Candidate Barack Obama's campaign slogan most remembered, "Yes! We can!", was used to reinforce his claim that an Obama presidency would bring about major changes and, thereby, secure the American dream for all. To achieve the goal would be a very demanding and difficult task for a long-suffering nation, crippled by generational military adventures and their carte blanche budgets, racism, nearly thirty years of deregulation and privatization of governmental services, the neo-conservative wrecking crew's funding strategy of minimalism (shrink government), the massive decades-long transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the already rich upper-class, the deliberate accumulation of debt by Boy George and neo-cons, the collapsing infrastructure, the sapless branch of government: congress; the sacking of financial institutions for short-term gains, rogue corporations and the exploitations of runaway globalization, unwinding unionization and consequential wage, benefits and working conditions deterioration--ad infinitum and ad nauseam! "One nation doth a man make?" Barack Obama is an instrument of kakushin, revolutionary change? Modest innovation would be a beginning, the best that I could expect of any president who pledges "change"; but, to continually speak of "bipartisanship" with the very political party(with considerable assistance from Democrats, mind you)that created the debacle in the first place, is disconcerting!
President Barack Obama has inherited a huge quantity of wreckage from the worst presidency in U.S. history! Substantial clean up is required just to get the Nation back to where it was in January 2001. Yet, after eight years of a failed Bush presidency, and with the John McCain candidacy, Obama and congressional Democrats could not win the November election decisively, when a landslide should have been a given. The two-party(one-party?)political system is in shambles.
The Senate is a hopelessly flawed institution. One hundred of the Nation"s most powerful and richest individuals will make certain that there is no kakushin during the Obama presidency! Therefore, the president must transcend the senatorial quagmire by appealing directly to the electorate. He has to become a circuit-riding lecturer, explaining how the nation got where it is and suggesting ways to turn it around. One topic he should have focused upon concerns the territory where he resides and presides, Washington, D.C.
In 1982, D.C. residents voted for statehood! Nearly thirty years later, the "landlord" or is it the "plantation master"?, the U.S. Senate, is going to give the District a vote in the House of Representatives, with a sack filled with dirty rags, conditions and limitations that will maintain the status quo for generations to come. The Senate Bill abolishes District gun control laws and gives an additional House district to Utah for reasons not entirely clear.
George W. Bush exited Afghanistan to concentrate on Iraq, Barack Obama will exit Iraq to concentrate on Afghanistan! It is his war of choice and consummates his presidency. Every President worth his metal has to authorize a war somewhere. I guess the shift of attention to Afghanistan represents "change" in the Obama lexicon. In approving unmanned predator drone attacks against sites and innocent people in Pakistan he has blood on his hands and is in the same league with Geo. W. and Bill Clinton, and after less than a month as Commander-in Chief.
Obama's D.C. rollover is additional indication that he is a race-neutral black politician. He just happens to be "Black", as the word is defined in the United States. His ancestry is not directly tied to this nation"s history of slavery, as is that of his wife's, Michelle Robinson-Obama. Also in this context, Obama talks about the need to assist the suffering middle class, but is virtually silent about the nation's hardcore poor, many of them people of color!
Finding a respectable Secretary of Commerce has been difficult and has raised questions about Obama desires for a bipartisan administration. He also assured the Nation that his vetting system would be fail-safe. The allegations against Bill Richardson and his withdrawal from nomination was an example of either a flawed vetting procedure or an arrogant selection policy. But the subsequent nomination of the Republican Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg and his voluntary withdrawal, noting irreconcilable differences with the Obama administration, in general, and the economic stimulus package, in particular! One can only conclude that Obama's bipartisanship governance approach reflects naivete and does not bode well when the opposition pledges to bring about the demise of the Obama administration! Senator Gregg has taken every opportunity to blast Obama's stimulus package! The Gary Locke nomination (the former govenor of Washington), is good for reasons of diversity, but qualifications seem to be difficult to quantify?
The nomination of Leon Panetta for CIA Director is another stumper. One might have thought that he would bring citizen oversight to the Agency; but that was dashed when Panetta announced the continuation of extraordinary rendition and confirming Obama's intentions to approve harsh interrogation techniques as he sees fit. I seem to recall Obama saying something to the affect that the United States does not engage in torture. However, Boy George said the same thing, at least until the truth came out.
