I don't know if I had something to do with his recovery, or if the simple exhaustion of freaking out until 6:30 am had put him out. Every time it's happened recently it's been preceded by intense drinking - from a pure drunken stupor the thing emerges. Beast, demon, hidden guilt or anger, I don't know. I do know that I was exhausted but felt purified as well. I put a lot into that, and it's gonna help me rebuild my meditation regimen I can tell. I'm quite sure that were I better prepared - no matter what the cause of Antti's episode - I could have ended it nearly instantaneously. Whether soothing an evil thing or smoothing a troubled soul, if I had more focused peace tranquility and love, it never could have gone on as long as it did (it was about 1 1/2 hours from my arrival to the end). Regardless, I feel like I've seen glimpses of other worlds this weekend - and now I head to Roppongi (in Tokyo) for an all-night escapade with friends, one of whom is leaving soon. I feel strange things are in the air, and it excites me.

South Korea fears economic meltdown in North
By Andrew Ward
Published: November 7 2002 22:05 | Last Updated: November 7 2002 22:05


Travel through North Korea and a famine-stricken landscape opens up. Oxen plough the fields, while broken machinery rusts by the roadside and factories lie dormant. The darkness that descends on towns at night exposes the shortage of electricity.


The country's recent admission that it is developing nuclear weapons has drawn the world's attention to the military threat posed by Kim Jong-il's communist regime. However, the picture in the countryside reveals an arguably bigger risk - the threat of economic failure leading to North Korea's collapse and a disaster for the region.

"The nightmare scenario for global investors is the collapse of North Korea and its forced assimilation by the South," said Mike Newton at HSBC.

Disintegration of North Korea would cause a crisis throughout north-east Asia. The state's 22m people would be left starving, its 1m-strong army could spin out of control and a wave of refugees would be unleashed. South Korea would be sent into recession by the cost of reunification, estimated at up to $3,200bn.

The risk of such a catastrophe, warn economists, has increased and could rise further if the US withdraws aid to North Korea in protest against the regime's clandestine uranium enrichment programme.

The prospect of military action against such a heavily armed enemy as North Korea is unappealing, so economic sanctions are one of the few options the US, Japan and South Korea will have when they meet in Tokyo today to discuss how to disarm Asia's most unpredictable state.

But any assault on North Korea's economy would be risky when it is struggling to manage the effects of economic reforms, according to Park Suhk-sam at the Bank of Korea, the South's central bank. "Without aid from the international community, North Korea cannot curb inflation. People will get angry with the regime and the possibility of collapse will increase."

North Korea's decision in July to increase wages and prices 18-fold in line with black market values was hailed as a step towards liberalising its command economy. Enterprises were given more independence and charges were introduced for utilities and housing, which had previously been free.

The reforms appeared to be modelled on China's example but analysts doubt North Korea's ability to emulate its neighbour.

"China liberalised prices step by step over 10 years," said Mr Park. "But in North Korea they liberalised all prices at once. This could cause problems ahead."

While China had natural resources, fertile land and a huge workforce, North Korea is short of all these. The only ways to revive the economy, said Mr Park, are foreign investment and development aid. But these will not arrive until North Korea resolves its dispute with the US.

Billions of dollars of aid offered by Japan have been made conditional on North Korea first scrapping its arms programme. The US is reviewing the 500,000 tons of fuel oil it donates each year as part of the 1994 arms-control deal that has been violated by North Korea's renewed nuclear activities.

Mr Park said withdrawal of US energy aid, which fuels 30 per cent of North Korea's electricity generation, would push it closer to collapse.

South Korea, terrified of the consequences of state failure in the North, will oppose any proposal by the US or Japan to freeze aid. On Thursday, North and South Korean officials opened four days of talks on economic co-operation in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, underlining Seoul's preference for engagement.

Washington has promised to maintain humanitarian aid even if energy aid is withdrawn. But the United Nations World Food Programme warned this week that 3m North Koreans would go unfed this winter because of a sharp drop in international donations to the country.

Most analysts argue that collapse is a remote possibility. Mr Kim appears to be firmly in control and the economy, although weak, has stabilised since the 1990s, when more than 1m people died of starvation after the collapse of trade with the Soviet Union.

"Any policy to try to collapse [North Korea] is fraught with risks that are unacceptable to both US and South Korean policymakers," said Mr Newton. "Pragmatism by both sides will prevail."

However, pessimists warn that North Korea could buckle as quickly and unexpectedly as the communist states of eastern Europe did in 1989. Just as defections from the eastern bloc increased before its demise, the number of North Koreans reaching freedom in the South has risen sharply, with the number expected to top 1,000 this year, against 538 last year.

As one diplomat put it: "North Korea is trying to emulate China's reforms, but it has much more in common with eastern Europe."

i like reading things i can call superb without a hint of irony. thanks. the "encouragement" bit (sentence 2 below) is at the very heart of what's referred to as approximationsgrad in ideology-conscious speak. this is a project of archeology i had not previously seen done on that discipline. love the mechanistic influence traced. but of course we're going much further here. without addressing the true origin, or actual causal function of the spin (the gap that's being approximated, the "status quo as a desired state", admittedly), properly, we would have gotten into some sort of post-modern spin of a self-perpetuating narrative or something fancy ["Paris fashion" hey] along those lines. human nature resolved nicely on the very own terms of those knights of the new world order, which obviously evapourates all the nonsense one is trying to construct on that. the most interesting feeling i had whilst reading it was, 'ok we know all this, and what is the "jist" [marshall] to this whole tale of human self-imagination?' what next higher level of reflection is feeling tickled here? yes, i am talking grand narrative.. if you're feeling ready to co-write edition two on "ethics of information: wrongdoing- unaware", on agency [a form of confusion really] and social groups constructing themselves in the realm of ideas everybody's fantasising about, reproducing themselves culturally(*), let me know. be aware that the modern neo-classical economist is what remains of the keynesian technocratic class installed following social unrest during the great depression and similar disasters. selling out without seeing too much of the bacon. consider the operator as an expression of the faulty human characteristic necessary to the Weberian monster of rationality. alienation. apple + snake. bifter.

(*) actually- sexual reproduction of groups! consider that the intellectual (albeit Christian) elites of the medieval period weren't supposed to reproduce sexually! Mental Christians hey.. love that Ned Flanders article.. cross-ref prob

N.B.: it's official. studying economics, and falling for one or more of the subject's ridiculous claims to wisdom, will turn you into a dick.

"Gode and Sunder concluded that there was no need to assume a rational, profit-oriented, homo economicus: outcomes were being shaped by the structure of the market, rather than by the nature of its participants. [...] Mirowski's vision of economics without homo economicus is so attractive partly because one disturbing aspect of performativity is that, by assuming egoism, economics may encourage it. [...] In most of their experimental groups, however, players invested around 40 per cent of their tokens in the collective exchange. Except, that is, when the game was played by graduate students in economics: they performed as rational egoists, with an outcome closer to the mutually impoverishing prediction of economic theory than that of any other group."

Just posted an article called "the imagined market" on the inquiry. its from lrb and is really rather interesting as concerns markets in general and particulary game theory (which is very popular round my way). Please do read - Phil for you it is mandatory! I know its length is gonna test your concentration span, but thats the name of the game!

after watching Bush & the republicans getting their way in the elections as well as on Iraq, I feel like just shunning the world, withdraw my participation because I am so dismayed with some fellow human beings... remember that discussion we had a while ago about human progress, Ryan? Well, we've just witnessed a huge step back.

from www.christianitytoday.comSaint Flanders
He's the evangelical next door on The Simpsons, and that's okily dokily among many believers.

by Mark I. Pinsky | posted 1/26/01
Today on American college and high school campuses, the name most associated with the word Christian—other than Jesus—is not the Pope or Mother Teresa or even Billy Graham. Instead, it's a goofy-looking guy named Ned Flanders on the animated sitcom known as The Simpsons. The mustache, thick glasses, green sweater, and irrepressibly cheerful demeanor of Ned Flanders, Homer Simpson's next-door neighbor, have made him an indelible figure, the evangelical known most intimately to nonevangelicals.
A 1999 survey conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide found that 91 percent of American children between the ages of 10 and 17 could identify members of the Simpson family; 84 percent of adults could identify them. In each case, this was a greater percentage of children and adults than could identify then–Vice President Al Gore. Many evangelicals would have no difficulty in recognizing Ned and his family as their own. Gerry Bowler, professor of philosophy at Canadian Nazarene College in Calgary and chairman of the Center for the Study of Christianity and Contemporary Values, calls Flanders "television's most effective exponent of a Christian life well-lived."

