Let us now talk about the possibity of a dialectical bridge beween Freud before and after his short little essay, 'Screen Memories' (1899), the major turning point between his 'pre-psychoanalytic traumatic and seduction theories' and his soon-to-be 'Psychoanalysis-proper' as trumpeted by the publication of his famous book, 'The Interpretation of Dreams' (1900). If it was the issue of 'sexuality' that became one of the main dividing points between Freud and Jung, then it is to the issue of sexuality -- and the polarity between 'sexual traumacy' and 'sexual narcissism' -- that we must return.
Much has been made of this controversial theoretical and clinical turning-point in the evolution of Psychoanalysis: many -- particularly feminists knowledgeable with what went down here -- would say that Freud basically abandoned women -- abandoned alleged female victims of childhood sexual assault -- and turned Psychoanalysis into a much more 'chauvanist men's club' that suppressed and distorted all evidence of childhood sexual assaults under the guise of 'childhood and adolescent sexual fantasy' -- most particulary, relative to a girl's love for her father.
I remember running into this issue for the first time when I picked up Masson's controversial book in the mid to late 1980s, 'The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory' (1984, 1985, 1992). I even remember contacting Mr. Masson in New Zealand by email -- years after he had broken away (and/or been banished) from numerous psychoanalytic societies that he had belonged to (the International Psychoanalytical Association, the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society, the Toronto Psychoanalytic Society, and I believe, the San Francisico Psychonalytic Society. Cited from another of Masson's books, 'Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst', 1990,1991.)
My first email to Masson was responded to by Masson with reasonable warmth as he wished me good luck in my work but still he did not wish to re-hash the Seduction Theory Controversy. My second email to him was not treated as warmly -- understandable I suppose in light of all the grief he had taken during those years, and/or also my lack of 'sufficient professional' credentials on the same subject manner.
Now here is the point I wish to make. As much as I loved reading 'Final Analysis' and 'The Assault on Truth' and Janet Malcolm's 'In The Freud Archives'(1983,84), and I probably side closer to Masson's last published points of view, and Freud's pre-1897 point of view rather than Freud's evolving post-1897 point of view: still, most memories -- plain and simple -- from an 'objective' epistemological point of view, cannot be fully or often even at all significantly trusted.
Let us just look at the anectdotal evidence we have here. It has been at least 15 years since I last theoretically invested any time and energy into this remarkable controversy, so excuse me if my own memory is a little rusty here: I said that I picked up Masson's book, 'The Assault on Truth' in the mid to late 1980s. Wrong! I just fished the book out of my personal library here, dusted off the cobwebs, and found out that the last publication date on the book was 1992. That means that I obviously bought the book sometime in or after 1992 but I 'remembered' it to be in the mid to late 1980s. So much for my memory. I read all three of those books that I just cited above but do I remember which book I read when, and in which order, and how far apart the readings were? I am obviously more than a little suspicious of my own memory at this point. Logically speaking, I would imagine I read 'Assault' first, then 'Final Analysis', then Malcolm's 'In the Freud Archives'. But don't quote me on that -- and I certainly would not want to put my hand on a bible in a court of law because if I did, I would probably have to say simply, 'I don't know'. Do I remember what year it was that I emailed Masson in New Zealand. He was working on 'animal psychology', I believe, by that point in time. (Certainly less stressful than 'human psychology' -- especially when it comes to the subject of 'sex' and 'sexuality'.) Maybe one day I will find the email in my own archives here with a date attached to it. But other than that I can only guess that it was somewhere around 1995-97. Again, don't quote me on that because my memory right now is not holding up to the test. It is certainly flawed.
Do I at least partly make my point? A therapist has no right to totally or even necessarily partly trust' the 'objective epistemological correctness' of any memory that a client cites to him or her for the simple reason that it is a 'memory' and memories can easily fail, distort, embellish, discard...in short, they are very narcissistically biased'. To trust a memory in a court of law -- without substantiating empirical evidence and other credible witness reports is downright ludicrous -- putting a man (i.e., it is usually but not always a man who is being accused when it comes to issues of 'past childhood sexual assaults') in jail on the basis of the unsubstantiated memories and testimony of an alleged victim is hugely dangerous and I would even say ethically and legally reprehensible unless these memories and testimony are otherwise substantiated. (And as far as 'narcissistic bias', let us not forget that you have lawyers who are functioning like 'pre-Socratic Sophist mercenaries' who are paid handsomely to deliver fancy rhetoric and persuasive logic that is designed to narcissistically serve their clients goals and wishes regardless of how close or how far their clients' goals and wishes are connected to any form of 'objective, epistemological truth'.
We have come full circle and the epistemological and legal dangers that Freud ran into in the mid to late 1890s when he started to have second thoughts, and then abandon, his infamous Seduction Theory, are as real and dangerous today as they were back then. 'Subjective clinical-therapy memories' have no business being called 'epistemological truths' -- regardless of how 'epistemologically real' they may seem. The same point needs to be made with a hundred times more force when we start to talk about an alleged 'unconscious' and/or 'reconstructed' memory. None of these memories should have any legal force in a court of law unless they can be 'empirically substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt' by other much more credible and stronger forms of evidence. And this does not mean a woman's 'psychological/emotional/physical symptoms' or a psychologist's so-called professional testimony.
Psychologists and psychiatrists can be hugely narcissistically biased simply by the orientation of their training. Who's giving the testimony -- an orthodox, Oedipal Complex believing, Psychoanalyst? Or a 21st century feminist psychologist who may have been sexually assaulted herself and who may be projecting her own situation onto her client (in Psychoanalysis this is called 'counter-transference') and 'subconsciously looking' for evidence of a sexual assault in her client in practically every symptom that she portrays, and in every memory, conscious or unconscious, legitimately told to her or 'interpretively reconstructed' by the therapist. This presents a huge 'epistemological and ethical danger' not only to psychotherapy in general -- regardless of psychological orientation, orthodox Psychoanalytic or the opposite -- but even more so once this whole psychological and epistemological charade moves into a court of law.
Do I believe that guilty men should be held accountable for their 'sexual assaults'? Of course, I do -- if they can be legitimately proven in a court of law -- and allowing for the fact that there is a very big difference between 'inappropriately making a pass at a woman' and 'rape'. They should not be treated the same -- and even as I speak there are many men terrified of making a pass at a woman, even having sex with a woman for the first time without the petrifiying thought that she could ruin his life just by 'turning on him' the next morning.
The laws for 'sexual assault' and nowadays 'domestic assault' are getting broader and broader, with less and less 'empirical evidence' needed to get a legal conviction.
In effect, this means that we are now getting more and more of the opposite kind of problem than we used to have. Now, instead of far too many men get away with serious sexual crimes that they should have been convicted of with significant sentences, now we are convicting men and throwing men into jail left, right, and centre, on the basis of laws that are narcissistically biased in favor of women and on the basis of 'narcissistically biased evidence' that would never have been considered 'empirical evidence' back before our domestic and sexual assault laws started to change.
In effect, the Seduction Theory rules again in North American law -- whether we are talking about recent adult or childhood memories -- with or without any kind of 'legitimate supporting empirical and/or witness evidence'. North American domestic law used to be narcissistically biased in favor of men. Now it is narcissisically biased in favor of women.
As if women are incapable of lying, manipulating evidence, embellishing and distorting facts, creating false testimony, making themselves out to be 'angels' and 'victims', noncapable of violence themselves of course, non-capable of 'instigating trouble', or 'retaliating to rejection' or 'seducing men in their own right'...all of these potential complications to the 'epistemological truth' in both a psychotherapist's office and even more so in a court of law go out the window in today's North American world of 'feminine -- and feminist -- overprotection'.
So how in the name of God or Zeus or Apollo could Freud give any pretense to 'finding epistemological memory truth' in his clinical office in 1895 when in 2007 we are no further ahead -- epistemologically poisoned equally from both sides by an overbelief in both Freud and/or the opposite pro-feminist, anti-Freud point of view on 'memories' and 'unsubtantiated narcissistcally biased, one-sided testimony'. 'Memories' and 'unsubstantiated, narcissistically biased, one-sided testimony' need to be thrown out of all courts of law until this whole 'epistemological and ethical mess' is put back into proper balanced perspective. Right now our domestic courts are making a mockery of the name 'justice'. Both Freud's Seduction Theory and his Childhood Sexuality and Oedipal Complex theories were one-sidedly biased but today in our domestic courts of law we are all seeing the evidence of his 'Seduction Theory Gone Mad'...