Lastly, Obama speaks of universal corporate health care insurance for every American, but is silent on or dismissive of single-payer universal health care! Tom Daschle's withdrawal of the Health Secretary nomination exposed to public view his serious conflict of interest. It was not a voluntary action, a scandal over monies he had received from the health insurance industry forced it! The Daschle nomination was a major credibility disaster for Obama in matters related to reforming a dysfunctional health care industry.
As I write, I recall a very appealing and entertaining move, "Start the Revolution Without Me", narrated at beginning and end by cinema's revolutionary, Orson Welles. To watch it again now is as close as I am going to get to kakushin in the next four or eight years!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Edward de Vere as Shake-speare
If anyone doubts the de Vere authorship of the Shakespeare canon, the resolution lies in the name itself! Take a close look at the family coat of arm: the knight appears to be shaking a spear. For more conclusive evidence tie various events and characters in the canon to Edward de Vere. In western dramatic literature Shake-spear(the hyphen is not happenstance)is, surely, the most autobiographical. Looney(1920)was the first to document connections between plots and characters with de Vere's experiences. Fortunately, de Vere's underlined Bible passages show up in various plays. Even the most superficial or casual purview reveals Shake-speare's identity! For the Oxfordians, it's a no-brainer! So, why is there still debate? What lies behind the Stratfordian syndrome?
First, doctoral matriculation is deliberately arduous and prolonged, a natural selection process that favors tenacity, persistence and, obviously, comformability. Learning how to act pedagogically or professorially is as important as learning particular subject matter.The doctoral degree concept and practice has its origin in 19th century Germany and probably reflects Prussian values. Its modus operandi is allegiance to hierarchical order and authority. The conventional wisdom and the inertia that secures it are legendary elements. Therefore, given a closed system, the resistance to the Oxfordian theory should not come as a surprise.
Second, one has to consider obstacles that preclude objective acknowledgment of something that after extensive investigations should be obvious! The problem for many academicians rests, perhaps, on political correctness or established proprieties. For staid researchers, Will Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, in all probability a stand-in for de Vere, is a known figure with a well-established roll, without much of a paper trail. He is more fictional than real, a figure of one's imagination.
The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford was a complicated individual with propensities toward irregular personal conduct . The stand-in, even an actor, has a more acceptable persona. It would be rather contradictory to eulogize someone seriously compromised or flawed, who has a resume that is not entirely flattering. What can be gleaned from extant records would be quite disconcerting to people beholden to mainstream behavioral norms. One needs only to consider to whom some Sonnets were allegedly addressed as a starting point. Oxford was involved in a sword fight death of a sub cook. There are other serious accusations. Will Shakspere was cover for an autobiographical author of high social rank. Today, he brings a degree of respectability with which everyone can fine satisfaction.
Third, there are commercial interests in maintaining the status quo. There appears to be an effort to overwhelm the Oxfordians by the publication of an endless procession of dogma and propaganda. When Mark Anderson's, Shakespeare by Another Name was published in 2005, I was surprised by the rash of Stratfordian books, which seems to continue unabatedly. The issue of Shakespearean authorship is big business. In the professorial contest of "publish or perish", Stratfordians have a game-winning "slam-dunk!"
That some great actors have no doubts about the de Vere authorship is testimony enough! The Orson Welles pronouncement in 1954, is definitive and puts the issue to rest.
First, doctoral matriculation is deliberately arduous and prolonged, a natural selection process that favors tenacity, persistence and, obviously, comformability. Learning how to act pedagogically or professorially is as important as learning particular subject matter.The doctoral degree concept and practice has its origin in 19th century Germany and probably reflects Prussian values. Its modus operandi is allegiance to hierarchical order and authority. The conventional wisdom and the inertia that secures it are legendary elements. Therefore, given a closed system, the resistance to the Oxfordian theory should not come as a surprise.
