Sunday, June 20, 2010

Objective?

In the final analysis it is literally impossible for any human to be completely objective. The science of physics seems to be up against the wall with new theories and no way to prove or disprove them. String theory, the universe born out of a collision with another dimension etc., is all very interesting but it is still theory. Part of the problem with science is that scientists are human beings and as such see the world in strictly human terms. For example astronomers have been measuring distances to stars to see if the universe is open or closed, that is, will it expand forever or will it collapse upon itself, or better yet take the Big Bang theory. What do these two ideas have in common? They are both dependent on the human concept of beginnings and endings. We ourselves are born and then we grow old and die so as being humans we look at the universe in terms of beginnings and endings when the reality may be that beginnings and endings are merely a human construct born of our own limited perceptions. So perhaps asking whether the universe is open or closed may not even be relevant to understanding the world around us. In the end science is perhaps defeated by its own humanity.

The problem of being objective while also being human seems to apply to our everyday lives back here on Planet Earth. Were people being objective when they believed Obama would pull out of Iraq as Jonathan discusses in his post? Were people being objective when they thought Obama would deliver them from the evil of Bush? Were people being objective when they applied bumper stickers to their cars with Obama written on it and a peace symbol for the “O” of Obama? Of course not. People were being emotional and reactionary, “Anyone but Bush” was the theme of the day.

If people were objective regarding Obama they would see that he has taken Bush policy and expanded it,or I should say still expanding it. Obama is actually worse than Bush when it comes to policy but come next election when Obama is defeated, and rightly so,for being a wimp as the entire Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf disappears beneath a deluge of chemical laden oil with a giant gurgle, and along with it a whole bunch of people, he will be replaced with someone who will be worse than both Bush and Obama. Frankly, I’m no longer sure I give a damn what happens in this country, other than I live here, because it is quite possible that Americans deserve Obama and ilk. Decidedly so. But that’s another story.

Actually Paul Craig Roberts puts it nicely:

Link

The other day I saw a young man with a t-shirt with Obama’s image. Under it was the caption, ‘“socialist.” The stupidity of Americans is extraordinary. Wall Street is going to put a socialist in the White House?! If the word under Obama’s image had been “prostitute,” the message would have been on target.


Objectivity? It’s a rare beastie here in the land of the synapsed challenged. Liberals believe Obama is struggling against impossible odds in order to grant their wishes. Conservatives believe that Obama is either a socialist or the anti-Christ. Obama is neither of these things. Obama is a very weak leader who saw an opening and being the consummate opportunist took it, and is now basking in the glory of the presidency. Obama has made it whether his presidency is deemed a success or a failure for Obama is already becoming wealthy on his journey through American politics and afterwards there is the lecture circuit, which is worth millions, and of course the inevitable “book.” Yet there are plenty of rubes who don’t have a pot to piss in who will fly to Obama’s defense at the drop of a hat. Are they insane? Clearly.

Ultimately what Americans fail to realize is that the fabulously wealthy don’t just own the government, they are the government. They don’t call the super wealthy the ruling class for nothing.

12 Comments:

At June 20, 2010 4:49 PM, Blogger Spartacus O'Neal said...

Political illiteracy and illogic are programmed into very young minds, so it's not surprising adults as consumers are unlikely to become pro-democracy activists. Those that do overcome the programming are thus few in number, and quickly marginalized by society. There are, however, cultures within our country -- some indigenous and some not -- that encourage pro-democratic engagement. For them and all the innocent victims of that horrible indoctrination, it is worth every effort we can muster to fight back, even if we deem the sum total a lost cause.

 
At June 20, 2010 6:55 PM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

I don't know if he's weak, so much as compliant.

We don't need a strong leader. You're right about that. Whomever replaces Obama will belong to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama continuum, and will be as beholden to the ruling interests as any other.

No one gets that far without their endorsement.

No one. Not even the so-called fighting progressives. Viability is a function of mediation.

We don't need any leaders. Not one.

Unless they're on the way to the hell of the worst possible imagining...

 
At June 20, 2010 6:55 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

This might sound like a pet peeve, but one reason I am perennially frustrated with polls of "likely voters" and/or registered voters is they are designed to avoid polling people who don't buy into the assumptions of the system.

 
At June 20, 2010 7:17 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Spartacus,

I think my comment about caring is a bit negative, I think you are correct that the effort is worth it. And I don’t think things are entirely hopeless though I don’t expect humanity to move beyond what we are now in my lifetime. Of course I’m getting up there.

Hi Jack,

Hey, I’m fine with compliant as he certainly is! Still, I think the perception by the public is that Obama appears weak in any facedown with BP. Your point about endorsement is well, to the point because the people who seek such office whether they go in with the idea of doing good (remotely possible) are soon changed by the system. I’m not suggesting that this was the case with O since he was already a slime-ball from Chicago politics.