What is it -- something like 70 to 90 of all men in jail now are there on 'domestic crimes'. Where are all the women filling up the women's jails? I don't see the same problem in the women's jails these days. What does that mean? Women don't know how to throw a punch? Push a man? Grab a man by the ear? Throw a piece of furniture at a man? Seduce a man -- or consent to being seduced by a man -- and then 'flip' the next day when she has sobred up or things didn't turn out exactly the way she wanted them to?
The epistemological, ethical, and legal problem that we are facing today -- as originally uncovered at least partly by Freud in the 1890s -- is at least partly this: Is it better to 'have not enough men in jail who have committed sexual and/or domestic assault'? Or is it better to 'throw too many men in jail who are not guilty of the crimes they allegedly committed and/or are being punished for crimes that their accusers were at least equally guilty of -- and who are getting off scott free with no tarnishment of their legal reputations.' Why should a democratic law that is supposed to be equal to all citizens, male and female, black and white, have an overt and/or covert 'threshold of guilt' that is obviously very low when it comes to transgressions committed by a man against a woman, and so high when it comes to transgressions committed by a woman against a man. And that is amongst those transgressions committed by women that even make it to a court of law. Most of them are either not reported, and/or if they are reported, they are not taken seriously by police unless the evidence is overwhelming.
So from a psychotherapeutic and clinical point of view, the problem then becomes this: where do we find a 'workable bridge' between Freud's 'Traumacy-Seduction Theory' and his later 'Childhood Sexuality and Oedipal Complex' theories. Or put another way -- between 'Traumacy Theory' and 'Narcissistic (Compensation) Theory'.
I will leave you with this theoretical and practical problem for now. And that is my take on Freud for today, March 3rd, 2007, modified on March 5th, 2007, then again freshly modified on Monday January 19th, 2009, and again on March 23rd, 2009.
-- dgb, originally written March 3rd, 2007, latest update, Mar. 23rd-24th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain.
........................................
Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction
Author(s): Andreas Kapardis
ISBN10: 052182530X
ISBN13: 9780521825306
Format: Hardcover
Pub. Date: 3/3/2003
Publisher(s): Cambridge University Press
New Price $99.45
List Price $102.00
eVIP Price $94.48
Quantity
New Copy: This item is temporarily unavailable from the publisher, but is expected in soon. Place your order now and we will ship it as soon as it arrives.
Used Price N/A
List Price $102.00
eVIP Price N/A
Marketplace Price $9.98
List Price $102.00
Take 90 Days to Pay on $250 or more
with Quick, Easy, Secure
Subject to credit approval.
This book provides a comprehensive, up-to-date discussion of contemporary debates at the interface between psychology and criminal law. The topics surveyed include critiques of eyewitness testimony; the jury; sentencing as a human process; the psychologist as expert witness; persuasion in the courtroom; detecting deception; and psychology and the police. Kapardis draws on sources from Europe, North America and Australia to offer an expert investigation of the subjectivity and human fallibility inherent in our system of justice. He also provides suggestions for minimizing undesirable influences on crucial judicial decision-making. First Edition Hb (1997): 0-521-55321-0 First Edition Pb (1997): 0-521-55738-0
This book is the authoritative work for students and professionals in psychology and law.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:Good
- Music:Utada Hikaru
Ayn Rand said this, Ayn Rand said that. We are the 'true' educators of Ayn Rand Philosphy. Don't trust this 'faction' or that 'faction'. Trust only us.
How did Milt Friedman's philosophical ideas connect and/or disconnect with Ayn Rand's ideas? Did the two like each other and their respective ideas? Or not?
What caused the break-up in philosophical 'similarity of approach' between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden? When I was writing my Honours Thesis in Psychology in 1979, they seemed to be on the 'same page together'. Much of the early part of my thesis was based on Branden's 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem' which in turn was very much influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What happened that they -- 'disconnected'?
Throw in Noam Chomsky's philosophical ideas -- quite the opposite of both Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's -- and the philosophical dialectic becomes even more complicated.
Words, words, words...and the ever elusive search for their 'meaning'...
Who said what? When? Where? Do we have that in writing? Do we have it in an interview?
Who's right? Who's wrong?
Where is that every elusive place of 'homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance'?
Or is that even a goal that some -- or any -- of these philosophers are chasing?
Two of these philosophers -- Milton Friedman and Aynd Rand -- are pretty far right wing.
Chomsky is a known socialist -- although a good one, I believe -- a 'humanistic-socialist'. Similar to Erich Fromm in a lot of respects. Nice to see a man who lists both Adam Smith and Karl Marx amongst his philosophical influences. It seems obvious that Karl Marx has had the greater influence.
I can respect the work of both a 'good Capitalist' and a 'good Socialist'. I list Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Noam Chomsky -- and whatever economic affiliate that Naomi Klein attaches herself to amongst the people I include in this category. Any yet none of them are beyond reproach. Not of them are infallible when it comes to logic, reason, and ethics...We are all too human, too human to try to believe that anyone of us has philosophically and/or politically and/or economically captured 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' -- about anything.
Everyone is epistemologically and ethically fallible -- including Ayn Rand herself who almost talked and wrote like the 'reincarnation of Apollo' himself -- the God of Light and Reason and Truth.
With all due respect to Ayn Rand -- and I respect her ideas greatly -- I cannot but be amused by the irony I see in the fact that when Rand writes about 'reason' it is almost like she is writing about it with a Capital 'R' -- as in 'Reason'. She wrote about Reason like Plato wrote about 'The Forms' and like Hegel wrote about 'The Absolute' and like Kant wrote about 'The Noumenal World' -- like 'Reason' was some sort of 'Gift From God' and that we all just have to 'turn onto the right channel, the right frequency' -- 'The Frequency From God, The Frequency From Apollo' -- and we will all just magically 'know' what is 'good' vs. 'bad' reasoning.
Or maybe we just have to turn onto 'The Ayn Rand Frequency of Reason' and we will all just somehown magically know how to reason better -- and to live a better life.
A life of 'self-interest'. A life built around 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
And this she calls 'ethics'. As if anyone would then need to study ethics to know what 'self-interest' and 'selfishness' is all about.
But then, maybe we all need to get a PHD in 'Ayn Rand Philosophy' -- or 'Objectivism' -- to know fully what Ayn Rand meant by 'rational self-interst' and/or 'the virtue of selfishness'.
I would hope that she would not equate it with what just happened on Wall Street last fall before Obama became President -- and that she would not equate it with all of these CEOs and corporate executives on Wall St. pleading for 'Washington Bailout Money' to compensate for their gross financial mistakes -- and greed -- and then turned around on Washington after they did indeed get their first package of bailout money -- and basically said, 'Thank you very much, as they took their golden parachute money and corporate bonuses, and retirement or severance packages -- and thumbed their noses at both the Washington politicians who gave them this money as well as, indirectly, the taxpayers on Main Street -- both those who lost their houses and those who didn't -- who I'm sure did not believe that their excruciatingly hard earned, and lost, tax money was going to be so abusively used, or misused, in this fashion.
I can't see Ayn Rand advocating this type of 'Capitalism' because Capitalism in this fashion -- which I call 'Narcissistic Capitalism' -- espouses the anti-thesis of everything that Ayn Rand I believe stood for in both 'The Fountainhead' and in 'Atlas Shruggged' -- specifically, the one word we might call 'integrity'.
So for Ayn Rand -- and her particular brand of philosophy, 'Objectivism' -- the challenge as I see it is to get 'Capitalism, Self-Interest, Selfishness -- and Integrity' all on the same page together, not an easy feat at all. Indeed, this is where I believe Ayn Rand's brand of Capitalistic Philososphy self-destructs under its own weight. Because inevitably, self-interest collapses into selfishness, which collapses into unbridled greed and narcissism. Which collapses into a world of 'Lord of The Flies' -- of distrust, paranoia, disrespect, and all the 'sophism' that each and every person can get away with. All spirit of 'co-operation' and 'working as a team' collapses under the philosophy that every worker has to 'check to see who's going into the manager's office next' and 'who's stabbing my back to get the proper management networking in place for the next promotion'...
One of the best ways of differentiating between 'Ethical Capitalism' and 'Narcissistic Capitalism' is by noting who works the hardest when the manager isn't around and who works the manager's office the hardest when the manager is around.'
As far as Milton Friedman, I don't think his brand of Capitalism even pretended to be as ethical as Ayn Rand's brand of Capitalism.