Like many of the series' characters, Flanders is the frequent object of satire. An Oral Roberts University graduate who is never without a Bible and a large piece of the True Cross (which saved his life in one episode when he was shot), Ned believes that an essential element of a good life is "a daily dose of vitamin church." Nevertheless, Flanders is a complex and nuanced character who often raises serious issues.

Consider his journey of faith. The root of his turn toward a structured religious framework is a traumatic childhood. When Ned suffers a breakdown and is institutionalized, he experiences flashbacks of his child psychiatrist employing eight months of sustained, "therapeutic" spanking to control the obstreperous little boy. His parents were "freaky beatniks'' who raised their son with no rules at all. Ned's reaction to this chaotic environment mirrors many studies of those who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s and, finding the freewheeling lifestyle unsatisfying or repugnant, gravitated to religion.

Ned's daily obedience
Religion informs nearly every aspect of Ned's life, from the doorbell that chimes "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" to his air horn that blares the Hallelujah chorus. Together with his family, he prays at meals and before bed. He attends church three times a week and tithes, contributing to seven other congregations, just to be on the safe side. He belongs to a Bible-study group and keeps notes stuck on his refrigerator with a sign of the fish magnet. Like many believers, he thanks God often for his blessings, for things as small as a beautiful day.
Ned believes in salvation through grace, and he expects Jesus' return to Earth at any moment. Yet Ned is also deeply immersed in the good works of the social gospel, beginning with the random (and typically improbable) donation of one kidney and one lung. His elderly grandmother lived with the family for a time. Ned volunteers at a foster home, hospitals, soup kitchens, and a homeless shelter.

Ned's Christianity plays a major part in the way he and his wife, Maude, raise their sons, Rod and Todd. Ned does not allow the kids to use dice when playing board games because dice are wicked. He is hesitant to buy the children Red Hots candies because there is a lascivious caricature of the devil on the package. The kids' favorite games are Good Samaritan and Clothe the Leper. The young Flanders boys are total innocents; they believe they are getting closer to God when they jump on the Simpsons' trampoline, and they complain that they only get to attend church three times a week. Ned is not immune to the familiar conflict between parental instruction on morality and the exigencies of modern life, especially when it comes to lying. Todd overhears Ned tell Homer that he can't come over to their house because they are visiting relatives. The boy knows it's untrue—though told to spare Homer's feelings. "Lies make Baby Jesus cry," Todd reminds his father.

Even Ned's various sideline businesses, some part of Flancrest Industries, reflect his faith. He sells religious hooked rugs on the Internet and Bible trading cards at the swap meet. Flanders is honorable in his business, sometimes to his detriment. His major plunge into the entrepreneurial world occurs when he gives up his job in pharmaceuticals to open the Leftorium, a boutique in the mall for all things left-handed. His morality and good nature nearly do him in. He spends the day ignoring shoplifters and chasing down a customer he inadvertently short-changed, and becomes known for validating parking even for passersby.

Ned admits that most of the time he is "about as exciting as a baked potato." Yet for all his sweetness, he does have an unpredictable side. A part of him yearns to fit in with his worldly friends, even when his efforts are outlandish. Given his muscular physique, Flanders is selected to play the role of Stanley Kowalski in the community production of A Streetcar Named Desire, a musical version called Oh! Streetcar! The director instructs him to play it as if he were "pulsating with animal lust." In another episode, Flanders sins on a grand scale, going with Homer to Las Vegas for a wild weekend, during which he goes on an all-night bender and (apparently) marries a cocktail waitress.

Ned grapples with other temptations of popular culture in various incarnations and, on those rare occasions when he succumbs to temptation, is quick to see divine retribution. He angrily runs off a shady cable installer who offers an illegal hookup. Instead, he turns to satellite television, which enables him to view more than 200 channels, almost all of which he then locks out for offensive content. Straying from his usual screen fare, like reruns of The Jim Nabors Show, he once watched Married … With Children (on the same network that produces The Simpsons). He insists he is afflicted with the flu for this lapse: "Oh, the network slogan is true! Watch Fox and be damned for all eternity!"

Ned's dark side
For all his admirable qualities, Flanders occasionally exhibits the zealous proselytizing that for many represents the unpleasant side of evangelical Christianity: an unwillingness to take no for an answer. After a typical misadventure, Homer and Marge lose custody of their children—Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. The state moves the Simpson children next door into the temporary care of the Flanders family. A family parlor game, Bible Bombardment, first reveals that Bart and Lisa have no grasp of the scriptural arcana that is common knowledge to the Flanders boys. The Simpson offspring then let slip that they have never been baptized. Rather than consulting Homer and Marge, who are taking court-ordered parenting classes, Ned dresses the Simpson children—who have voiced neither interest nor acquiescence—in white robes for baptism. At the Springfield River, he prepares to immerse them and asks if they reject Satan. Homer interrupts the involuntary rite before any water lands on Bart's head, saving Bart from being saved.
This situation is not as far-fetched as it may appear. As often happens in The Simpsons, the scenario illustrates a serious and historic theological issue, in this case involving religious commitment and free will. Forced conversions have been an all-too-familiar event in Christian history and even today. In a case that became a world controversy, a 6-year-old Jewish boy named Edgardo Mortara was taken from his parents in Rome in 1858 and raised as a Catholic after a serving girl claimed to have secretly baptized the boy when he was an infant. Closer to home and the present, parents in central Florida in the late 1990s sued a Christian daycare center for baptizing their children without their consent.

But above all, Ned is the good neighbor, his basic role in the series. "Affordable tract housing made us neighbors," he tells Homer, "but you made us friends." In fact, the opposite is true. Homer does everything short of mayhem to abuse Flanders. It is only by repeatedly turning to Mathew (19:19), Jesus' admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself," that Ned is able to survive the relationship, returning unconditional love for sustained abuse. Well, maybe not unconditional love. Ned is human, and so has limits, traits that reinforce his believability.

While Ned never suffers martyrdom for his faith, he endures Homer's scorn. Homer considers him "a big, four-eyed lame-o" who wears the same sweater every day, except to attend church. Homer tells Ned to shut up, calls him a liar and a square, nearly runs him over, and dumps garbage on his head. He refers to Ned by a variety of derisive terms like "Saint Flanders," "Charlie Church," and "Churchy La Femme." Flanders is actually the physical embodiment of "muscular Christianity," a man who would be right at home at a Promise Keepers rally. Ned works out to a buff build that belies his age, which he insists is 60. The secret of his youthful appearance, he explains to Homer, is that he "resists all major urges." Yet early in the series, he would take a drink, a beer, or a cocktail—he claims a degree in mixology—and he smokes a pipe. Ned has many of the accoutrements of the last decade's middle-class prosperity, like a boat (Thanks for the Boat, Lord II) and a summer beach house. On the other hand, he drives an uninspiring Geo station wagon, with a license plate reading jhn 143 (John 1:43, in which Jesus tells the disciples, "Follow me").

Ned takes literally Jesus words' in John 15:13: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." A volunteer firefighter, Ned says a prayer as he risks his life to save Homer from a house fire and, in the process of rescuing his neighbor twice, almost loses his own life. Homer assumes the fire is God's will, a notion Ned instantly rejects. As the fire spreads, the instantly ungrateful Homer observes that God is not sparing Ned's roof from fire, despite his piety and churchgoing. Suddenly, a small wisp floating above Ned's home becomes a rain cloud and douses the blaze. Then a rainbow frames the home.