Second, one has to consider obstacles that preclude objective acknowledgment of something that after extensive investigations should be obvious! The problem for many academicians rests, perhaps, on political correctness or established proprieties. For staid researchers, Will Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, in all probability a stand-in for de Vere, is a known figure with a well-established roll, without much of a paper trail. He is more fictional than real, a figure of one's imagination.
The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford was a complicated individual with propensities toward irregular personal conduct . The stand-in, even an actor, has a more acceptable persona. It would be rather contradictory to eulogize someone seriously compromised or flawed, who has a resume that is not entirely flattering. What can be gleaned from extant records would be quite disconcerting to people beholden to mainstream behavioral norms. One needs only to consider to whom some Sonnets were allegedly addressed as a starting point. Oxford was involved in a sword fight death of a sub cook. There are other serious accusations. Will Shakspere was cover for an autobiographical author of high social rank. Today, he brings a degree of respectability with which everyone can fine satisfaction.
Third, there are commercial interests in maintaining the status quo. There appears to be an effort to overwhelm the Oxfordians by the publication of an endless procession of dogma and propaganda. When Mark Anderson's, Shakespeare by Another Name was published in 2005, I was surprised by the rash of Stratfordian books, which seems to continue unabatedly. The issue of Shakespearean authorship is big business. In the professorial contest of "publish or perish", Stratfordians have a game-winning "slam-dunk!"
That some great actors have no doubts about the de Vere authorship is testimony enough! The Orson Welles pronouncement in 1954, is definitive and puts the issue to rest.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Darwin at Two Hundred
With the gut-wrenching Israeli invasion of Gaza and all the speculation about the Obama administration and its strategies, I grew somewhat weary and sought distraction through simple pleasures. I quite understandably turned to thoughts of food, not so much of its consumption, rather its preparation; for it is in creation that I find lasting satisfactions. Further distractions from the current political situation were forthcoming through the bicentennial birthday of Charles Henry Darwin and recalling the affects of a college course on evolution, one devoted not surprisingly to Darwin, his life and his works.
Certainly a giant in science, among Galileo Galilei(1564-1642), and Albert Einstein(1879-1955), Charles Darwin(1809-1882), alone, for this writer, humanized science with his modesty and sensitivities. His steadfast resolve and humble persona transcend the sterility of ideological and methodological strictures. He was both a scientist and a humanist. This was made poignantly manifest with how he dealt with the matter of organized religion.
In Darwin's time, the struggle for dominance between the Christian realm and the scientific establishment had been in progress for three centuries. Galileo's predicament is well documented. Darwin's natural selection hypothesis would deal a mortal blow to Christian orthodoxy. Yet, today, with his theory as established fact, especially after the 1953 discovery of the DNA double helix molecule, the carrier of genetic information, ecclesiastic challenge continues today with "intelligent design".
Ironically, the debate between the Christian church and science had presence between Charles Darwin and his maternal first cousin, Emma Wedgewood, a devout Christian. She feared, and it was expressed before her marriage vows, their differences over the origin of species would most likely separate them in the hereafter. Darwin's protracted research and its delayed publication were due to his concerns for Emma's religious beliefs, but also to the storm of reaction that would surely arise from organized religion.
The two career choices of his father's preference for Charles were medicine and failing that the clergy. After attempting both his innate inclinations came to fulfillment. The upper echelons ancestry of Charles Darwin was extraordinary: grandson of both Erasmus Darwin on his father's side and Josiah Wedgwood on his mother's side. His father, Robert Darwin, was a wealthy society physician and financier--a "freethinker" of his era. Charles' status as a gentleman and holding a divinity degree from Christ's College Cambridge provided him easy passage on the HMS Beagle, although he had to pay his way. He came with impressive recommendations, even as a novice naturalist. He was taken aboard by Capt. Robert Fitzroy more as a suitable companion for a navigator in a rather lonely position on very long voyage.
Capt. Fitzroy, a Tory and an aristocrat, was the fourth grandson of Charles II. Both Fitzroy and Darwin helped make each other famous! For once, the idle rich accomplished something of note. As I recall from my college studies, an established naturalist was considered for the HMS Beagle voyage, but failed to meet Fitzroy's measure, to put it politely. Young Darwin, a Whig, was quite a sociable chap. However, on one occasion, and an important one for Darwin's continued presence aboard the HMS Beagle, their political differences were at issue.