With Milton Friedman, it is to be assumed that all stockholders want the highest profits possible for the company they own. And it is the job of the corporate executives to 'deliver the goods'. Everything else is secondary as long as it is legal. A corporate executive has the choice of quitting if he or she doesn't like the particular 'brand of ethics' that is being passed down from the top. Otherwise, he or she does what he or she is told to do -- just like any good 'military man'. Authoritarianism rules. 'Shoot to kill.' Wipe out the people who are getting in the way of the maximum profits of the company. It's the American Way. Or at least the 'Milton Friedman' way. Pushed to the maximum by the applications of Bush and his Friedman brand of Republicans. Now Friedman would argue that America should never have invaded Iraq.
That is one thing we can agree on.
Philosophically, I am looking for a different brand of Capitalism -- different partly from both Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand although probably much closer to the aspired Capitalism of Ayn Rand with a more 'dialectic-democratic, humanistic-existential twist to it -- what I call, 'DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism'.
Don't ask me what that is completely right now because I don't know.
It is just an abstract vision that needs to be worked out in more concrete detail. And I doubt if I can do it alone.
But incorporated into it will be my usual philosophical mentors: Hegel, Aristotle (the 'middle' path), Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, Diderot, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Nietzsche, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, Foucault, Derrida, Chomsky...
I support 'individualism' -- but individualism in a social and political and economic context of 'Kantian ethics' of 'positive and negative reciprocity' -- 1. treating others like we would want to be treated ourselves; and 2. not treating others like we would not want to be treated ourselves.
That is enough for today.
-- dgb, Feb. 24th, 2009.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:More emotions
- Music:Namie Amuro
Ayn Rand said this, Ayn Rand said that. We are the 'true' educators of Ayn Rand Philosphy. Don't trust this 'faction' or that 'faction'. Trust only us.
How did Milt Friedman's philosophical ideas connect and/or disconnect with Ayn Rand's ideas? Did the two like each other and their respective ideas? Or not?
What caused the break-up in philosophical 'similarity of approach' between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden? When I was writing my Honours Thesis in Psychology in 1979, they seemed to be on the 'same page together'. Much of the early part of my thesis was based on Branden's 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem' which in turn was very much influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What happened that they -- 'disconnected'?
Throw in Noam Chomsky's philosophical ideas -- quite the opposite of both Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's -- and the philosophical dialectic becomes even more complicated.
Words, words, words...and the ever elusive search for their 'meaning'...
Who said what? When? Where? Do we have that in writing? Do we have it in an interview?
Who's right? Who's wrong?
Where is that every elusive place of 'homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance'?
Or is that even a goal that some -- or any -- of these philosophers are chasing?
Two of these philosophers -- Milton Friedman and Aynd Rand -- are pretty far right wing.
Chomsky is a known socialist -- although a good one, I believe -- a 'humanistic-socialist'. Similar to Erich Fromm in a lot of respects. Nice to see a man who lists both Adam Smith and Karl Marx amongst his philosophical influences. It seems obvious that Karl Marx has had the greater influence.
I can respect the work of both a 'good Capitalist' and a 'good Socialist'. I list Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Noam Chomsky -- and whatever economic affiliate that Naomi Klein attaches herself to amongst the people I include in this category. Any yet none of them are beyond reproach. Not of them are infallible when it comes to logic, reason, and ethics...We are all too human, too human to try to believe that anyone of us has philosophically and/or politically and/or economically captured 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' -- about anything.
Everyone is epistemologically and ethically fallible -- including Ayn Rand herself who almost talked and wrote like the 'reincarnation of Apollo' himself -- the God of Light and Reason and Truth.
With all due respect to Ayn Rand -- and I respect her ideas greatly -- I cannot but be amused by the irony I see in the fact that when Rand writes about 'reason' it is almost like she is writing about it with a Capital 'R' -- as in 'Reason'. She wrote about Reason like Plato wrote about 'The Forms' and like Hegel wrote about 'The Absolute' and like Kant wrote about 'The Noumenal World' -- like 'Reason' was some sort of 'Gift From God' and that we all just have to 'turn onto the right channel, the right frequency' -- 'The Frequency From God, The Frequency From Apollo' -- and we will all just magically 'know' what is 'good' vs. 'bad' reasoning.
Or maybe we just have to turn onto 'The Ayn Rand Frequency of Reason' and we will all just somehown magically know how to reason better -- and to live a better life.
A life of 'self-interest'. A life built around 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
And this she calls 'ethics'. As if anyone would then need to study ethics to know what 'self-interest' and 'selfishness' is all about.
But then, maybe we all need to get a PHD in 'Ayn Rand Philosophy' -- or 'Objectivism' -- to know fully what Ayn Rand meant by 'rational self-interst' and/or 'the virtue of selfishness'.
I would hope that she would not equate it with what just happened on Wall Street last fall before Obama became President -- and that she would not equate it with all of these CEOs and corporate executives on Wall St. pleading for 'Washington Bailout Money' to compensate for their gross financial mistakes -- and greed -- and then turned around on Washington after they did indeed get their first package of bailout money -- and basically said, 'Thank you very much, as they took their golden parachute money and corporate bonuses, and retirement or severance packages -- and thumbed their noses at both the Washington politicians who gave them this money as well as, indirectly, the taxpayers on Main Street -- both those who lost their houses and those who didn't -- who I'm sure did not believe that their excruciatingly hard earned, and lost, tax money was going to be so abusively used, or misused, in this fashion.
I can't see Ayn Rand advocating this type of 'Capitalism' because Capitalism in this fashion -- which I call 'Narcissistic Capitalism' -- espouses the anti-thesis of everything that Ayn Rand I believe stood for in both 'The Fountainhead' and in 'Atlas Shruggged' -- specifically, the one word we might call 'integrity'.
So for Ayn Rand -- and her particular brand of philosophy, 'Objectivism' -- the challenge as I see it is to get 'Capitalism, Self-Interest, Selfishness -- and Integrity' all on the same page together, not an easy feat at all. Indeed, this is where I believe Ayn Rand's brand of Capitalistic Philososphy self-destructs under its own weight. Because inevitably, self-interest collapses into selfishness, which collapses into unbridled greed and narcissism. Which collapses into a world of 'Lord of The Flies' -- of distrust, paranoia, disrespect, and all the 'sophism' that each and every person can get away with. All spirit of 'co-operation' and 'working as a team' collapses under the philosophy that every worker has to 'check to see who's going into the manager's office next' and 'who's stabbing my back to get the proper management networking in place for the next promotion'...
One of the best ways of differentiating between 'Ethical Capitalism' and 'Narcissistic Capitalism' is by noting who works the hardest when the manager isn't around and who works the manager's office the hardest when the manager is around.'
As far as Milton Friedman, I don't think his brand of Capitalism even pretended to be as ethical as Ayn Rand's brand of Capitalism.
With Milton Friedman, it is to be assumed that all stockholders want the highest profits possible for the company they own. And it is the job of the corporate executives to 'deliver the goods'. Everything else is secondary as long as it is legal. A corporate executive has the choice of quitting if he or she doesn't like the particular 'brand of ethics' that is being passed down from the top. Otherwise, he or she does what he or she is told to do -- just like any good 'military man'. Authoritarianism rules. 'Shoot to kill.' Wipe out the people who are getting in the way of the maximum profits of the company. It's the American Way. Or at least the 'Milton Friedman' way. Pushed to the maximum by the applications of Bush and his Friedman brand of Republicans. Now Friedman would argue that America should never have invaded Iraq.
That is one thing we can agree on.
Philosophically, I am looking for a different brand of Capitalism -- different partly from both Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand although probably much closer to the aspired Capitalism of Ayn Rand with a more 'dialectic-democratic, humanistic-existential twist to it -- what I call, 'DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism'.
Don't ask me what that is completely right now because I don't know.
It is just an abstract vision that needs to be worked out in more concrete detail. And I doubt if I can do it alone.
But incorporated into it will be my usual philosophical mentors: Hegel, Aristotle (the 'middle' path), Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, Diderot, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Nietzsche, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, Foucault, Derrida, Chomsky...
I support 'individualism' -- but individualism in a social and political and economic context of 'Kantian ethics' of 'positive and negative reciprocity' -- 1. treating others like we would want to be treated ourselves; and 2. not treating others like we would not want to be treated ourselves.
That is enough for today.
-- dgb, Feb. 24th, 2009.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:Very good
- Music:Sukiyaki
Ayn Rand said this, Ayn Rand said that. We are the 'true' educators of Ayn Rand Philosphy. Don't trust this 'faction' or that 'faction'. Trust only us.
How did Milt Friedman's philosophical ideas connect and/or disconnect with Ayn Rand's ideas? Did the two like each other and their respective ideas? Or not?