Ned's tests of faith
In one episode, too much gratitude from Homer turns out to be a deadly thing. Again, prayer plays a central role as a plot device. Just after Homer prays for a ticket to a sold-out local football game, Flanders knocks on the door with an offer to take him. Homer decides he has been unfair to his neighbor, and determines to show his love. But the love is of the oppressive, smothering variety, and before long it is Ned who is praying—for the strength to survive Homer's friendship.
Feeling trapped, Ned dreams of climbing the church tower, singing "Bringing in the Sheaves" while assembling an assault rifle and picking off people below—all with Homer's face. He wakes, distraught, telling his startled wife that he thinks he hates his neighbor, something he knows is wrong and unchristian. Still, the next day Ned makes an excuse to avoid Homer and drives off with his family. In his haste to shake Homer, Ned is stopped for speeding by Springfield Police Chief Wiggum, who loudly (and erroneously) accuses him of driving under the influence of drugs, just as a bus full of horrified church members rolls past the scene. "Where's your Messiah now?" the chief asks in his best Edward G. Robinson accent. It's a good question for Flanders, who has rejected Homer's sincere, if irritating, efforts to be a good neighbor. For a man who puts his faith at the center of his life, where is Jesus now?

On Sunday, Flanders gets his answer. In the car driving to church, he is anxious about appearing at the one place, outside his home, where he feels most welcome and part of society. Maude assures him that the church is "a house of love and forgiveness." But as Flanders enters the sanctuary, people in the pews whisper that he is evil and "the fallen one." The church's pastor, Reverend Lovejoy, announces that the sermon topic is "What Ned Did." Ned compounds his sin by cursing Homer for whistling through his nose during silent prayer, further inflaming the congregation against him.

The role reversal is nearly complete as Homer defends Flanders, describing him—correctly—as a kind, wonderful, caring man who has "turned every cheek on his body" in the face of Homer's insults. "If everyone here were like Ned Flanders, there'd be no need for heaven. We'd already be there." Reverend Lovejoy is convinced, acknowledging that Ned deserves an apology. Flanders has clearly learned his lesson and later thanks Homer for being a true friend. Homer reverts to type, telling him to get lost, and all is right again in the world.

Ned the widower
In early 2000, after a nasty fight over money with the actress who provided the voice for Maude, the series writers killed the character in a freak accident. Al though Homer is accidentally responsible, Ned blames himself and is crushed. But Ned wouldn't be Ned if he didn't turn to God in his time of greatest need. Months later, still desolate, he prays, "Lord, I never question your will, but I'm wondering whether your decision to take Maude was, well, wrong—unless this is part of your divine plan. Could you please just give me some sign, anything?" Instead, there is only silence.
The next morning, Sunday, Flanders sleeps late, and tells Rod and Todd to attend church with the Simpsons—an act so out of character that the boys back out of their father's bedroom, gasping. Flanders vows not to attend church that day, and says he might not go the next day as well. In the very next scene, Flanders is speeding to church, repeating apologies for his momentary lapse of faith. He walks into the sanctuary and hears a Christian rock group. The beautiful lead singer seems to be speaking directly to him: "If you think God isn't there, or doesn't care, it's not too late to look to him for salvation." Ned, still standing in the aisle, is transfixed. This is the sign he prayed for. Outside the church after the service, he introduces himself to the singer, saying, "My name is Ned Flanders and I'm here every week—rain or shine!"

According to usually reliable sources at the fan-run Simpsons Archive, this season Ned will build a Bible-themed amusement park, called "Praise Land,'' in Maude's memory.

Maude's death prompted Frederica Mathewes-Green to write a paean called "Ned Flanders, My Hero" on Beliefnet.com. "Ned is endlessly cheerful because he is pure in heart. He treats everyone around him with generosity and kindness, and can't imagine they wouldn't treat him the same way. He is incapable of cynicism or contempt," unlike most residents of Springfield. While he may be a fool, she observes, he is the kind of fool who makes the world a better place.

Some observers see Flanders rather differently. Flanders is the show's "cheap shot at fundamentalists—which is why I like it," says David Landry, professor of theology and New Testament at the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Still, Landry said in a newspaper interview, Flanders illustrates "the virtues of hard work and honesty. Flanders is very successful, with well-behaved children, an excellent marriage. He's not portrayed as a real nut. I mean, he's got a beer keg in his basement."

Ned in real time?
In February of 2000, The New York Times featured a family named Scheibner on the cover of its Sunday magazine. Author Margaret Talbot described a family of nine fundamentalist Baptists ensconced in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley. On the surface, the Scheibners are similar to the Flanders family. There is no sports gear in the home because parents Stephen and Megan believe athletic competition would not be Christlike. There are Christian board games that Rod and Todd Flanders might enjoy. Stephen Scheibner is a pilot for American Airlines and a commander in the Naval Reserve who, like his wife, found his Christian faith in his teens. But, apart from voting and paying taxes, he and his family have consciously opted out of the surrounding culture.
Yet the Scheibners may be more of a caricature than the Flanders family, who are fully engaged in the world. "We will exaggerate some of Ned's beliefs as a form of comic relief," said The Simpsons' Mike Scully. "I think everybody knows a family like the Flanders[es]." Stripped of their comedic excess and hyperbole, how fairly do Ned and his family represent evangelical Christianity to the world? As an observant Jew raised in a Northeastern suburb, I may not be the best judge. Or maybe I am. For the past five years, I have reported on the evangelical movement—locally and nationally—for The Orlando Sentinel newspaper. More to the point, fate and my central Florida suburb have put me into close contact with a family I see as the Flanders family in real life. Until I raised the issue with them, they had no basis for comparison; they didn't watch the show or allow their children to watch it.

Dan and Lorraine Hardaway are an attractive, college-educated couple in their late 30s. Each experienced some degree of dysfunction in their early lives before turning to Jesus. Dan, who has reddish blond hair and blue eyes, works full time for a Christian outreach organization based in Orlando. Lorraine, whose auburn hair frames a face brightened by a toothy grin, is a stay-at-home mom. Their four children, who range in age from 6 to 14, are as good-natured as Rod and Todd Flanders but considerably more worldly. The Hardaways belong to a nondenominational, evangelical megachurch and a small Bible-study group. They sing in the choir and listen to a contemporary Christian radio station in their cars and at home, and hold conservative beliefs on social issues, although they disagree with some aspects of the Christian Right. For the most part, they grapple with the same things our family does: balancing their stretched budget and busy schedules, deciding what television show or computer game is appropriate for the kids. Like their neighbors, they made an accommodation with Beanie Babies, PokÉmon, and, after much soul-searching and consultation with Christian friends, the Harry Potter books. With their agreement, I use the family as a source, a sounding board, and a pipeline to ground-level believers for my newspaper reporting.

Are the Hardaways typical of evangelical Christians, as typical as the Flanders family? It's hard to say. We have come to know them pretty well in recent years. Our children attend the same public elementary school and the same scout troops at the school, and often attend the same birthday parties, which means we are often in and out of each other's houses. They are sophisticated and generally open-minded, and never press their religious or political views on us or on our children. It is apparent, though, that they draw strength from their Christian faith, which they try to apply to every aspect of their lives. I met them before I started watching The Simpsons, but I cannot watch the Flanders family without thinking of the Hardaways.

I showed them an early draft of this essay, loaned them some tapes from the series and asked them what they thought. "All in all, it would be flattering to be associated with Ned Flanders, based on what I know about the person and how he lives out his faith," Dan says. "There's an element of unconditional love in his life that accurately portrays Christianity." Some Christians might be put off by some of the idiosyncrasies associated with the character, like "nerdy behavior," he added.

Lorraine agreed that, as a family of believers, they are much closer to the Flanders family than to the Scheibners. "How else are people going to see Jesus' teachings lived out unless they see them in our lives?" she says. "It's very important that we're part of the world, that others can see the difference he's made and the truth we believe he taught and shared."

Mark I. Pinsky is a senior reporter who covers religion for The Orlando Sentinel. This essay is adapted from his book, The Gospel According to the Simpsons: The Spiritual Life of America's Most Animated Family, which Westminster/John Knox Press will publish in November.



Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
February 5, 2001, Vol. 45, No. 2, Page 28

Extremely amusing hoax story

Professor Bernard Williams is this country's greatest living philosopher. In his new book, Truth and Truthfulness, he tackles one of the most pervasive paradoxes of our times: while the concept of truth is often regarded with suspicion, there is still an intense commitment to the idea of truthfulness. Professor Williams will be online at 3pm on Tuesday November 12th to discuss these concepts and others which you care to raise on matters philosophical, political and academic. Post your questions now.

this is pretty funny and representative of the world we've chosen for ourselves.

Cambridge funds ethics classes with tainted cash.

Came across this whilst verifying Hicks quote earlier.

If I remember how to do it, this is an interesting link. Must say, this sorta stuff fascinates me, and wouldn't be surprised if some of it is true, especially since the higher up the ladder you go, the more leaders take this sort of thing very seriously...

Why do people like Bush? I have no idea. America scares me. Lots of very bad things are going to happen there in the next 2 years, I might end up an exile-by-choice (or force, things are just starting to play out, after all...)

good to hear that you're not giving up meat (but sad to hear you leaving EMHartglass & your new ethical stance). We'll go for a dog when we meet in Korea.

Just why do the US voters love Bush & the Republicans!!?????

As inexplicable as to why the Nazis were so appealing to Germans in 1930, except that the US doesn't have the economic ruin Germany went through.... what is driving this absurd fanaticism?

SJ

Thanks for allround encouragement - I might add though that I'll never quit eating meat. I may be more selective as to where it comes from, how it's been processed etc., but a life without meat... (nausea coming on... "No, I can't imagine!") Reference to vegetarianism was merely to highlight underlying principle.

Now, obviously, this shows that I'm not going to enforce the ethical principle in an absolutist fashion. There are obviously concessions to be made, otherwise life would be unbearable, at least in the developed world. For me it's rather an attempt to live more consciously, be informed and acquire information pertaining to the direct and indirect effects of my actions. I think this is what it is essentially. And I guess most people on this planet could change their existence or actions in accordance with this in a number of ways, quite easily too and without too much effort. It's a matter of awareness and choice, which in turn is basically a matter of self-awareness.
My ideas about commercial praxis are that, obviously, strict enforcement won't leave you in a very favorable position, at least not as far as variety goes. But I might, for example, avoid going to McDonald's or drinking Coke, never purchase Philipp Morris branded cigs (there are many good local, small brands all over the world - you've just never heard of them and don't know they exist) and on and on etc. There are many obvious places to start. I'd rather buy products from small companies as opposed to large monopolistic corporations, however, I certainly will weigh up the differences between ethical conviction and say, quality of the product (yes, I will still get myself a new VAIO someday). Awareness is what it's about, in a sense (and this is what I used to think), everything is fucked anyway, so all you can do (or what you should do really on the personal level) is prevent your self from falling into the same trap of ignorance and detachment, as we already have done collectively. And just to clarify at this point for SJ, this doesn't rest on anti-globalization sentiments, to be honest I haven't really made up my mind about these issues (can't really see how anyone could deny it outright...). Globalization increasingly appears to me as something that's not very tangible anyway, as word or process, when being described by all those great institutions and clever journals. In its implementation it's a political agenda, just like any other and I find it hard to relate it to my personal feeling about its effects on me or any nation state, or the whole world for that matter. Hence I don't feel that an approach from this (rather obvious) angle would offer me any insight into my self. The beauty of all this I feel, is exactly that, the fact that my ideas about this are not politicized. I considered this outside the political framwork and I'm pretty convinced now, that the world beyond politics has more to offer in terms of insight and self-realization. Unfortunately, this isn't obvious at all in our world today and to think with an explicit attention to avoiding politics is probably not possible at all. We always do find though, in politics an easy answer to our questions and where it trickles from there, you all know.

Would like to add to Ryan's mentioning of never imposing your conviction on others (like your vegetarian example). This is something that I always thought would be a difficulty, since feeling strong about something, especially an ethical issue, will lead you to regard the 'carnivore' or litter dropper as unethical, and you become one of those righteous souls who feel they need to impose their perspective on all the 'heretics' whilst going through life, enforcing this actively. However it ocurred to me the other day, that a true ethic couldn't possibly extend beyond the subjectivity of the individual, and an attempt to universalise this amongst your fellow human beings will mostly cause friction in an unhelpful way (as we might have mentioned in different contexts before). Plus, I feel that the enlightened soul would not see such missionary and righteous behaviour as a logical consequence to devising its way of being in the world. To me this isn't a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of personal choice. I would even toy with the idea that such an imposing enforcer couldn't possibly have an authentic relation to the idea he's trying convey. They seem to do this from the "universally right or wrong" angle, hence never so much thought about it for and in relation to themselves (apart from "I must not litter the street"), hence only do this due to external pressures. Nothing wrong about their ethics as such, but I think this is how, yet again, a universalisation of ideas can be deeply distorting for the collective unconscious and generally exude bad karma to all participants involved. So the next time I see Jesse throw an empty can of Super T into a body of water I wouldn't say a word (unless it was my private lake in my future mansion with 25 staff of course... ;-), Jesse just an example... empty littered cans I associate with Super T and, well, Super T and Jesse...?) ). He would decide to do so, and that's fine. I from now on would rather opt not to. C'est tout.

