John Cleese – Who’s going to lead America?

Thoughts on Foucault

Discipline and Punish

Does the soul, as represented in contrast with the duality of the King (temporal body vs. eternal sign of monarchical rule) in fact represent the eternal nature of man? Thereby endowing the designs of subjection within the construct of Foucault’s punitive power with a universality equal and opposite to the universality of the king’s subjecting power exercised in the name of supporting the kingdom (i.e. political economy that privileges and stabilizes the interests of the ruling class).

 

One problem with Foucault’s analysis is his incomplete understanding and treatment of the notion of the “Christian” soul. Foucault’s conception of the soul, unlike the Christian soul is not born in sin and subject to punishment, but born out of methods of punishment, rules and constraint. His argument that the Christian theological notion of the soul as born into sin, and subject to punishment is incomplete. Foucault uses the term “Christian Theology” as if it were a simple unitary document, but it is really a complex community of ideas. The soul in Christian theology also represents a source of a power that mitigates the punitive power of the ruling class. The “Christian” soul is, like that of the King, recognized as eternal, subject to the authority of the deity.

 

In Christian theology the soul is free except in relation to God – Foucault fails to understand the implications of being born in sin (at least theologically). Furthermore, in this conception, the Christian “soul” rejoices in the sufferings of this age, which are identified as signs of their freedom in Christ. There is an injunction to obey God rather than man – and at least among the children of the reformation – that frees them from arbitrary church authority as well. While God, does require obedience to authorities – the soul is free with regard to them in that they are only given outward obedience.  The ultimate power to punish – death – is not considered a punishment but rather a release – so it is unmasked (Wink 1984) as powerless. The punitive power of the ruling classes are then transferred back, solely to the body, thereby limiting its effect as temporary, and the authority is likewise then diminished.

 

One might argue that the other primary Christian theological position with regards to the relationship between the authorities in power and the subjected body (remember, the soul is not subjected to the rulers “of this world”), contradicts this notion, as disciples of that faith are charged to obey the authorities of the land. But again, there is a context within which that commandment is given, that might also easily be ignored or misunderstood. By submitting to the authorities of one’s, the argument continues, one lives a life above the reproach of the authorities, thereby avoiding punitive measures taken by the ruling class. Furthermore, in this act of legal submission, the Christian again understands this as a bodily, temporal act. Foucault’s flaw is that he is ultimately a materialist – and thus cannot consider the nature or capacity for freedom of an eternal soul.

 

Yet, the source of Foucault’s misrepresentation (or exclusion) of the Christian understanding of the soul arguably demands such an interpretation. The religious leaders (often intertwined with political leadership) that he portrays in his discussion about judicial torture and public punishment and execution offer no indication by their actions that they represent a God interested in anything but divine retribution. These “inquisitors” and judges demonstrate a corrupted misinterpretation of the judgment of God, and of their positions as the carnal manifestations of that blood-thirsty God. God, and by extension the religious authorities, are fierce in their judgments, which are dispensed as signs of absolute power. Their interpretations of this God were shaped so as to secure His absolute power for themselves; by claiming privileged and exclusive access to the knowledge of God, they retain that power by creating and maintaining a culture of fear that is expressed in the political economy of the body through torture and execution. Foucault states that the body “is an essential element, therefore, in a penal liturgy, in which it must serve as the partner of a procedure ordered around the formidable rights of the sovereign, the prosecution and secrecy.” (Foucault 1977: 47) It is Foucault’s basis on these examples of misguided corruption in religious authority for the understanding of the “Christian” soul that ultimately creates the hole in his argument.

 

This does not dismiss Foucault’s basic argument – as far as it goes in an existential and material world. What it does do is demonstrate a hole in Foucault’s theory that ignores another interpretation of the nature of the knowledge-power relationship. It is irrelevant whether or not he, or subsequent readers, agree that this Christian doctrine is “true.” The fact that there are a great number of individuals located within the political economy of the body (more than half in the US) that believe, perceive, or argue that they experience this to be true, radically alters Foucault’s equation.  It requires Foucault to address this radically different understanding of the relations of, and imposition of power, which he does not.

John McCain, Neo-Cons, and the Legacy of W

The continuing legacy of Pax Americana

We’ve heard a lot of talk about whether or not John McCain represents a change from the policies of the Bush administration. The platform of the McCain campaign seem to be essentially (to be fair, not exclusively) built upon the following pillars:

Experience, Bi-Partisan Reform of the Culture of the Washington Elites (which is likewise tied to McCain’s “Maverick” record in the legislature), Foreign Policy Expertise, Military Experience and Expertise, and faith in the “Fundamentals” of Trickle-Down Economics.

At first blush, this platform looks markedly different from that of the Bush administration. Bush made no attempt at bi-partisan reform; had no real foreign policy or military expertise when elected; and was not a supporter of trickle-down…no wait… there is no difference there. But I am not going to focus on economics (ideologically) in this comparison between the president and John McCain. Their is much to concern ourselves with on that regard, and there is no question that economic ideology necessarily informs the design of every other sphere within the realm of political policy. But I will let that reality make itself evident as the evidence dictates.

This is not about the meltdown on Wall Street, however unfortunate that necessarily proves to be, at a time when the primary concern of the people of the United States. The McCain campaign has repeatedly stated that they wish to avoid discussion of the economy in this election. They do, however, hope to focus the majority of their attention on defense, the wars in the Middle East, and the experience of the candidates. No, this is about the militaristic policies of a Neo-Conservative think tank that defined the actions of the Bush administration, and in the process, undermined the very ideals of a Pax Americana that they sought to sustain.