What caused the break-up in philosophical 'similarity of approach' between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden? When I was writing my Honours Thesis in Psychology in 1979, they seemed to be on the 'same page together'. Much of the early part of my thesis was based on Branden's 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem' which in turn was very much influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What happened that they -- 'disconnected'?
Throw in Noam Chomsky's philosophical ideas -- quite the opposite of both Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's -- and the philosophical dialectic becomes even more complicated.
Words, words, words...and the ever elusive search for their 'meaning'...
Who said what? When? Where? Do we have that in writing? Do we have it in an interview?
Who's right? Who's wrong?
Where is that every elusive place of 'homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance'?
Or is that even a goal that some -- or any -- of these philosophers are chasing?
Two of these philosophers -- Milton Friedman and Aynd Rand -- are pretty far right wing.
Chomsky is a known socialist -- although a good one, I believe -- a 'humanistic-socialist'. Similar to Erich Fromm in a lot of respects. Nice to see a man who lists both Adam Smith and Karl Marx amongst his philosophical influences. It seems obvious that Karl Marx has had the greater influence.
I can respect the work of both a 'good Capitalist' and a 'good Socialist'. I list Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Noam Chomsky -- and whatever economic affiliate that Naomi Klein attaches herself to amongst the people I include in this category. Any yet none of them are beyond reproach. Not of them are infallible when it comes to logic, reason, and ethics...We are all too human, too human to try to believe that anyone of us has philosophically and/or politically and/or economically captured 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' -- about anything.
Everyone is epistemologically and ethically fallible -- including Ayn Rand herself who almost talked and wrote like the 'reincarnation of Apollo' himself -- the God of Light and Reason and Truth.
With all due respect to Ayn Rand -- and I respect her ideas greatly -- I cannot but be amused by the irony I see in the fact that when Rand writes about 'reason' it is almost like she is writing about it with a Capital 'R' -- as in 'Reason'. She wrote about Reason like Plato wrote about 'The Forms' and like Hegel wrote about 'The Absolute' and like Kant wrote about 'The Noumenal World' -- like 'Reason' was some sort of 'Gift From God' and that we all just have to 'turn onto the right channel, the right frequency' -- 'The Frequency From God, The Frequency From Apollo' -- and we will all just magically 'know' what is 'good' vs. 'bad' reasoning.
Or maybe we just have to turn onto 'The Ayn Rand Frequency of Reason' and we will all just somehown magically know how to reason better -- and to live a better life.
A life of 'self-interest'. A life built around 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
And this she calls 'ethics'. As if anyone would then need to study ethics to know what 'self-interest' and 'selfishness' is all about.
But then, maybe we all need to get a PHD in 'Ayn Rand Philosophy' -- or 'Objectivism' -- to know fully what Ayn Rand meant by 'rational self-interst' and/or 'the virtue of selfishness'.
I would hope that she would not equate it with what just happened on Wall Street last fall before Obama became President -- and that she would not equate it with all of these CEOs and corporate executives on Wall St. pleading for 'Washington Bailout Money' to compensate for their gross financial mistakes -- and greed -- and then turned around on Washington after they did indeed get their first package of bailout money -- and basically said, 'Thank you very much, as they took their golden parachute money and corporate bonuses, and retirement or severance packages -- and thumbed their noses at both the Washington politicians who gave them this money as well as, indirectly, the taxpayers on Main Street -- both those who lost their houses and those who didn't -- who I'm sure did not believe that their excruciatingly hard earned, and lost, tax money was going to be so abusively used, or misused, in this fashion.
I can't see Ayn Rand advocating this type of 'Capitalism' because Capitalism in this fashion -- which I call 'Narcissistic Capitalism' -- espouses the anti-thesis of everything that Ayn Rand I believe stood for in both 'The Fountainhead' and in 'Atlas Shruggged' -- specifically, the one word we might call 'integrity'.
So for Ayn Rand -- and her particular brand of philosophy, 'Objectivism' -- the challenge as I see it is to get 'Capitalism, Self-Interest, Selfishness -- and Integrity' all on the same page together, not an easy feat at all. Indeed, this is where I believe Ayn Rand's brand of Capitalistic Philososphy self-destructs under its own weight. Because inevitably, self-interest collapses into selfishness, which collapses into unbridled greed and narcissism. Which collapses into a world of 'Lord of The Flies' -- of distrust, paranoia, disrespect, and all the 'sophism' that each and every person can get away with. All spirit of 'co-operation' and 'working as a team' collapses under the philosophy that every worker has to 'check to see who's going into the manager's office next' and 'who's stabbing my back to get the proper management networking in place for the next promotion'...
One of the best ways of differentiating between 'Ethical Capitalism' and 'Narcissistic Capitalism' is by noting who works the hardest when the manager isn't around and who works the manager's office the hardest when the manager is around.'
As far as Milton Friedman, I don't think his brand of Capitalism even pretended to be as ethical as Ayn Rand's brand of Capitalism.
With Milton Friedman, it is to be assumed that all stockholders want the highest profits possible for the company they own. And it is the job of the corporate executives to 'deliver the goods'. Everything else is secondary as long as it is legal. A corporate executive has the choice of quitting if he or she doesn't like the particular 'brand of ethics' that is being passed down from the top. Otherwise, he or she does what he or she is told to do -- just like any good 'military man'. Authoritarianism rules. 'Shoot to kill.' Wipe out the people who are getting in the way of the maximum profits of the company. It's the American Way. Or at least the 'Milton Friedman' way. Pushed to the maximum by the applications of Bush and his Friedman brand of Republicans. Now Friedman would argue that America should never have invaded Iraq.
That is one thing we can agree on.
Philosophically, I am looking for a different brand of Capitalism -- different partly from both Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand although probably much closer to the aspired Capitalism of Ayn Rand with a more 'dialectic-democratic, humanistic-existential twist to it -- what I call, 'DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism'.
Don't ask me what that is completely right now because I don't know.
It is just an abstract vision that needs to be worked out in more concrete detail. And I doubt if I can do it alone.
But incorporated into it will be my usual philosophical mentors: Hegel, Aristotle (the 'middle' path), Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, Diderot, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Nietzsche, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, Foucault, Derrida, Chomsky...
I support 'individualism' -- but individualism in a social and political and economic context of 'Kantian ethics' of 'positive and negative reciprocity' -- 1. treating others like we would want to be treated ourselves; and 2. not treating others like we would not want to be treated ourselves.
That is enough for today.
-- dgb, Feb. 24th, 2009.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:Cry
- Music:Utada Hikaru
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it. -- Thomas Jefferson
This is the type of thing -- described in the article below -- that DGB Philosophy means by 'unbridled narcissism and no ethics', reflectng the worst of the worst in both North American politics and Capitalism. It is the reason Obama was elected by the American people -- to put together something much better in American Government than what we see below us here, to turn fake -- narcissistic and sophist -- political ideology back onto a track of ethical idealism and humanism meets realism that the American people can once again feel proud of, a la John Locke, Adam Smith (with better humanistic-existential Capitalist regulations), Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Abraham Lincoln...Franklin D. Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy...Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, S.I.Hayakawa...
The type of political-capitalist corruption we see below is the type of narcissistic-sophist-Capitalist politics that I believe the majority of the American people want to leave behind, not further propogate...But as I saw on a Church sign, 'We all must be the change we want to see in the world'.
We cannot continue to worship 'polar idols' -- except to the extent that they are in harmony and homeostatic balance with each other -- but 'fake ethical ideology' and 'real ethical idealism' are not in harmony with each other. In narcissistic-sophist capitalist politics, fake ethical ideology becomes a 'smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show, look at my left hand while I punch you in the nose with my right hand' type of routine.
This is false leadership. This is fake leadership. We end up turning off all politicians until one day, along comes a politician who ignites our better, higher ideals -- but we can't put all the responsibility and accountability on Obama's shoulders. We have to all be better ourselves. We can't say that 'Obama will make me a better person' if we continue to play into the same type of narcissistic-sophist-hypocritical games that our 'false politicians and corporate leaders play -- and are scandalized for'. Otherwise, we are lying to ourselves relative to the 'real God(s) we are worshipping (Narcissus, Dionysus, no Apollo). Our lives are out of homeostatic balance. Our character and integrity is one-sided and not to be trusted. Our world is centred around us -- and we cannot see beyond the narcissistic-dionysian mirror that we are looking into. This is the true 'Birth of Tragedy' -- just as a life completely infatuated with 'Apollo' -- and completely devoid of any kind of worship for Narcissus and Dionysis whatsoever -- spawns an entirely different, opposite, type of tragedy.