Regarding "The Next Industrial Revolution" I may try to get you a copy phil, as my aunt was the director, but really you should see it to understand the McDonough approach. He's not in the expansionist mold, because his entire basis for sustainability is in closed loops. He has two loops - the natural, and the technical (or chemical, artificial, what-have-you). It can adapt to APPEAR expansionist because, as long as the loop is closed, it can increase in size righ up to the finite limit (and that does NOT meaning using everything for human consumption, but leaving plenty for the ecosphere - one should see the film if possible). I find it an intriguing compromise between the needs of the earth and the current system. The loops work so well because you don't pollute - everything technical must reused, and this is not just babble but he's done this. And, of course, the natural is self-explanatory. To site some examples of each, let's look at two swiss companies he's worked with - a textile manufacturer and a paper mill.
If you know about paper mills, you know that they used thousands of chemicals, and pollute an enormous amount. Well, McDonough's company weeded out most of those chemicals, changed the way the process worked, recaptured the chems that were used, and the short of it is, when Swiss EPAish inspectors came to check the water entering and leaving the plant, they thought their machines were broken because the water exiting was actually CLEANER than that going in. Everything remained in the loop.
The textile is even more amazing. There were upwards of 2000 chems being used to create the fabrics, and of those, only 16 were found to be non-damaging (the whole thing was difficult to work, because almost all chem producers won't show you what goes into what they put out, just say "it's proprietary" and "it's legal" which is of course very different from being safe, but he eventually found two that would open their books - a Japanese firm that said, if money could be saved, great, and a Swiss one, which was looking from a more directly environmental angle) The reason McDonough was hired to fix the textiles is because the trimmings (every textile has to trim both ends of haggly stuff) was considered toxic and the plant was gonna hafta shut down. Long story again short, after they found the 16 safe chems and determined they could create all the colors with the same vibrancy using only them, after the changes were implemented, the clippings became fertilizer for farms (or could just start compost heaps, which they also did). That's the kinda loop that we're lookin at, and he's got a ton more examples, including working with Nike and, at the moment, he's redesigning the Ford River Rouge Plant (the father of all factories after). This includes not just makin the factory enviro-friendly, but the product as well - meanin he's at work on an eco-friendly car, from the fabric in the seat to the chassis. He's not workin on the combustion engine - that's got enough other stuff goin at it - but he's gonna have the rest of the car ready for the time when hydrogen becomes economical. When that project is complete, look for a lot more talk about this guy. A lot. Some of the stuff is just so simple - like the problem with rainwater, when it gets washed to the river in minutes via drainage systems, it picks up all sorts of nasties which get into the water. His solution - a grass roof. What rushed in minutes now takes days - what was once nasty nitrogen is now fertilizer (what's bad in one ecosystem is food in another). Plus, ya get a little more carbon-suckin out of it. He's got other places with entire gardens on the roof, trees and all. Added benefit - temperature moderator, you need less heat or AC in winter and summer. That's on the way just about everywhere, methinks.
I agree that commodifying nature is the next step on the political ladder, and it has already begun - many groups site things like "You save x dollars now, but the damage is estimated at xsquared" or such things, and the recognition that enviro-cost is bein unfairly written off. However, workin with such a step, I see a closed loop system - eliminating the concept of waste, perhaps McDonough's biggest contribution to the effort in the long run - as bein an important component. The great thing is, his vision is just startin to get really big - like you see from the garden rooves, it's not a large leap to creating buildings that are ecospheres themselves, ending encroachment by intregration. Exciting stuff, really - and I think we can all agree it is not expansionist. It does not chew up and spit out. A quote, near-quote really, from memory: "You can't say you don't grow something, you always grow something, it's just a question of what do you want to grow? Do you want to grow sickness, or do you want to grow health? Do you want to grow belching poisonous machines that use up resources at thousands of times the rate they were placed in the ground, or do you want to use renewables that contribute and give back to the world from which they come? Do you want to grow separation, or do you want to grow integration? Do you want to grow life, or do you want to grow death?"
Mike, this sorta thing goes deep into where you going, which I might add is wonderful territory. I am always flitting amongst these ideas, and have quite spotty downright hypocritical application. For instance, always said I'd never own a conventional-engined car; then I moved out to the boonies, and my girlfriend gave me one, and now I do (sidenote: good to shut the engine at lights, but do be sure to warm the car up cold mornings - if you start driving while the engine is still cool, you don't fully burn the fuel and the stuff belched in a semi-solid state is much much worse pollution than leavin your car idling for 2 minutes, probably less). Also, I should add into my vegatarianism, I don't think there's anything wrong with eating meat (and even if I did I would never try to stop someone else). Rather, I think it's the system we have now that is wrong. Quite wasteful, quite overdone for us westerners, quite separated from the spirit of the animal and the knowledge of the sacrifice being made. Eatin like a Native American, huntin what you need and using it all, saying a prayer over the slain animal as thanks for its gift to you, this is fine and I could see myself being comfortable in such a situation. Plastic-wrapped red substances, this is a problem for me, more than the death involved (as death is part of all natural cycles, and can be fine if not abused as we humans do). Still, I do like to try and extend such thoughts - I try to share of myself as well sometimes. When a fly comes to lick the salt from my sweat, instead of reaching for the swatter I just observe the way it cleans its head and legs, and enjoy the tickle (it's really a pleasant sensation, if you don't have the immediate revulsion that most people have). I even tried not to kill any mosquitoes, and let a few suck away at me, until I learned that they carry a fatal disease out here. I'm not ready to equate my life with that of a mosquito (well, really, many mosquitoes, as now I kill them when I find them, unless I am outdoors, in which case I just pay attention to where they are and try to feel them bite, a great exercise in itself for attention and concentration, as you can ALWAYS feel it - just mostly we don't pay attention to such a small thing) but I can see myself gettin to a place where I do feel that, the mosquito or me, life is life and I am no judge.
As far as commercialism goes, that's such a huge thing that I haven't really attempted to tackle it. Every time I do look at it, I feel that I soon won't be able to buy anything - please let me know what you find out, as I could use guidance on this and I would like to attempt, if it is possible. Must say, very happy to hear you talkin about things like this tho...

go for it Mike... although I disagree (along with vegetarianism! Can't miss out on all that gorgeous meat.... such as dimsums)

It takes a retard to appeal to retards!!

The natural

George Bush is a dim-witted cowboy who cheated his way into the White House. Well, that's the popular view on this side of the Atlantic. But as he joins the US President on the campaign trail for tonight's crucial midterm elections, Jonathan Freedland gets a very different impression

Tuesday November 5, 2002
The Guardian

The aide is beginning to sweat. Bulging file in hand, he is pacing relentlessly, surveying the group that has assembled before breakfast on a fine, crisp Pennsylvania morning. They have been shepherded on to a makeshift platform: the human backdrop behind today's guest of honour.
The "advance man" - whose job it is to choreograph the best possible image for the television pictures of this event that will run, over and over again, on the local news - takes another look. High-school kids, local worthies and a smattering of army veterans in their trademark hats shaped like paper boats. Behind them, a mammoth US flag."Women!" the advance guy hisses to an assistant. "Women, young people, just get me ..." his voice drops to a low whisper, as he adds another, more discreet demand. Sure enough, a few minutes later, our man is seen ushering a black woman towards a spot right behind the podium. She will be over the speaker's shoulder; television viewers will see her, not the overwhelmingly white, male crowd that fills the stage.

The picture is almost complete. In the crowd, hundreds of pom-pom waving and flag-clasping Republican true believers, all of them bussed into a hangar at Harrisburg International Airport. To one side, a high school band, kitted out in spangly gold sashes, strikes up a medley of patriotic standards. They are waiting for the big guy.

It's the latest stop in a frantic tour of more than a dozen states crammed into the final hours before today's midterm elections. The campaigner in question is not, strictly speaking, a candidate. He is not on the ballot for another two years, but today's midterm elections - where control of the House, Senate and governors' mansions in 36 states are up for grabs - will be seen as a referendum on the presidency of George W Bush.

He has certainly been playing it that way, throwing his weight behind Republicans in the most hotly fought contests, often making repeat visits in the tightest fights. If those battles - senate races in South Dakota, Missouri, and a congressional one here in Pennsylvania - go against Republicans tonight, it will suggest a limit to Bush's vote-pulling power and maybe even a shallowness to his popularity.

But a respectable performance by Republicans tonight - maintaining, say, their narrow hold over the House of Representatives even when the economy is sputtering - would be seen as an enormous vindication of a man who won fewer votes in the 2000 election than his Democratic opponent and was only installed in the White House thanks to five members of the US Supreme Court. From fending off questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, Bush would have become one of only three presidents not to lose House seats in a midterm election.

So the stakes are certainly high. But even before a vote has been counted, a campaign swing like this one invites a verdict. The midterm moment allows Americans to see how their president is doing, how he's changed - and what kind of relationship he has developed with his people.

On the evidence of Campaign 2002, Bush's critics need to brace themselves. What follows may not be comfortable reading.

The first sign comes in Harrisburg even before Bush has walked into the room. The warm-up speaker is the local congressman for whose sake this whole event has been organised: he's in a tough race and he needs some major-league help. His name is George Gekas, except in this campaign he has renamed himself George W Gekas. In 1998, there were Democrats who would have preferred an endorsement from Saddam Hussein than one from Bill Clinton. This time round, Republicans think Bush does them so much good that they're morphing themselves into him.

The response when Gekas finally introduces his star visitor is ecstatic. That's no big deal: this is a handpicked crowd. But Bush's 35-minute address, a tweaked variation on the standard stump speech he's been giving across the country, gives a clue as to why Dubya is still enjoying approval ratings healthily above 60%.

For one thing, he delivers it well. It's a surprise, given the satirists' depiction of him as a linguistically challenged dunce, to see him speak fluently and without so much as a glance at any notes. And hearing him at length is different from seeing a soundbite on the news. It will break liberal hearts to admit it, but he's good.

In marked contrast to his dad, who always came across as an East Coast aristocrat, Junior has mastered the common touch. The case for tax cuts, for example, is that "the best economic stimulus is to let people keep more of their own money." And when explaining the need for educational standards and new exams, he has the wit to turn to the high-school band and say: "I see some of the seniors here, glazing over, saying, 'Oh, no, I hate tests.' Well, too bad."

The language is folksy and accessible throughout - even on the most grave, international questions. The war on terror is explained like this: "See, it's a different kind of war we face. In the old days, you could destroy tanks or aeroplanes or boats and know you're making progress. [But] these are the kind of people who hide in caves and send youngsters to their suicidal deaths. They don't care."

Europeans may baulk at the simplicity of that, but it's potent and effective. Here he is on Iraq, explaining why he urged the UN to enforce existing resolutions. "I went because I want the United Nations to be a strong body, not the League of Nations. I went to remind them that if their word is not kept, they will become nothing but a debating society, unable to keep the peace."