Darwin's powers of observation were self-evident, but helped along by Cambridge University botany professor(and mentor to Charles)John Stevens Henslow(1796-1861). Darwin also studied geology under Adam Sedgwick. What the young Darwin lacked in experience and expertise, he possessed as potential. He had an inborn ability to synthesize the myriad elements of which he observed into a simple hypothesis that changed forever the understanding of species evolution.
The conventional wisdom prior to Darwin was that evolution protected and maintained a standard or mainstream species. He turned that notion upside down by showing that evolution actually changed a species for the good of that species through the mechanism of natural selection.
Meandering somewhat, I have long puzzled over the seemingly opportune or epithanic Borneo fever that led Alfred Russel Wallace(1823-1913)to a revelation of natural selection. He knew Darwin and, I assume, about the direction of his research. Certainly, various notions about evolution were kicking around at the time and for a long time previously. One was Palley's Natural Theology or Divine Creation in nature that happened to satisfy the needs of religious-minded naturalists. Sooner or later someone would "independently" stumble on natural selection--while in a drunken state, while suffering through a tropical fever or other pressing discomfort. But, whom am I to presume?
Nevertheless, it was Wallace's 1858 letter to Darwin describing his revelation that pushed Darwin to publish in 1859, a very readable abstract of his research and findings. For twenty years he had been compiling a magnum opus to prove his case--that when published would not have found a ready readership; in fact, the work would have probably sat in the publisher's warehouse gathering dust.
Another curiosity is Gregor Mendel's research on inherited characteristics conducted between 1856 and 1863, published in 1865, but which received little notice. It could have served Darwin as a missing link, had he only known. One could say that Darwinian theory was made whole by modern genetics
Thomas Robert Malthus(1766-1834)through his Essay on the Principle of Population(1798), had a considerable effect, as Darwin notes in his autobiography(1876). I find it amusing that from the rather flawed notions in that essay, Darwin was able to fashion the basis for a universal truism. As questionable as his principle might be, I hear today a Malthusian whisper in the current natural resource wars and those surely forthcoming as consequences of oil depletion.
As the phenomenon of plate tectonics unfolded during the 1960s, I naturally thought how such revelations would have affected Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and other theorists of their era? Darwin read Lyell's Principles of Geology--his doctrine of Uniformitarianism, that the present is the key to the past. How would have Darwin better understood Chilean earthquakes and even the mighty Andes, if he had known about plate tectonics, in particular, subduction of an oceanic plate?
Capt. Fitzroy set sail from Galapagos Islands to Tahiti, bypassing the Hawaiian Islands by no insignificant distance. What would a visit there have meant to Darwin's speculations ? I think of both biological species and geological phenomenon. With the Galapagos findings fresh in mind, Hawaii would have made matters immediately apparent.
In this vein, Alfred Wegener(1880-1930)and his "Continental Drift" offerings would have been appreciated by Lyell and Darwin. Of course, continents do not drift; but crustal plates do. Wegener was close to describing an obvious visual reality; however, he did not recognize the mechanism. Sadly, Wegener froze to death on Greenland, a lonely and much maligned theorist.
To expand review, Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln share the same birthday(their only noteworthy similarity perhaps). Darwin, the gentleman, put forth a monumentally positive notion that shed light on the natural order and human presence within it. Lincoln, the mythical frontiersman, brought the shadow of suffering and disorder upon the United States through bellicose action. The South's succession should have been allowed to run its obviously ill-fated course. It was the Civil War that permanently divided the country and put the US on a military Juggernaut track.
In the US, from my casual observations, it seems that Darwin has received as much attention as Lincoln on the occasion of their birthdays; but, I do not follow mainstream media. Democracy Now and the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC)are my usual sources of news. The BBC speaks of numerous events in England eulogizing Darwin in what appears to be a festive observance. A one-pound Sterling Bicentennial Darwin coin has been minted! I would be surprised if, in England, Lincoln's name came up at all? I can't say I've heard it much at all here in the US.