Existential alienation -- a living death -- can happen in either a Church or a Bar (the first from too much self-denial and self-sacrifice; the second from too much self-infatuation, or the lack of it, too much Narcissism and Dionysianism and Eros, or the lack of it, and striving to compensate and gain what you lack.
Existential death can happen in The White House and in The Senate amongst 'The Masters of War', and amongst The Lobbyists, and amongst the Corporate Creeps.
Existential death can happen on Wall Street. Or on Main Street. It can happen in banks and mortgage companies and closed down factories and foreclosed houses. It can happen behind closed doors -- family doors, corporate doors, political doors, school doors...Others can poison us with their existential death -- and we can poison others with our existential death. 'Dialectic-humanistic-existential alienation and death'. Transmitted like a virus through our individual encounters, or the lack of the type of encounter that moves people closer to each other, harmonizes people with each other -- 'toxic transactions' with our loved ones taking a dose of our 'poison', or our co-workers, or our employees...
In this, the Christmas season, it is time for us all -- not just our leaders -- to take a good, long, hard look at ourselves in the mirror, and say either...
'I will be ethically better'...
Or not.
(In which case -- quit with the sophism and the hypocrisy. People will eventually see through you, and what you really stand for.)
Christmas -- and the Muslim holiday (Ede) -- is for striving to be ethically better. Not only for the day. But for the season, giving us proper closure to this year, a chance to redeem ourselves, to set higher ethical standards to live our lives by, and to carry this ethical momentum heading into the year to come, hopefully with significant stamina and follow-through to back up these ideals, not to pretend they don't exist the moment it becomes convenient for us to put them back into the closet again.
-- dgb
-- DGBN, Dec. 10th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process....
........................................
Ill. governor charged in Obama successor probe
Print By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer Mike Robinson, Associated Press Writer 33 mins ago, December 9/08
Blagojevich arrested in Obama senate seat scheme
Obama: 'saddened' by Blagojevich allegations AP
Illinois residents react to Blagojevich's arrest KMOV Channel 4 St. Louis AP
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was roused from bed and arrested Tuesday after prosecutors said he was caught on wiretaps audaciously scheming to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for cash or a plum job for himself in the new administration.
"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden," the 51-year-old Democrat said of his authority to appoint Obama's replacement, "and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it."
Prosecutors did not accuse Obama himself of any wrongdoing or even knowing about the matter. The president-elect said: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening."
FBI agents arrested the governor before daybreak at his Chicago home and took him away while his family was still asleep, saying the wiretaps convinced them that Blagojevich's "political corruption crime spree" had to be stopped before it was too late.
"The Senate seat, as recently as days ago, seemed to be on the verge of being auctioned off," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said. "The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave."
Federal investigators bugged the governor's campaign offices and tapped his home phone, capturing conversations laced with profanity and tough-guy talk from the governor. Chicago FBI chief Robert Grant said even seasoned investigators were stunned by what they heard, particularly since the governor had known for at least three years he was under investigation for alleged hiring fraud and clearly realized agents might be listening in.
The FBI said in court papers that the governor was overheard conspiring to sell the Senate seat for campaign cash or lucrative jobs for himself or his wife, Patti, a real estate agent. He spoke of using the Senate appointment to land a job with a nonprofit foundation or a union-affiliated group, and even held out hope of getting appointed as Obama's secretary of health and human services or an ambassador.
According to court papers, the governor tried to make it known through emissaries, including union officials and fundraisers, that the seat could be had for the right price. Blagojevich allegedly had a salary in mind $250,000 to $300,00 a year and also spoke of collecting half-million and million-dollar political contributions.
The governor's spokesman had no immediate comment on the charges, but the governor has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. As recently as Monday, he told reporters: "I don't care whether you tape me privately or publicly. I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful."
The charges do not identify by name any of the political figures under consideration for the Senate seat, referring to them only as "Candidate 1," "Candidate 2," and so on. However, those being considered for the post include: Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis, Jan Schakowsky and Luis Gutierrez; Illinois Senate President Emil Jones; and Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth.
Fitzgerald did not address whether any of the potential Senate candidates crossed the line themselves and could face charges. And it was unclear from court papers whether the governor or his aides spoke directly to the candidates.
Blagojevich was charged with two counts: conspiracy to commit fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and solicitation to commit bribery, which is punishable by up 10 years. He was released on his own recognizance.
Blagojevich, a former congressman, state lawmaker and prosecutor, also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune, in an attempt to strong-arm the newspaper into firing editorial writers who had criticized him.
In addition, the governor was accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.
Court papers portray Blagojevich as a greedy, vindictive pol who couldn't wait to find ways to cash in on the Senate appointment. The charges also paint a picture of breathtaking arrogance and perhaps cluelessness, with the governor contemplating a Cabinet position or even a run for the White House despite an abysmal 13 percent approval rating and a reputation as one of the most corrupt governors in the nation.
Blagojevich becomes the latest in a long line of Illinois governors to become engulfed in scandal. He was elected in 2002 as a reformer promising to clean up after Gov. George Ryan, who is serving six years in prison for graft.
The scandal leaves the Senate seat in limbo. Illinois legislative leaders said they were preparing to quickly schedule a special election to fill Obama's seat rather than let Blagojevich pick someone.
"No appointment by this governor, under these circumstances, could produce a credible replacement," said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Some Illinois politicians immediately demanded that the governor step down or face impeachment.
Also arrested was Blagojevich's chief of staff, 46-year-old John Harris, who was accused of taking part in the schemes to enrich the governor.
Blagojevich also considered appointing himself to the Senate seat, telling his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value, I might as well take it," prosecutors said.
He said becoming a senator might help him avoid impeachment and also remake his image for a possible presidential run in 2016, according to court papers. And he allegedly said that he would have access to greater resources if he were indicted while in the Senate.
Prosecutors said he also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.
In court papers, the FBI said Blagojevich expressed frustration at being "stuck" as governor. "I want to make money," the governor, whose salary is $177,412, was quoted as saying in one conversation.
The head of the FBI's office in Chicago said he phoned Blagojevich at 6 a.m., telling him of a warrant for his arrest and informing him there were two FBI agents at his door. Blagojevich's first comment was, "Is this a joke?" Grant said. The governor was led away in handcuffs.
Nothing in the court papers suggested Obama had any part in the discussions about selling the Senate seat or knew of them. In fact, Blagojevich was overheard complaining at one point that Obama's people are "not going to give me anything except appreciation." He added: "(Expletive) them."
Authorities said Blagojevich was hoping to raise $2.5 million by the end of the year and decided to speed up his "crime spree" before a state anti-corruption law takes effect Jan. 1. The governor had vetoed the law, but the Legislature overrode his veto.
The wiretapped conversations took place after Election Day and as recently as last week. On the recordings, Blagojevich warned one person not to use the phone and said, "The whole world is listening. You hear me?"
Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who raised money for the campaigns of both Blagojevich and Obama, is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of fraud and other charges. And Blagojevich's chief fundraiser goes on trial next year on obstruction charges.
The court papers also outline Blagojevich conversations related to Tribune Co., which has been hoping for state aid in selling Wrigley Field, the home of the Chicago Cubs. Blagojevich was quoted as telling his chief of staff, Harris, in a profanity-laced Nov. 4 conversation that Tribune executives should fire the editorial writers "and get us some editorial support."
Harris was later overheard telling the governor on Nov. 11 that an unnamed Tribune owner, presumably CEO Sam Zell, "got the message and is very sensitive to the issue."
Associated Press Writer Don Babwin contributed to this report.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:More emotions
- Music:Ami Suzuki
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it. -- Thomas Jefferson
This is the type of thing -- described in the article below -- that DGB Philosophy means by 'unbridled narcissism and no ethics', reflectng the worst of the worst in both North American politics and Capitalism. It is the reason Obama was elected by the American people -- to put together something much better in American Government than what we see below us here, to turn fake -- narcissistic and sophist -- political ideology back onto a track of ethical idealism and humanism meets realism that the American people can once again feel proud of, a la John Locke, Adam Smith (with better humanistic-existential Capitalist regulations), Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Abraham Lincoln...Franklin D. Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy...Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, S.I.Hayakawa...
The type of political-capitalist corruption we see below is the type of narcissistic-sophist-Capitalist politics that I believe the majority of the American people want to leave behind, not further propogate...But as I saw on a Church sign, 'We all must be the change we want to see in the world'.