Keeping your own money; caves; a debating society. Every abstract idea has a visual image, making sure that when Bush speaks, as he might put it, no audience member is left behind. "I personally really like him," says Lisa Taglamg, who describes herself as a middle-class working mother. "I'd invite him over to my house for a cup of coffee. Despite his family background, he seems like a common man." There's not a politician who doesn't dream of a rating like that.

It helps that Bush appears so relaxed. He did in 2000, too, but now he looks even more comfortable, visibly at ease with himself - even down to the loose way he stands, one hand on each side of the podium. When Tony Blair visited the White House shortly after September 11 2001, he was amazed to find the president calmly hanging out, an hour or so before he was due to address a joint session of both houses of Congress. By common consent, this was the most important speech Bush had ever had to give. (Clinton would have been frenziedly rewriting and scribbling in the margin, even in the last-minute car ride down Pennsylvania Avenue.) Yet Bush was doing nothing. According to one account, Blair asked the president how come he was so relaxed. "I've been told this is the speech of my life so many times, it kind of loses its impact a little," he said. "I've read it, I've rehearsed it," he added. "I'm ready."

What emerges is a picture of a president with a deep inner confidence. He's no intellectual; on that everyone agrees. (One senior Democrat laments that the office of presidency is wasted on a person so lacking in the "curiosity" to really enjoy it.) But once he has "internalised" a subject, says one close-up observer, he can speak from the heart about it. Education was that topic in the 2000 campaign. And after 9/11, the war on terror is the other. Suddenly there was a subject of which no one had greater knowledge than him; it was a brand-new, unforeseen event in which there could be no experts or veterans. There was no sage elite ready to condescend to the president. Bush felt as qualified as anyone else to address it.

The terror attacks also gave Bush something every leader needs: a moment when an emotional bond is sealed with his people. Clinton had his at the memorial service following the Oklahoma City bomb of 1995; Blair had his when he mourned Diana, the "people's princess". Bush had an appalling first 36 hours after the Twin Towers were hit - appearing to run for cover rather than lead the nation - but things turned when he finally visited Ground Zero. Standing amid the rubble, he began to address the assembled emergency workers. With no PA system, he was inaudible. "We can't hear you," one firefighter shouted, before a megaphone was passed to the president. "Well, I can hear you," he replied. "And pretty soon the people who did this are gonna hear from all of us." From that moment on, Bush's numbers headed skyward.

Painful as it is for Democrats to admit, they face a president who has many of the qualities the job demands. He inspires loyalty: the Washington press corps complain that this is the least leaky White House anyone can remember. He is resolute, in a way that makes his lack of curiosity an asset: he is not tortured by seeing all sides of an argument. His back-slapping, frat-boy image does not convey it, but he also has some steel: not for nothing was he his father's "enforcer", on one occasion breaking the news to his dad's scandal-plagued chief-of-staff that his time had run out.

Some of that comes through in his stump speech. A veteran New York political operative once told me: "Never underestimate the subtext of male violence that runs through American politics." Voters need to believe their president is a tough guy, able to throw a punch if he has to. That's why Michael Dukakis could never have been president and why candidate Clinton took off once he "confessed" to having struck his abusive stepfather.

Bush feeds that gladiatorial appetite skilfully. "Slowly but surely we're going to hunt them down," he warns the "bunch of cold-blooded killers" of al-Qaida. There will be no limp-wristed attempt to understand terrorism's root causes. "See, therapy isn't going to work," he says to laughter. And, in a moment of pure Mafia-speak, he mentions an al-Qaida suspect caught by the US: "This guy is no longer a problem for America," he says, with an implicit wink. You could be watching the Sopranos.

Even as he taps into this need for a tough guy, Bush also understands Americans' desire to see themselves as foot soldiers marching towards a higher, even religious, purpose. As he did in 2000, he preaches like the born-again Christian he is. He tells his audience that the terrorists believed America's "national religion was materialism." They were wrong.

"So my call to America, if you want to join in the fight against evil, is to do some good, is to love your neighbour just like you'd like to be loved yourself. We've got to remember that government can help and government can hand out money, but it can't put love in people's hearts, it can't put a sense of purpose in people's lives." No better example of that, he offers, than the passengers of Flight 93, who fought the hijackers and deliberately crashed their plane into the ground right here in Pennsylvania, rather than let it be used as a missile. "They embodied the greatness of the American spirit."

As he ends his speech predicting that incredible good will come from the evil of 9/11, asking, of course, that God Bless America, your thoughts can't help but turn to Ronald Reagan. Many Brits and Europeans thought him a clown, a bozo too dumb to lead a dog, let alone the free world. Yet somehow he was re-elected in a landslide and is still loved and revered by his countrymen.

By now Bush has worked his way through the crowd, shaking a few hands when the giant doors of the hangar open to reveal a blue sky, and a wonderful horizon of Pennsylvania forest, its leaves turning all shades of russet, amber and gold. Slowly, the sleek shape of Air Force One is revealed, and suddenly there's the president, ascending the steps, reaching the top and turning for a final wave. The whole picture is framed perfectly: the lone leader and the silver bird, all bathed in morning sunlight. It's a Spielberg moment. And as the pom-poms shake, and the crowd cheers, a sharp, hard thought strikes. As Bush himself might put it, we misunderestimate this man at our peril.

Ryan, aforementioned "subtle distinction" + McDonough

"The Next Industrial Revolution is a 55-minute videotape about the movement McDonough and Braungart are leading to bring together commerce and ecology to change the world. Shot in Europe and the United States, the video explores how businesses are transforming themselves to work with nature and enhance profitability."

www.mcdonough.com

to my mind the important distinction rephrased in green terms is that any serious environmentalist stance needs to be anti-systemic in thought and deed. the expansionary drive in capitalism, which is essential to the mode of accumulation that is at the very heart of pyramid building, requires integration of the ecosphere. It has been argued that such integration may be possible if one finds a way of crediting the ecosphere in terms of its finity, and, most importantly, its vital character to all life. Commodifying nature is thus the next great reformist movement, that is, pragmatist-idealism within the current framework. Comparison to that other reformist branch, parliamentary parties representing the labour movement, is of limited value, although success (as attributable to parliamentary integration, see labour parties) appears to be questionable at best and what progress there has been made during the so-called "golden age of capitalism" (post-WWII, up to Reagan) should be attributed to political affiliation within the workplace (the traditional labour movement: unions, and strikes) rather than the political sphere within the western industrialised countries. Human repression could also not limited in the way the "green resource" is: Whilst labour, as a factor to production, has been shown to endure the most dismal of conditions, the ecosphere is an enabling factor not merely to production, but a factor enabling the ball game per se. If we are to accept both the finity of this enabling factor, and the inherent expansionary drive of any system of concentration of gains (growth for trickle-down etc), then the type of sustainability we require is anti-systemic, and traditionally labelled primitivist-anarchist in outlook.

Why can't we accomodate the environment (until aforementioned finity is breached) "healthily" by leaving it to the market? Due to limited information flow, and words being famously cheaper than deeds, the green reformist movement (which has grown exponentially in political power) as public awareness in western industrialised countries has what we should call blossomed, has been integrated into the current framework of overexploitation of that famous central resource by a huge PR-effort. (Ironically, public awareness should really be attributed to "PR" work by groups such as greenpeace, again external to what is the designated sphere for political activity). Corporate self-regulation pre-emts regulation by democratically elected bodies, with regressive legislation being phrased in "green terms". Deviation from self-imposed regulation is not enforced anywhere except in the public arena (organised consumerism, boycotts); corporations are totalitarian entities in their information management (transparency) and internal structure (hierarchical); information being disseminated consitutes a leak.. and the whole job turns into one big farce.. Watch GWB-gov legislation regarding this sort of dirty work..

green*wash: (n) Disinformation disseminated by an organisation so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash.