Social Darwinism has always been a confusing topic for many casual observers of evolutionary politics. It is a dogma born of a particular class and its disposition toward people who do not share a narrow parameter. The most persistent counterattack against Darwin in this context was initiated by Herbert Spencer(1820-1903), his "Survival of the fittest" slogan(1864), what later became the battle cry of the reactionary right. Interestingly, the Social Darwinists took a fancy to Malthus--his notion of the starvation of the weakest as populations outgrew food supply and that charity could exacerbate social problems. What underpins Social Darwinism is a profound disdain for science and fact. It is used to rationalize or justify cut-throat economics and the accumulation(hoarding?)of capital. In the current economic debacle, the opposition to entitlements and welfare state policies will be made through the Social Darwinist's mind-set.
Lastly, the centennial of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP)is officially February 12 of this year. Although the formation of the NAACP was scheduled for Lincoln's birth centennial, it actually took place three months later. The intent of connecting a particular date with all its symbolism to NAACP beginnings is what really matters. This history note is added to bring certain things full-circle.
Certainly a giant in science, among Galileo Galilei(1564-1642), and Albert Einstein(1879-1955), Charles Darwin(1809-1882), alone, for this writer, humanized science with his modesty and sensitivities. His steadfast resolve and humble persona transcend the sterility of ideological and methodological strictures. He was both a scientist and a humanist. This was made poignantly manifest with how he dealt with the matter of organized religion.
In Darwin's time, the struggle for dominance between the Christian realm and the scientific establishment had been in progress for three centuries. Galileo's predicament is well documented. Darwin's natural selection hypothesis would deal a mortal blow to Christian orthodoxy. Yet, today, with his theory as established fact, especially after the 1953 discovery of the DNA double helix molecule, the carrier of genetic information, ecclesiastic challenge continues today with "intelligent design".
Ironically, the debate between the Christian church and science had presence between Charles Darwin and his maternal first cousin, Emma Wedgewood, a devout Christian. She feared, and it was expressed before her marriage vows, their differences over the origin of species would most likely separate them in the hereafter. Darwin's protracted research and its delayed publication were due to his concerns for Emma's religious beliefs, but also to the storm of reaction that would surely arise from organized religion.
The two career choices of his father's preference for Charles were medicine and failing that the clergy. After attempting both his innate inclinations came to fulfillment. The upper echelons ancestry of Charles Darwin was extraordinary: grandson of both Erasmus Darwin on his father's side and Josiah Wedgwood on his mother's side. His father, Robert Darwin, was a wealthy society physician and financier--a "freethinker" of his era. Charles' status as a gentleman and holding a divinity degree from Christ's College Cambridge provided him easy passage on the HMS Beagle, although he had to pay his way. He came with impressive recommendations, even as a novice naturalist. He was taken aboard by Capt. Robert Fitzroy more as a suitable companion for a navigator in a rather lonely position on very long voyage.
Capt. Fitzroy, a Tory and an aristocrat, was the fourth grandson of Charles II. Both Fitzroy and Darwin helped make each other famous! For once, the idle rich accomplished something of note. As I recall from my college studies, an established naturalist was considered for the HMS Beagle voyage, but failed to meet Fitzroy's measure, to put it politely. Young Darwin, a Whig, was quite a sociable chap. However, on one occasion, and an important one for Darwin's continued presence aboard the HMS Beagle, their political differences were at issue.
Darwin's powers of observation were self-evident, but helped along by Cambridge University botany professor(and mentor to Charles)John Stevens Henslow(1796-1861). Darwin also studied geology under Adam Sedgwick. What the young Darwin lacked in experience and expertise, he possessed as potential. He had an inborn ability to synthesize the myriad elements of which he observed into a simple hypothesis that changed forever the understanding of species evolution.
The conventional wisdom prior to Darwin was that evolution protected and maintained a standard or mainstream species. He turned that notion upside down by showing that evolution actually changed a species for the good of that species through the mechanism of natural selection.
Meandering somewhat, I have long puzzled over the seemingly opportune or epithanic Borneo fever that led Alfred Russel Wallace(1823-1913)to a revelation of natural selection. He knew Darwin and, I assume, about the direction of his research. Certainly, various notions about evolution were kicking around at the time and for a long time previously. One was Palley's Natural Theology or Divine Creation in nature that happened to satisfy the needs of religious-minded naturalists. Sooner or later someone would "independently" stumble on natural selection--while in a drunken state, while suffering through a tropical fever or other pressing discomfort. But, whom am I to presume?