We cannot continue to worship 'polar idols' -- except to the extent that they are in harmony and homeostatic balance with each other -- but 'fake ethical ideology' and 'real ethical idealism' are not in harmony with each other. In narcissistic-sophist capitalist politics, fake ethical ideology becomes a 'smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show, look at my left hand while I punch you in the nose with my right hand' type of routine.
This is false leadership. This is fake leadership. We end up turning off all politicians until one day, along comes a politician who ignites our better, higher ideals -- but we can't put all the responsibility and accountability on Obama's shoulders. We have to all be better ourselves. We can't say that 'Obama will make me a better person' if we continue to play into the same type of narcissistic-sophist-hypocritical games that our 'false politicians and corporate leaders play -- and are scandalized for'. Otherwise, we are lying to ourselves relative to the 'real God(s) we are worshipping (Narcissus, Dionysus, no Apollo). Our lives are out of homeostatic balance. Our character and integrity is one-sided and not to be trusted. Our world is centred around us -- and we cannot see beyond the narcissistic-dionysian mirror that we are looking into. This is the true 'Birth of Tragedy' -- just as a life completely infatuated with 'Apollo' -- and completely devoid of any kind of worship for Narcissus and Dionysis whatsoever -- spawns an entirely different, opposite, type of tragedy.
Existential alienation -- a living death -- can happen in either a Church or a Bar (the first from too much self-denial and self-sacrifice; the second from too much self-infatuation, or the lack of it, too much Narcissism and Dionysianism and Eros, or the lack of it, and striving to compensate and gain what you lack.
Existential death can happen in The White House and in The Senate amongst 'The Masters of War', and amongst The Lobbyists, and amongst the Corporate Creeps.
Existential death can happen on Wall Street. Or on Main Street. It can happen in banks and mortgage companies and closed down factories and foreclosed houses. It can happen behind closed doors -- family doors, corporate doors, political doors, school doors...Others can poison us with their existential death -- and we can poison others with our existential death. 'Dialectic-humanistic-existential alienation and death'. Transmitted like a virus through our individual encounters, or the lack of the type of encounter that moves people closer to each other, harmonizes people with each other -- 'toxic transactions' with our loved ones taking a dose of our 'poison', or our co-workers, or our employees...
In this, the Christmas season, it is time for us all -- not just our leaders -- to take a good, long, hard look at ourselves in the mirror, and say either...
'I will be ethically better'...
Or not.
(In which case -- quit with the sophism and the hypocrisy. People will eventually see through you, and what you really stand for.)
Christmas -- and the Muslim holiday (Ede) -- is for striving to be ethically better. Not only for the day. But for the season, giving us proper closure to this year, a chance to redeem ourselves, to set higher ethical standards to live our lives by, and to carry this ethical momentum heading into the year to come, hopefully with significant stamina and follow-through to back up these ideals, not to pretend they don't exist the moment it becomes convenient for us to put them back into the closet again.
-- dgb
-- DGBN, Dec. 10th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process....
........................................
Ill. governor charged in Obama successor probe
Print By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer Mike Robinson, Associated Press Writer 33 mins ago, December 9/08
Blagojevich arrested in Obama senate seat scheme
Obama: 'saddened' by Blagojevich allegations AP
Illinois residents react to Blagojevich's arrest KMOV Channel 4 St. Louis AP
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was roused from bed and arrested Tuesday after prosecutors said he was caught on wiretaps audaciously scheming to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for cash or a plum job for himself in the new administration.
"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden," the 51-year-old Democrat said of his authority to appoint Obama's replacement, "and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it."
Prosecutors did not accuse Obama himself of any wrongdoing or even knowing about the matter. The president-elect said: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening."
FBI agents arrested the governor before daybreak at his Chicago home and took him away while his family was still asleep, saying the wiretaps convinced them that Blagojevich's "political corruption crime spree" had to be stopped before it was too late.
"The Senate seat, as recently as days ago, seemed to be on the verge of being auctioned off," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said. "The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave."
Federal investigators bugged the governor's campaign offices and tapped his home phone, capturing conversations laced with profanity and tough-guy talk from the governor. Chicago FBI chief Robert Grant said even seasoned investigators were stunned by what they heard, particularly since the governor had known for at least three years he was under investigation for alleged hiring fraud and clearly realized agents might be listening in.
The FBI said in court papers that the governor was overheard conspiring to sell the Senate seat for campaign cash or lucrative jobs for himself or his wife, Patti, a real estate agent. He spoke of using the Senate appointment to land a job with a nonprofit foundation or a union-affiliated group, and even held out hope of getting appointed as Obama's secretary of health and human services or an ambassador.
According to court papers, the governor tried to make it known through emissaries, including union officials and fundraisers, that the seat could be had for the right price. Blagojevich allegedly had a salary in mind $250,000 to $300,00 a year and also spoke of collecting half-million and million-dollar political contributions.
The governor's spokesman had no immediate comment on the charges, but the governor has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. As recently as Monday, he told reporters: "I don't care whether you tape me privately or publicly. I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful."
The charges do not identify by name any of the political figures under consideration for the Senate seat, referring to them only as "Candidate 1," "Candidate 2," and so on. However, those being considered for the post include: Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis, Jan Schakowsky and Luis Gutierrez; Illinois Senate President Emil Jones; and Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth.
Fitzgerald did not address whether any of the potential Senate candidates crossed the line themselves and could face charges. And it was unclear from court papers whether the governor or his aides spoke directly to the candidates.
Blagojevich was charged with two counts: conspiracy to commit fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and solicitation to commit bribery, which is punishable by up 10 years. He was released on his own recognizance.
Blagojevich, a former congressman, state lawmaker and prosecutor, also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune, in an attempt to strong-arm the newspaper into firing editorial writers who had criticized him.
In addition, the governor was accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.
Court papers portray Blagojevich as a greedy, vindictive pol who couldn't wait to find ways to cash in on the Senate appointment. The charges also paint a picture of breathtaking arrogance and perhaps cluelessness, with the governor contemplating a Cabinet position or even a run for the White House despite an abysmal 13 percent approval rating and a reputation as one of the most corrupt governors in the nation.
Blagojevich becomes the latest in a long line of Illinois governors to become engulfed in scandal. He was elected in 2002 as a reformer promising to clean up after Gov. George Ryan, who is serving six years in prison for graft.
The scandal leaves the Senate seat in limbo. Illinois legislative leaders said they were preparing to quickly schedule a special election to fill Obama's seat rather than let Blagojevich pick someone.
"No appointment by this governor, under these circumstances, could produce a credible replacement," said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Some Illinois politicians immediately demanded that the governor step down or face impeachment.
Also arrested was Blagojevich's chief of staff, 46-year-old John Harris, who was accused of taking part in the schemes to enrich the governor.
Blagojevich also considered appointing himself to the Senate seat, telling his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value, I might as well take it," prosecutors said.
He said becoming a senator might help him avoid impeachment and also remake his image for a possible presidential run in 2016, according to court papers. And he allegedly said that he would have access to greater resources if he were indicted while in the Senate.
Prosecutors said he also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.
In court papers, the FBI said Blagojevich expressed frustration at being "stuck" as governor. "I want to make money," the governor, whose salary is $177,412, was quoted as saying in one conversation.
The head of the FBI's office in Chicago said he phoned Blagojevich at 6 a.m., telling him of a warrant for his arrest and informing him there were two FBI agents at his door. Blagojevich's first comment was, "Is this a joke?" Grant said. The governor was led away in handcuffs.
Nothing in the court papers suggested Obama had any part in the discussions about selling the Senate seat or knew of them. In fact, Blagojevich was overheard complaining at one point that Obama's people are "not going to give me anything except appreciation." He added: "(Expletive) them."
Authorities said Blagojevich was hoping to raise $2.5 million by the end of the year and decided to speed up his "crime spree" before a state anti-corruption law takes effect Jan. 1. The governor had vetoed the law, but the Legislature overrode his veto.
The wiretapped conversations took place after Election Day and as recently as last week. On the recordings, Blagojevich warned one person not to use the phone and said, "The whole world is listening. You hear me?"
Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who raised money for the campaigns of both Blagojevich and Obama, is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of fraud and other charges. And Blagojevich's chief fundraiser goes on trial next year on obstruction charges.
The court papers also outline Blagojevich conversations related to Tribune Co., which has been hoping for state aid in selling Wrigley Field, the home of the Chicago Cubs. Blagojevich was quoted as telling his chief of staff, Harris, in a profanity-laced Nov. 4 conversation that Tribune executives should fire the editorial writers "and get us some editorial support."
Harris was later overheard telling the governor on Nov. 11 that an unnamed Tribune owner, presumably CEO Sam Zell, "got the message and is very sensitive to the issue."