"Greenwash began in heavily industrialized countries of the world in the 1970's. The corporate tactic has intensified since then, with the concurrent growth of public environmental awareness. By the time the United Nations held its conference on environment and development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, greenwash had gone global. Forty eight of the top business executives in the world attended UNCED. These executives formed the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD), and were charged by UNCED General Secretary Maurice Strong with providing the business perspective to the conference. The BCSD, along with the more traditional lobbying group the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), had unparalleled access to the UNCED Secretariat and extraordinary influence in weakening key agreements, including the biodiversity and climate conventions and Agenda 21."

Rejecting Will to Power, and the determination to maintain the quality of The Collective Unconscious

You may think I'm crazy, but...

I have decided to leave my company as soon as I find a suitable alternative to earn money in a non-harmful way. I am doing this out of an ethical consideration which stands as it is, however gives my life no meaning, in fact rather depresses me if I fail to implement this comprehension. Unfortunately, my annual income whilst at university will probably decrease by about 30%, but hey, I'd rather be a janitor than a prostitute. This is actually part of a massive implementation programme which I plan to execute. Other issues include the environment, meaning that I will consciously recycle from now on, not litter the street and turn off the car engine whilst standing in front of a red light. I will also actively choose not to buy certain products, of which I know that their purchase contributes to child slavery or other, blatantly unjustifiable state of affairs. Obviously, I'll never be purchasing an SUV either. etc. etc. etc. etc.

(Let's just hope that I'll be able to buy anything at all, or else I may have to find myself a nice beach in Cost Rica or The Gambia, surf myself to the end of my days on a strict diet of mango, fish and seaweed - I do feel that there are useful things to do here, so I hope I won't make life too hard for myself)

So, I haven't formally deduced how this is going to look exactly, but you're getting the message. I think that it's time for me (and frankly speaking for all mankind) to make choices. Until now, I've largely lived my life with an inherent ignorance, not so much about these issues, but rather concerning my perception of my own position/role as a part of this system. I say inherent because we've evidently been educated and trained to plug into the destruction of our planet and that having a sensible, more informed approach causes you to receive some label, won't mention examples as there are vastly different lyrics in different nations, but am referring to those normally associated with jesus sandals, long hair and a passion for the veganistic lifestyle (or something like that). And who wants to become that, whilst being an ego-constructing teenager, suddenly aware of this categorisation? Obviously it's not as simplistic as that, but you see where I'm getting at.

Some may find this ridiculous. What change is it going to make? More ridiculous I find, is the ignorance and the big language with which people rant about the sodden state of our planet, yet fail to implement anything, in fact fail to see themselves as part of this collective beyond the obvious political framework, thus don't feel indivdually responsible. I suppose the reasons for such a state of affairs might have something to do with the infinitely extending cleavage between individual ethics and collective consensus, or some other form of practical consequence of our philosophical tradition. If you so want, I'm trying to legitimize my finger pointing (or else God will cut it off?). No, seriously, I feel that I need to live in practical accordance with this level of awareness. I think it would be rather stupid not to, as Cho would say, you gotta put your money where your mouth is, or else shut it - hence most people shut it. It's very easy for us citizens to associate 'mouth' with national (or incresingly so, supranational) polity and 'money' with policy, in a sense removing any element of responsibility from us. To me, lack of implementation signifies a total lack of self-respect and self-justice. Evidently, we're not powerful enough (yet) to remove ourselves from all the evils of this world and their direct/indirect causes. By paying taxes we are actively contributing, in most countries anyway. How I am to feel about this I don't know yet, but I know that I will start where I can.

The underlying thought was actually sparked during a chat with the incredible Mr. Cole, who yet again has enriched my life considerably in the past month or two. I was in fact questioning him about his motive of vegetarianism, which lead to the mentioning of an ethos based on harm prevention/reduction, strongly akin to similar thoughts in the Far East and Native American philosophy. In a time where most of our practices and social workings are based around harm protection in the very Hobbesian sense of protecting yourself from the might and power of the Other (yes, my friends, FEAR again), an ethos of harm prevention seems to result in a far more sunnier outlook on life. Hobbesian politics in this sense has a highly negative connotation, whilst the other, I hope, will let me see things in a positive way. It's time to deconstruct fear, recognize and quash our 'fevered egos' and spread love and beauty around. Man IS a 'zoon politikon' - all it needs is a bit of sensible education and harm reductive action. A dog that has been kicked all his life, will evidently bark and bite as a reaction to fear. In the same way, if you stuff the Pentagon with an entire generation of war-psyched christian fundamentalists, they obviously would spend most of this world's resources on 'barking and biting'... "the horror..." Vietnam, after all, was a pretty scary scene.

"As Mike always says: 'The sun will shine again'" - Mike would now like to think that we can make it shine even brighter.

welcome to the future

It is a city with the same infant mortality rate as Malaysia and a terrifying rate of deaths from Aids - one day care centre alone commemorated the loss of 600 clients at a memorial service on Wednesday. But it is located in America' richest state, Connecticut, which has, proportionally, more millionaires than any other.

This is the super-rich New York hinterland for those too wealthy even to feel the pinch on Wall Street. It is called the 'Zebra Coast', laid out in strips of black/white, black/white; poor/rich, poor/rich. And in New Haven the polarity is underpinned by the history of Yale University's engagement in the slave trade - currently being excavated by some of its own students.

[...]

Statistics released last month by the government census bureau show that for the first time in 10 years the number of people caught in the poverty trap has suddenly increased. Unemployment is up from 4.2 per cent in 2000 to 5.7 per cent last year. While the middle class shrinks, the numbers living below the official poverty line of $18,104 a year for a family of four has shot up to 33 million - from 11.3 to 11.7 per cent. That's the first increase since 1992.

While President Bush's windfall tax breaks to the super-rich breezed through Congress (with Democratic help), the proposed rise in the minimum wage is frozen.

The proportion of children without health cover has increased from 63.8 per cent to 67.1 per cent. The poverty rate for children in the US is worse than in 19 'rich' countries, according to a study by the University of Michigan.

Income statistics showed the first significant decline in average income among blacks in two decades; the white average also fell, and only Hispanics maintained their level.

History of the Marshall Islands (incl populace)"There was also a deep-rooted traditional belief that the atoll was inhabited by evil spirits."

Mil-Media Relations in the U.S.. Inspiring Apocalypse Now.. Very excited about this case. do look into.

'Nam Defectors: 1999 CNN Story about these dons:

1. "A deserter is a soldier who leaves his post without authorization, no matter what the reason. During the Vietnam War, many deserters "of conscience" fled through various underground railroads to nations that offered sanctuary. A smaller number chose to remain in South Vietnam, in so-called "Twilight Zones" where they thought they were beyond the reach of the authorities.

A defector commits the far more serious offense of treason-- collaborating with the enemy. In Vietnam, a number of U.S. defectors allegedly fought with enemy units, while others were said to have remained in their units, passing classified information to the enemy or committing acts of sabotage. Some defectors were prisoners of war who, in exchange for leniency, spread anti-war propaganda or attempted to persuade their fellow POWs to cooperate with the enemy."

[...]

Phoenix operations were also directed against deserters who, as denizens of Twilight Zones, were very much behind enemy lines. "We had a problem with deserters, mostly blacks hiding out in shantytowns," the Phoenix adviser in Danang told this writer. "They were trying to stay underground, but they were heavily armed and, at times, they worked with the VC. So we had cordon and search operations to round them up. After the MPs started taking casualties, we used American military units, South Vietnamese airborne rangers, and Nungs."