Jonathan,

You’re probably correct, I mean, where haven’t people who don’t buy into the narrative been marginalized and ridiculed?

 
At June 20, 2010 9:20 PM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

Rob,

I see what you're getting at.

A question, then: Who manages "public perception"?

The same people, I imagine, who helped Obama onto the curule chair in the first.

He's being invited to act "pro-actively," with these mediated attacks on his "weakness."

This reaction, I suspect, will resemble exactly which outcome the ruling class prefers anyway.

In a word, austerity.

BP won't close shop. It will spend a hundred million re-branding, and it will pull it off, because Americans need petroleum.

Not prefer. Need.

To live the American existence, now, petroleum is not merely vital. It's necessary.

Obama's solution to the problem will be austerity. We will be "asked" to fold up and take it so that the State can appear to attack a few bad actors.

That's the gig, always.

The State savages some scapegoat (in this case, Transocean, I imagine) and then demands of its captive population some cut back, some reduction in liberty, or some enforced austerity.

Right now, Obama being "weak" works.

When he does act - and a un-pray to the imaginary gods that it isn't some insane following of Russian advice and a methane clathrate trigger - it will seem so very, very pro-active.

He will cross a Rubicon, and claim even more of the mantle.

Or, I could just have it all wrong.

Respect,

Jack

 
At June 20, 2010 10:43 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Jack,

There are so many arms of the propaganda monster but I suspect that the Pentagon is responsible for the lion’s share of it. And I think you hit on the whole reason for the existence of the “system” which is to act like a cosmic vacuum cleaner that sucks your money and shoots it over to the ruling elite. The disparity between rich and poor is becoming greater not just here but everywhere so austerity is a good call in my book.

No, there is no getting away from petroleum. If people like to eat food we sort of do need it. On Obama though I think I agree with Cockburn, that he is finished and the reason that he is finished is because of his reaction to the oil blowout. I think of Obama as a paperweight, or a cardboard cutout that can be used for display and social functions. It strikes me that this is an awful lot like “good cop, bad cop,” like on the old detective serials. First the elite give us the bad cop, George Bush, the man with the lowest rating ever for prez, eight long years of a yahoo president. So now they give us Obama with his miles of white smiley teeth and winning demeanor giving us the illusion of control. The only thing is they hadn’t counted on the blowout in the Gulf so maybe they give us Sarah Palin next. First an historical first with Obama followed by a second with Palin, the wicked witch of Oz. It’s like they keep dangling these personalities in front of us like a mother shaking a rattle for her baby.

As soon as Palin is elected the news media will transform her from backwoods hickdom to frontier hero shooting A-Rabs from a helicopter.

You are right about Obama grabbing more power, they always manipulate in that direction and its one of the reasons for the constant wars. Presidents know they can grab more power during war than in peace time.

 
At June 21, 2010 9:16 AM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

The malicious, vile nihilist part of me hopes it's Sarah Palin, or Palin-Romney, or Palin-Petraeus.

So much easy to resist without going about against historical historicality.

Too bad Obama comes out roses, either way.

 
At June 21, 2010 2:40 PM, Anonymous some guy said...

I'm inclined to think Petraus is unlikely to accept a VP slot. As far Jack's question of who manages public perception, I'd say a lot of different groups compete for that, although the entrance fee for a loud-enough megaphone is pretty darn steep.

 
At June 21, 2010 7:46 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Jonathan,

you are forgetting the news media provides an excellent megaphone for free!!! The new rule is who ever is the president gets the unquestioned support of the news media.

Jack,

Sarah Palin, Obama, Lieberman, what's the diff? But a part of me wouldn't mind seeing liberal reaction to Sarah Palin -- A historical first, the first woman prez. But it really doesn't matter much now that the ruling elite maintains total control.

 
At June 22, 2010 3:20 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

A wonderfully thought-provoking post and the same with comments. I wish I knew--well, what? "The answer"? There is none. How to persuade others they're being had? That just seems impossible, especially in my lock-step generation. Guess we just have to keep--well, keeping on.

 
At June 22, 2010 3:40 AM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

Rob,

I think the difference comes down to justification.

They all might reach for the same results, but the factions have different justifications and different core supporters and fund raising constituencies.

Some guy,

No argument here. I'm really just leery of "public perception," since it tends to develop out of willfully bad or partial portrayals and narratives.

Take Darfur...

Respect,

Jack

 
At June 22, 2010 1:38 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Mimi,

Thanks Mimi, someone was writing that somewhere inside most people know they are being had but that they don’t want to face it. There could be a lot of truth to that.

Jack,

Absolutely. The name of the game is power and how to get it. And keep it.

…and then do it again.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home