Associated Press Writer Don Babwin contributed to this report.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:Very good
- Music:Utada Hikaru
A distinction can be made between a 'Constructive-Idealistic-Grand Narrative' Philosopher who aims to paint a broad, idealistic, visionary picture -- a picture of hope and optimism for the future of a person and/or a nation -- vs. a 'Deconstructive-Post-Modern' Philosopher who aims to punch holes, emphasize the weaknesses and pathologies, and tear down the arguments and/or the policies of the Constructive-Grand Narrative Philosopher and/or 'The Party' that he or she belongs to.
A third type of philosopher is the 'Integrative or Synthesizing Philosopher' who aims to integrate and harmonize two or more opposing theories, and/or the disagreements between a Constructive Philosopher (and/or the Philosophical Party he or she belongs to) and a Deconstructive one.
This is all a simple extension of Classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory and 'The Classic Hegelian Evolutionary Life Cycle' that includes everything from Philosophy, Politics, History, Economics, Medicine, Psychology, to all other aspecs of human life and culture.
Put another way, there are: 1. 'Thesis Philosophers', 2. 'Anti-Thesis Philosophers' and 3. 'Integrative Philosophers'. These are all simple 'teaching-classification devices'. It is not unusual for a philosopher to practise, all three of these forms of philosophy at the same and/or different times in his or her philosophizing.
Philosophy provides the underlying foundation for all other aspects of human culture and human living. For some people, the particular philosophy that underlies his or her character may be more clearly focused in his or her awareness, and/or articulated in his or her speech. For others, it may be much more covert, non-congruent, beyond awareness, and unarticulated. It is not unusual for a person's particular philosophy to be full of 'working hypocrisies and double standard' -- indeed, this is probably more the rule than the exception when it comes to understanding human behavior -- and dare I say -- 'human nature'.
There is plenty of 'good' and 'bad' in human behavior and human nature. Over and over again, we see human narcissism (selfishness, greed, pride, love, lust, jealousy, possessiveness, envy, anger, rage, hate, power, revenge...) overpower human ethics, morals, character, and integrity.
Human narcissism is a huge factor in human behavior and human nature -- and in this regard, human ideology, philosophy, politics, and religion rarely touch the day-to-day corrupt and non-corrupt, toxic and non-toxic, pathological and healthy, influence and effect of human narcissism. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or we, are Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, religious or non-religious, Capitalist or Socialist -- you and I and we cannot escape the positive and/or negativeinfluence of narcissism on human behavior and human nature.
One might say that 'human narcissism' is at least partly -- if not largely -- ingrained in our genes, in our DNA makeup.
Ayn Rand would -- and has -- called it 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
In contrast, Erich Fromm has called the 'darker, negative side of human narcissism and its resulting effects on human character and culture in a Capitalist society' -- 'the pathology of normalcy' (See Erich Fromm, The Sane Society).
So there you have it -- the 'twin polarities, contradictions and paradoxes of Capitalism'.
Take your choice between an Adam Smith and/or Ayn Rand 'Idealistic, Visionary, Constructive' view of Capitalism;
Versus a 'Marxian and/or Frommian Post-Modern Deconstruction of 19th century Capitalism (Marx) or 20th century Capitalism (Fromm).
DGB Philosophy works, negotiates, and integrates the 'democratic-dialectic' between these two twin economic-philosophical polarities -- that is, between Adam Smith and Ayn Rand Idealistic, Visionary Capitalism, and The 'Marxian-Frommian Deconstructive Critiques' of both 'Theoretical Capitalism' and 'Empirical, Reality-Bound' Capitalism.
In this regard, DGB Philosophy aims to distinguish between the 'good', the 'bad', and the 'ugly' of modern-day, 21st century North American Capitalism.
DGB Philosophy aims to distinguish between: 'Dialectically and Democratically Divided, Alienated and Alienating, Top-Heavy, Narcissistic Capitalism' on the one hand; vs. 'Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical, Win-Win Capitalism' on the other hand.
If Sarah Palin wants to go back and speak in front of The GOP and tell her party where they failed, as well as telling her party, where they need to idealistically move to, this is the place she needs to start.
However, I do not think that Sarah Palin is:
1. Aware of the type of philosophical distinction I am making here;
2. Able to talk about the type of distinction I am making here with any kind of philosophical depth and passion;
3. Cares about this distinction.
In short, I do not believe that Sarah Palin is any kind of 'idealistic, philosophical visionary', nor do I think she is the right person to lead any 'new, Maverick, Republican White Horse Charge' to change the essence and nature of American Capitalism....not now, and not any time in the future. And this is where the GOP has to start. They are suffering the same consequences, the same fate, as The Liberal Party up here in Canada. Loss of public faith and trust. Loss of any kind of believable and credible Republican Vision. Loss of both old and new-fashioned Republican Idealism in the wake of too much government -- White House and Congress -- Corruption, Narcissism, Inefficiency, and Harmful Action to The American People. Now to be sure, the Democrat Party had a hand in much of this too. But it was a Republican Party leading the way. And it was the Republican Party that was going to take the fall for bad leadership strategies and implementations -- both in Economics and in Foreign Affairs and Diplomacy.
Sarah Palin may have many strengths of character. She may be a good Governor. She may be a good implementor. She may be an attractive charismatic, person and personality. She may be a fiesty 'hockey mom or pitbull with lipstick on'. She may carry her own in some debates and/or interviews (even as she puts up smoke and mirrors, abstractions, and answers to different questions, as she aims to avoid the questions that are 'too hot to handle' -- such as: 'What do you read?').
Sarah Palin may have been over-controlled by The Republican Party (even though the American people soon saw why the Republican Party was trying to keep her on a 'tight leash'.)
Hey, if Sarah Palin can re-invent herself and/or re-promote herself to the American people in the next four years to come, then I give her full credit for being able to do so -- for not taking the recent election loss of the Republican Party and to the 'perceived and/or real damage' to her own character and career passively, without getting up and fighting back...
Sarah Palin has the support of many 'hard right wing, Conservatives and Republicans'.
I just don't think she will ever be able to get the support of more 'middle road' Conservatives and Republicans, not to mention Independents, and any kind of pro-Democrat following at all.
Sarah Palin is who she is -- and I do not believe that that is any kind of 'Idealistic, Wholistic Visionary', nor any kind of 'Integrative Statesperson'. She is too steeped in her own ego, her own financial and career well-being, in Narcissistic Capitalism and Narcssistic Republicanism -- to lead any kind of new 'GOP White Horse, Ethical Capitalism Charge'. And this is where the GOP needs to 'go back to basics' again, back to Ethics 101, and start all over again, working from the bottom up, and the top down towards a new form of 'Wall Street-Main Street Integrative Democratic-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical Capitalism (that was a mouthful!) as opposed to essentially disregarding 'Main Street, American Capitalism' as The Republicans sit in their Ivory Towers and Unilaterally Try to Rule The World -- not to mention, aiming to act as International Police Force, Judge, Jury, and Hangman, while not wanting to have any national or international 'democratic checks and balances' in this whole process. In short, the American Republican Party has spent far too much of the last eight years in office trying to act like 'National and International Gods'.
But maybe after 4 years of 'Democrat-led philosophy and politics', the American people might be ready for another 'hard-nose, Conservative and Republican' again.
Not likely in my opinion -- unless Obama completely floops -- and/or unless The Republican Party is able to 'ethically reform' itself from top to bottom and back to the top again. The future is not ours to see right now.
Philosphically and politically speaking, right now -- Obama and The Democrats are leagues ahead of where the GOP needs to get to, and/or get back to.
The GOP needs to 're-enlighten' itself in the philosphical visions of America's founding fathers, as well as evolve to where American Capitalism and American Foreign Policy needs to get to, from a more 'ethical-dialectic-democratic' form of American Republicanism; not the type of narcissistic, unilateral, imperialistic Republicanism that America has seen for the last eight years.
Time will tell. Obama still has to show that he can 'execute effective, productive, meaningful American government action' as well as he can carry a speech. He has 'talked the talk'. Now he has to 'walk the walk'.
And I will develop my views and Idealistic Vision of American Capitalism as we move along here.
-- dgb, Nov. 15th, 2008.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:Good
- Music:Heartbreak Hotel
The flip-side of Republican tax-cuts --
And for that matter...
Democratic tax cuts too...
Let the American national debt....
Grow....
And grow....
And grow....
And grow....
As Senator McCain just said in a speech today....
'You get the picture...'
Both candidates want to talk about the 'goodies'...
In their campaign promises...