The report describes:

2.The very nature of the subject matter of "Valley of Death," a Special Forces raid into neutral Laos, called Operation Tailwind, that has remained a tightly held secret for 28 years, guaranteed that the evidence extracted by the reporters would be somewhat fragmentary. The US denies ever having used nerve gas in combat and, needless to say, denies having targeted American defectors in Vietnam for extermination. No one, therefore, could legitimately be surprised that for every witness affirming the use of nerve gas or the killing of American defectors, there would be at least as many ex-Special Forces men, military officers or intelligence figures staunchly denying the allegations.But there were also "killer teams" organized under the CIA's Phoenix Program whose aim was to assassinate, on sight, suspected defectors behind enemy lines.

and/but:

Taken as a whole, however, the mass of evidence, eyewitness accounts and verification from high-ranking military and intelligence sources, both named and unnamed, presented in the CNN broadcast was impressive. Seven of the sixteen Special Forces soldiers who carried out the assault gave on-camera statements supporting to varying degrees the program's contention that nerve gas was used and American defectors were targeted. Several experts on nerve gas consulted by the reporters said the symptoms of vomiting and convulsions described by the soldiers, as well as their description of the properties of the gas used on the raid, pointed to sarin.

hence:

Once the program was aired, it came under intense behind-the-scenes attack. Oliver and Smith assert that Henry Kissinger, who was Nixon's national security adviser at the time of Tailwind, Richard Helms, then the CIA director, and Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Gulf war, all contacted CNN and demanded a retraction. CNN quickly began backing away from the program, appointing attorney Floyd Abrams to carry out a supposedly independent review.

[...]

The citations in Abrams's report include Moorer asserting that sarin nerve gas was a weapon in the Vietnam arsenal, and it would not have been terribly unusual for it to be used on a mission such as Tailwind. Asked, "Would it surprise you?" he replies, "I would expect them to use whatever was necessary to achieve their mission in an emergency." At another point Abrams cites Moorer saying, "I think that it's highly possible that it was used again, but I'm not aware of exactly where it was used."

Following the airing of "Valley of Death," Moorer, under enormous pressure from the Pentagon and other quarters, distanced himself from the story. But he did not deny that nerve gas was used. While declaring he had no first-hand knowledge, he said he had learned of the Laos raid after it took place, "including verbal statements indicating the use of sarin on the Tailwind mission."

Thus the very document CNN used to justify the retraction of its Tailwind story, if read carefully and critically, actually underscores the powerful array of evidence marshaled by the reporters and the extremely serious nature of their revelations. With the full support of the media establishment, however, this has been turned into a vendetta against the journalists who quite courageously unearthed the story, and an object lesson to any others who might be tempted to follow their example. Meanwhile those who the piece suggests may be guilty of criminal actions--the CIA, the military, and individuals such as Kissinger and Helms--are off the hook.

[...]

CNN and Time immediately retracted the report and issued public apologies. When Oliver and Smith refused to disavow the story and resign voluntarily, CNN fired them. A third CNN producer resigned under pressure and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Peter Arnett, who narrated the program, was reprimanded.

3.In its current issue, for example, Newsweek boasts that it attacked the CNN- Time report after it was broadcast, and highlights the following blurb: "Did US Special Forces use nerve gas to kill American defectors in Vietnam? No." Even Salon, an internet magazine that generally maintains a somewhat higher journalistic standard, accepted uncritically CNN's retraction and, in an article by Ted Gup, stated that "both organizations [CNN and Time] admitted that the story was unsupported by facts"

Mil even publ a "review":

4.The CNN broadcast provoked a furious response from the Pentagon, which denounced it and denied, without providing substantiation, that Operation Tailwind involved the use of nerve gas or an attempt to eliminate American soldiers who had defected. This public attack was accompanied by a well-organized campaign by right-wing groups and publications to discredit the CNN program. Considering the fact that many prominent political and military figures responsible for US policy in Southeast Asia at the time are still alive, it is likely that pressure was brought to bear from these quarters as well.

"Bill, Ralph and I flew back to the hotel at light speed. As the valet took the keys, Bill darted upstairs to check on Hillary. She was fast asleep. Not one to miss an opportunity, Bill realized he could stay out a little while longer with the boys. The Boca Raton Resort had several bars which were first class and full of patrons. With the conference being over, Bill felt a little more at ease in the hotel, not fearing being seen drunk or womanizing by any of the other governors. We met a couple of people in the
bar and Bill stepped out for a few minutes, long enough for me to become concerned. As I went to look for him, I first checked the bathroom. I called his name but got no answer. Just as I was about to leave, I saw his number 13s protruding from under one of the stalls. "Bill, are you okay?" I asked, knowing there couldn't be another foot that big in Boca Raton. "Yeah, yeah, L.D., these damned sinuses are killing me!" As I retreated to the bar, I realized what was going on. You see, Bill knew that with my prior experiences in drug enforcement I didn't tolerate illicit drug use -- particularly 'nose candy.' I didn't care what he did in private regarding coke, but he knew not to try to use it while we were out making our way through bars in his quest for women. Cocaine would figure into our relationship later on and eventually contributed to the ruination of our friendship.

I think Bill became a little spooked after the bathroom incident, so we decided to take our drinks upstairs. We all three retired to my room where Ralph mixed a nightcap. We had a great night and I decided to take a few snapshots. Bill was zonked and that candy must have been flavorful. I sure hope this photo can be reproduced in color for this book (on the rear cover)."

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
--George Washington, farewell address

"...I favor George Washington's implied distinction between genuine and pretended patriotism. This is like the difference between true and "fool's gold" democracy. But it is a much more puzzling distinction. The rhetoric of false democracy has beclouded the atmosphere for ... decades. The rhetoric of false patriotism is older than the nation itself. It was always used by the classic fascists. It is a favorite artifice of friendly fascism today.
After serving two terms as president, Jefferson explained.... "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

...Some years ago, Francis W. Coker of Yale University put his finger on the divisive and exclusive patriots who "insist that the country must always be set above the rest of the world" and "in the name of patriotism conduct a virulent propaganda against economic and political measures of which they disapprove," including the admission of "undesirable" foreigners but also the free expression of dissident views in schools, churches, or the media. In his Militarism, USA, a sober critique based on years of experience in the U.S. Marine Corps, Colonel James A. Donovan identifies the dangerous patriot: "the one who drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions. He is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism ... which identifies numerous enemies who can only be dealt with through military power and which equates the national honor with military victory."

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
--Adolf Hitler

"There is no subjugation so perfect as that which keeps the appearance of freedom, for in that way one captures volition itself."
--Jean-Jacques Rousseau

'Marxists are retards'

How many jobs will be sacrificed before Europe scraps its absurd stability and growth pact? by Larry Elliott

It worked for me
I married the best friend anyone could have. We were happy and had children, and then I met the passion of my life. The two of us were friends for three years, testing out our love for each other and making sure we were both fully committed to our marriages, before becoming lovers. It worked, and was amazing and fulfilling for both of us and was ended only by death. But it wasn't without enormous cost to ourselves and to our partners. My marriage is the stronger for it, but my lover's was not. Now that people live longer lives, and today's marriage could last for 50 or 60 years, the idea of not even thinking about relationships outside marriage is, I think, both a lost cause and a waste of potential loving. But society at large doesn't see things that way. If you go for it, you'll be a pioneer. If you resist it, you'll be a saint. Either way, life won't be easy for you, your husband or your friend. Good luck.
Name and address supplied

In relation to the food aid/ debilitating effect of US dumping upon poorer nations, I'm reminded of a piece I read years ago, in Harper's I believe, a survey about fresh water (before it became a hot topic, kinda predicted that it would be a hot topic). The related point in the piece was that low productivity in most nation's has much less to do with money invested or innovation (tho that plays a role), but more to do with lack of good water. Again the US is pretty blessed in this regard; it's starting to feel the pinch as well, but it's worse most everywhere else. In addition to this, the irrigation systems in place in India for example (as it was an example in the article if memory serves, there or Pakistan or somewhere near the subcontinent) is pretty shockingly inept. Massive improvements have been made by peace corp-y volunteers teaching farmers not to simply dump water (as you lose so much of the strained resource to evaporation) but to rig up a bucket with holes that drips the water slowly throughout the day. I think the cost for such a system was around $5 per bucket once all the riggin was put in place, and it's almost as effective as the systems the US uses that costs hundreds or thousands times that. In addition of course the price can be greatly reduced once you know the principles behind it and don't hafta go buy a plastic bucket but instead rig something up yourself using tightly-woven cloth, or the chaffe of wheat, or what-have-you, I'm not on the ground, the farmers will be better at this I'd wager. Anyway, just wanted to pass that along, as I like it when the issues get more complex and aren't reduced to simple good/bad formulas, as those are usually off somewhere along the way...