Below are sections taken from a document entitled: Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. The document was written by “the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership”, which was established in the spring of 1997. As an interesting, though perhaps merely coincidental, side-note, among the names of those signing off in support of the projects “Statement of Principles” are Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes and Jeb Bush. I think that offers enough evidence to suggest that this document was indeed a major contributor to the policies and ideologies of the administration of George W. Bush. You can access the document in its entirety by following the link at the beginning of this paragraph. I am including a few passages from the document below to convey its general gist.

The point of this post is not merely to demonstrate the premeditated and catastrophic designs of a select few, that have plunged this nation into multiple wars, international ridicule, and an economic collapse of the highest severity. I would also ask the reader to think critically about electing a presidential candidate, that despite his many exasperated objections, clearly represents “more of the same”. Before you begin furiously typing your own objections, I would ask you to watch the tape of the second presidential debate, so that you might include in your objection an explanation for how John McCain’s stated intent to freeze funding to every government program — except the military — represents anything but a continuation of the imperialist war machine that our nation has become, thanks to the policies of the Bush administration as an extension of the ideologies of this document.

Excerpts from Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century:

“As the 20 century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world’s most preeminent power.  Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge:  Does
the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of
past decades?  Does the United States have the resolve to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests?
“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power.  But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise.  America
has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East.  If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite
challenges to our fundamental interests.  The history of the 20th
century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire.  The history of the past century should have taught us
to embrace the cause of American leadership.”
– From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles

————————————-

“The challenge for this coming century is to preserve and advance this “American Peace”… In particular we need to:”

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations.  In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval

deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while
increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine
and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight
ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine
Corps.
CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,
and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding
while providing limited improvements to current capabilities.  Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and
American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave
the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of
space control.
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces.  Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross
domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

Perhaps your convictions line up with this prioritization of the military industrial complex as the best means by which to secure our position of global dominance. In response to that possibility, I ask you:

Have the actions and events of last eight years really increased our position in that regard?

Keating 5 Scandal – Something to think about…

I don’t have time to comment extensively on this just yet, but I will edit the post later with my thoughts.

This is a short documentary (released by the Obama campaign for the sake of full disclosure) that argues that John McCain directly contributed to the creation of the conditions for the banking collapse through his involvement with the deregulation of the Lincoln Savings and Loan in the 80s. It is also suggested that Charles Keating who ran the savings and loan previously made a significant financial contribution to McCain’s campaign. Like I said, more to come later, but at first blush I feel pretty confident when I say (nothing more, nothing less than) that I believe that the economic policies of John McCain are systematically incapable of solving the economic crisis long term.

How to Gain Friends and Influence the Market

I read a very eye-opening blog piece today that supports a notion that’s been developing in my head over the last year or so, namely, that the dominance of the capitalist ideology has been built upon the “misdirection play”, or to put it another way, by mastering the magician’s “slight of hand” technique.

“It’s magic!!!” Well no, not really… it’s just that we missed the coin dropping into the magician’s sleeve.

The premise of the argument is that the “deferred compensation” plan that drives the 401Ks and IRAs we’ve all become so dependent upon for retirement isn’t so much about putting ownership in the hands of the laborers, as it is about giving us that impression. I preface the link to this essay by openly admitting that it is highly contingent upon opinion, and a relatively small sample of citation for support. The author readily admits as much. If I ever manage to find some time of my own, I intend to do a little follow-up and check the credibility of the sources. But I also suggest that the argument makes logical sense, and furthermore, that many of the truths we now hold as self-evident themselves began as mere opinion, or hypotheses. For the time being, I’m willing to say that I’m reasonably convinced of the article’s premise. I will also say that if I am presented with convincing evidence that contradicts the premise, I’m willing to rethink the issue.

The conclusion of the essay is posted below. You can find the rest of the essay here: No Deal

Try not to dismiss it outright if you happen to dislike the website on which it was posted. There is a lot of material on these partisan blogs that is exaggerated and one-sided. That goes for the Left as well as for the Right. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t, at times, well thought out, logical positions containing truth from time to time. Our political culture would be much more palatable if we all conceded that.

Broad ownership of deferred compensation plans has greatly changed how we view the stock market and made us more willing to take action that benefits the market. It’s likely that not only the $700 billion bailout, but much of the deregulation that made that bailout necessary, would not have been possible without the change in attitude created through deferred compensation plans. We were willing to let them get away with being weasels, because we thought we would gather part of the benefit from their activities.

This is, of course, an illusion. This impression that stocks are now in the hands of average Americans is a thin veneer over the situation as it has always existed. The median amount of money Americans hold in retirement accounts is around $35,000 – hardly a stock market bonanza — and even this number fails to capture the real situation. For Americans below the 60th percentile on income, the amount held in retirement accounts is around $15,000. For the top 10%, the number is $182,000. Similar numbers apply to direct stock ownership. Around 85% of all stock is owned by those families in the top 10% income bracket. The top 1% owns over half.

What Reagan said in 1975 is still true – a very small number of Americans own the means of production, while the rest work for them. The difference now is that we think we are among the owners, which has been a tremendous benefit to that handful of “real capitalists.”

They turned the pension system into a weapon that worked to their benefit, both at the bank and in the polling booth. Which is why they’re so anxious to do the same for Social Security.