The 'hardships' and the 'sacrifices'
That lie ahead for the American people...
Sort of get pushed aside...
Pushed into the closet...
And swept under the rug...
They will re-surface...
After the election is over...
And the new President...
Has to face the realities...
Of a very tough budget...
Of money coming in...
Vs. money promised or earmarked out...
And a staggering American debt...
George Bush has certainly done nothing to address the exploding national debt.
He will leave it for the next American President to deal with....
McCain keeps saying that he is going to lower taxes...
And cut spending....
What is he going to cut?
He certainly does not plan to cut war expenses...
Is he going to cut health expenses?
Or education expenses?
Or infrastructure expenses?
Let the middle class flounder...
With their health and education expenses...
And let the poor...
Stagger in the ditch...
How is he planning to bring down the national debt?
While still conduction one war in Iraq,
A second war in Afghanastan...
And two more wars looming precariously closer...
In Pakistan and Syria?
-- dgb, Nov. 2nd, 2008.
........................................
How To Destroy The American Dream
Both presidential candidates have said that they will cut taxes...
What presidential candidate in his or her right mind is going to trumpet higher taxes?
I just heard Obama speak a few minutes ago and he did not waver from his $250,000 tax threshold.
Both McCain and Palin keep saying that Obama's 'no tax increase for the middle class' pledge is not to be trusted...
That the 'higher tax threshold' will keep getting lower...
Affecting more and more middle class Americans...
It remains for the American people to decide...
Whether Obama can be trusted as being true to his word...
Or not...
We all know that it is not unusual for a politician...
To flip-flop after winning an election...
But it comes down to whether Obama can be trusted...
To stick to his word...
Or not...
Of course, the same criterion of 'congruence'...
Between 'before-election promises'...
And 'after-election White House action'...
Applies just as much to McCain as to Obama...
Who do you trust more?
Obama or McCain?
Who's going to lead America down the better path?
I voted 'Conservative' in the Canadian election...
That is roughly the Canadian equivalent of 'Republican'...
But that is because The Liberal Party...
Has any 'idealistic vision with any substance'...
Here in Canada...
There is no 'Liberal Obama' here in Canada...
There is only the not-to-distant memories...
Of past Liberal scandals...
Richocheting through this 'Liberal-Conservative' brain...
Through this 'Conservative-Liberal' brain...
My DGB Philosophy of 'Idealistic American Capitalism'...
Mirrors one of the latest speeches of Obama...
On his vision of 'Idealistic American Capitalism'...
The American Dream is meant for all classes of American people...
Who are willing to work hard enough to achieve it...
And ideally, at least some sort of helping hand up, for those who can't...
That includes all Americans....
Working together...
For a better America...
A better 'whole'...
A better 'unity'...
A better 'peace and harmony'...
Not more and more 'give-aways'...
To large corporate lobbyists...
And unethical corporate CEOs...
John McCain's vision of Capitalism...
Is a Capitalism for the rich...
And the richer...
The Republican corporate elite...
John McCain's vision of Capitalism...
Is a 'top-heavy' Capitalism...
Where the rich keep getting richer, and still richer...
While middle class and lower class Americans...
Get left further and further behind...
A 'healthy, ethical' Capitalism...
Is a Capitalism where businesses are strong...
Both at the top and at the bottom...
Where owners, executives, managers, supervisors, and employees...
All get paid well -- and fairly -- for a day's work....
Workers are not 'gouged'...
Or 'juiced'...
Or 'milked'...
And customers are not 'gouged'...
Or 'juiced'...
Or 'milked'...
In ways that 'narcissistically line the pockets'
Of the rich and powerful...
While at the same time 'skewering'...
The rest of the American people...
This is the hidden 'Unethical Capitalist-Republican Flip-side'...
Of Their Anti-Obama 'Spreading The Wealth' message...
The Republicans want to keep the wealth...
In the already wealthy Republicans Bank Accounts and Pockets...
And keep getting wealthier...
This is not Obama's idealistic vision...
This is not Obamas vision of ethical American Capitalism...
Of Democratic Capitalism With Integrity and Character...
Obama does not support Capitalism for The Ruthless and The Heartless...
And neither does DGB Philosophy...
Obama supports a type of Capitalism...
That is a 'win-win-win' type of Capitalism...
A win for the ethical owner(s)...
A win for the ethical employees...
And a win for the customer -- the consuming American public.
A win for the rich who own and/or manage their own American businesses...
Ethically...
That support the growth and well-being of all Americans...
Both at the top of the business...
And at the bottom...
Who work with their employees...
In and/or towards a win-win relationship...
And don't seek to exploit them...
Abuse them...
Gouge them...
Juice them...
A win for the hard-working, lower and middle class employee...
Who does not seek to exploit his business and/or his business owner...
And/or the manager he or she works for...
And a win for the American consumer,
The American buyer,
Who gets 'seduced', 'manipulated', and 'exploited' into buying an American house...
His or her 'American Dream'...
And then find out a couple of years later...
That there are 'trojan virus bankers and/or mortgage comany owners'...
That have just eaten him and/or her...
Out of house and home...
Out of his and/or her...
American Dream...
-- dgb, November 2nd, 2008.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:Good
- Music:Mai Kuraki
How many are we talking about? "University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991."
In other words, almost three out of ten men have cheated on their wives by the time they hit 60; meanwhile, 1.5 women out of ten have cheated on their husbands. Another survey shows that in any given year, 12 percent of men and 7 percent of women say they have had sex with someone who isn't their spouse. Which sounds about right. For the youngest cohort of happily marrieds, women and men have achieved rough equality when it comes to deceiving their spouses.
Why the increases for both men and women?
Personally, I have no idea, but researchers advance a number of theories. On the female side, it is likely that more women are just more likely to report infidelity--but it's also the case that contemporary women, who spend less time with young children, just have more opportunities to cheat.
In the past, said Helen E. Fisher, research professor of anthropology at Rutgers, men have wanted to think women dont cheat, and women have wanted men to think they dont cheat, "and therefore the sexes have been playing a little psychological game with each other."
On a practical level, being universally charged with care of young children also pretty much zeroed out opportunities for extracurricular sex for the moms. (As most caregivers of preschoolers know all too well, the Little Children scenario, in which a stay-at-home dad and stay-at-home mom get it on while their respective kids nap every day at the exact same time, is very unlikely.)
And as women gain more personal freedom and sexual mores loosen, more women are fessing up to infidelity. It's probably not a coincidence that in urban areas the youngest group of husbands and wives also earn more or less the same amounts of money.
These days, "married women are more likely to spend late hours at the office and travel on business. And even for women who stay home, cellphones, e-mail and instant messaging appear to be allowing them to form more intimate relationships." One Atlanta psychiatrist who specializes in family crisis and couples therapy told the New York Times "he has noticed more women talking about affairs centered on 'electronic' contact."
Technology might also be driving male infidelity. Researchers blame the widespread availability of pornography on the Internet, which is known to affect sexual behavior, as well as the invention of Viagra, which essentially makes sex outside of marriage possible for senior citizens.
OK then. People are cheating more, or at least becoming more likely to cop to it. And this activity is being facilitated by technology.
But what's interesting about these studies is that it appears to still be the case that most people, a two thirds majority, don't ever cheat. That goes for men (who are still vastly more likely to admit that they do it) as well as women. You'd expect that over the course of a lifetime most baby boomers (because that's the group we're talking about here) would have dallied at some point--but empirically it appears that they have not.
I've often thought that the stereotypical notion that men think with their sexual organs (and its corollary, that women never do) is fundamentally flawed; this usually goes hand in hand with the idea that men are by nature emotionally stunted.
In fact, men have rich emotional lives and their relationships with women are more than just sexual. Quite a few studies of womanizing husbands suggest that it is emotional, not just sexual, craving that motivated them to cheat. (I'm not suggesting anything about the maturity of these emotional needs; that's a separate issue.)
I think few people would dispute that men are, in general, more consistently horny than women. That makes a certain amount of biological sense: men are constantly producing sperm but women's hormonal cycles make proneness to arousal more periodic.
However, as I think most wives (secretly?) realize, the vast majority of men deal with this mismatch through covert masturbation, not cheating. Frankly, it's a complementary part of married life for men, and not a few women.
Neither sex is a slave to its biology; our bodies may provide the raw material, as it were, but morality, emotion, and imagination (which allows us to imagine long-term consequences) play much stronger roles in regulating our day-to-day behavior than biological drives ever will.
Similar posts: dialectic behavior therapy
- Mood:Good
- Music:Namie Amuro
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
medandpeople- medandpeople
Syndicate