Nevertheless, it was Wallace's 1858 letter to Darwin describing his revelation that pushed Darwin to publish in 1859, a very readable abstract of his research and findings. For twenty years he had been compiling a magnum opus to prove his case--that when published would not have found a ready readership; in fact, the work would have probably sat in the publisher's warehouse gathering dust.
Another curiosity is Gregor Mendel's research on inherited characteristics conducted between 1856 and 1863, published in 1865, but which received little notice. It could have served Darwin as a missing link, had he only known. One could say that Darwinian theory was made whole by modern genetics
Thomas Robert Malthus(1766-1834)through his Essay on the Principle of Population(1798), had a considerable effect, as Darwin notes in his autobiography(1876). I find it amusing that from the rather flawed notions in that essay, Darwin was able to fashion the basis for a universal truism. As questionable as his principle might be, I hear today a Malthusian whisper in the current natural resource wars and those surely forthcoming as consequences of oil depletion.
As the phenomenon of plate tectonics unfolded during the 1960s, I naturally thought how such revelations would have affected Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and other theorists of their era? Darwin read Lyell's Principles of Geology--his doctrine of Uniformitarianism, that the present is the key to the past. How would have Darwin better understood Chilean earthquakes and even the mighty Andes, if he had known about plate tectonics, in particular, subduction of an oceanic plate?
Capt. Fitzroy set sail from Galapagos Islands to Tahiti, bypassing the Hawaiian Islands by no insignificant distance. What would a visit there have meant to Darwin's speculations ? I think of both biological species and geological phenomenon. With the Galapagos findings fresh in mind, Hawaii would have made matters immediately apparent.
In this vein, Alfred Wegener(1880-1930)and his "Continental Drift" offerings would have been appreciated by Lyell and Darwin. Of course, continents do not drift; but crustal plates do. Wegener was close to describing an obvious visual reality; however, he did not recognize the mechanism. Sadly, Wegener froze to death on Greenland, a lonely and much maligned theorist.
To expand review, Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln share the same birthday(their only noteworthy similarity perhaps). Darwin, the gentleman, put forth a monumentally positive notion that shed light on the natural order and human presence within it. Lincoln, the mythical frontiersman, brought the shadow of suffering and disorder upon the United States through bellicose action. The South's succession should have been allowed to run its obviously ill-fated course. It was the Civil War that permanently divided the country and put the US on a military Juggernaut track.
In the US, from my casual observations, it seems that Darwin has received as much attention as Lincoln on the occasion of their birthdays; but, I do not follow mainstream media. Democracy Now and the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC)are my usual sources of news. The BBC speaks of numerous events in England eulogizing Darwin in what appears to be a festive observance. A one-pound Sterling Bicentennial Darwin coin has been minted! I would be surprised if, in England, Lincoln's name came up at all? I can't say I've heard it much at all here in the US.
Social Darwinism has always been a confusing topic for many casual observers of evolutionary politics. It is a dogma born of a particular class and its disposition toward people who do not share a narrow parameter. The most persistent counterattack against Darwin in this context was initiated by Herbert Spencer(1820-1903), his "Survival of the fittest" slogan(1864), what later became the battle cry of the reactionary right. Interestingly, the Social Darwinists took a fancy to Malthus--his notion of the starvation of the weakest as populations outgrew food supply and that charity could exacerbate social problems. What underpins Social Darwinism is a profound disdain for science and fact. It is used to rationalize or justify cut-throat economics and the accumulation(hoarding?)of capital. In the current economic debacle, the opposition to entitlements and welfare state policies will be made through the Social Darwinist's mind-set.
Lastly, the centennial of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP)is officially February 12 of this year. Although the formation of the NAACP was scheduled for Lincoln's birth centennial, it actually took place three months later. The intent of connecting a particular date with all its symbolism to NAACP beginnings is what really matters. This history note is added to bring certain things full-circle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)