Here is the acceptance speech I'd like to hear from Obama.

My friends, I have run a campaign based on the need for change and the American people seem eager for that to happen. But I think it's important to clearly state just why that change is so necessary.

First, let's talk about Iraq. The Bush administration and the Republican party have led us into a colossal misadventure based on trumped up evidence and outright deception. In so doing they are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and our allies, and hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people. They are responsible for the destruction of the infrastructure of a sovereign nation and have created and abetted the emergence of Al Qeida in Iraq, a terrorist group which did not exist before. They have engineered the installation of a puppet government which is now attempting to defy its masters by calling on the United States to leave, in the face of which the Republicans are trying to continue their occupation.

In the eyes of the world, and to the growing horror of the majority of Americans, we are seen not as the world's beacon of democracy, but as the world's symbol of brutal imperialism. This has got to change.

Now, let's talk about oil. Almost all of the world's economic ills are tied up in that word. Because we are an oil dependent planet, our environment is on the brink of disaster, the free nations of the world are in thrall to some of the most despicable governments, who wish us nothing but harm, and the multinational corporations who control the oil trade are reaping unconscionable profits at the expense of everyone else.

The Republican's response is to seek more oil drilling in more environmentally sensitive areas, holding out the promise of a solution to high oil prices. This is no solution. If we were to drill every last drop available to us, it would be more than a decade before any of it was available for use, and a matter of another few decades before it was gone. The hard fact is that the planet cannot survive on oil, we must find alternative sources of energy.

But the Republicans cannot and will not seek this, because the oil companies own them. Well, they don't own me, and I can and will direct our efforts to moving away from the domination of oil. This will change.

"It's the economy, stupid," - a campaign slogan that has been used over and over again, and which we have, in fact, ignored for far to long. The current devastation of the housing and banking industries and all the collateral damage from that, is one inevitable result of that failure. Under eight years of Republican administration, and during all the Republican administrations of the modern era, the rich have gotten richer while the middle class and the poor have suffered.

This has got to change. But the Republicans cannot and will not do it because they are the problem. Their natural constituancy is made up of those who view the rest of us as their servants. Luxory properties sell in the multi-millions while the homes of the middle class sink into forclosure. Corporate CEOs earn salaries and bonuses in the multi-millions while the people who work for them find their jobs disappearing. This has got to, and it will change.

Hillary Clinton has made health care a central issue of her concern and I applaud her for it. In all the developed world we are the only nation that does not provide for universal health care for all its citizens. This is a disgrace and this must and will change. But the Republicans cannot and will not do it because they are just as much under the control of the pharmaceutical and health care industries as the oil companies. As a matter of fact, there is hardly a sector of the business community which does not exert its influence over the Republican party, usually against the interests of the American people.

I am not anti-business, but I am opposed to business which places profits over responsibility and which damages our environment, our economy and our lives as a whole. And this, too, we will change.

So, how do we do it? There will be detailed plans made available immediately after this convention, but for the moment, let me outline the broad strokes.

First, let me make something extremely clear to the world of terrorist extremism. The United States and its allies have been extraordinarily conservative in our response to brutal provocation. Despite the targeting of innocent civilians, the revolting excesses of terrorist violence and the utter disregard for life or property or freedom or rights or anything the civilized world deems valuable, we have done everything possible to exert our might selectively, judiciously and against a discernible enemy. I do not mean to minimize our failures in this regard - war is a bloody and messy business and too many non-combatants have been killed or injured or their lives devastated.

While the difference between harm by accident and harm by intent doesn't matter much to the victim, it is still an important distinction. While our enemies behave without regard for morality, we have at least tried to do the opposite.

But this forbearance can not continue indefinitely. We have no quarrel with Islam - there is more freedom to practice that religion in the United states than anywhere in the so-called Islamic world. But, if the moderate population does not take action against the extremist element, the west will be forced to use more severe measures. We will not simply allow ourselves to be eaten away and we will not collaborate in our own destruction.

So, to begin. We will withdraw from Iraq by phasing out our troops as they phase in their own. We hope that they will be successful in establishing a viable government and we will be available for any help they require. But their country is their responsibility and they must step up to it. We will set a series of guidelines for our withdrawal but that process will continue and failure to meet the guidelines will be the responsibility of the Iraqi government and people.

We will embark on a new energy policy grounded in the development of non-petroleum based energy sources. We will, in fact, make use of all exisiting oil leases and insure that the oil companies use their revenues to both extract these resources and fund development of alternatives. In so doing, we will have created a new "green" economy providing new industries and employment.

We have already begun to change the legislative framework that made the current economic crunch possible, but more is needed and will be forthcoming. We will insure that Fanny and Freddie will remain solvent and that the sub-prime fiasco of the last decade is not repeated. We will assist those legitimately in need to convert exhorbitent variable rate mortgages into reasonable fixed rate instruments.

A framework for universal health care already exists, it is called Medicare. We will seek to extend these benefits to all Americans. This will not interfere with the ability to obtain private insurance, but will guarantee that no one is without coverage. In the past, the cost of Medicare to the tax payer has been inflated by massive fraud. Rigorous enforcement of statutes and regulations and severe penalties for violations, will curb these excesses.

These are only the broadest outlines of our policies, the details of which will be published and made readily available. For the moment, we must concentrate on winning the Presidency for the Democratic party and for the American people. The ascendancy of the Republican party has been a disaster. They have led us into an illegitimate war, destroyed our relations with our allies, ruined our reputation in the world, fostered the growth of terrorist activity, devastated our economy, trampled on our environment and conducted a profound attack on the bedrock of our nation identity - our constitution.

All of this must change and, with your help, it will.
- posted by Martin Eagle @ 5:53 AM

 

Islamist Movement

The Islamist movement has as its stated goal the establishment of a planetary Muslim theocracy. To this end they seek to evoke a world war between Muslim and non-Muslim. In their view, the non-Muslim west, in particular but not limited to the United States, is already waging war on Islam.

A historical note: all theocracies have failed, and for the same reason; they are by nature totalitarian and survive only by brutal repression of the population which, inevitably, rises up and over throws it. All totalitarian regimes claim to be ideologically perfect, and all have proven false.

As a matter of principal and policy, the Islamists have decreed that there is no such thing as a non-Muslim innocent bystander and that Muslims may also be killed in the process since they, no matter how un-witting or un-willing, will be sent to Muslim Heaven. Further, Islam is unique among contemporary religions in that it is a matter of fundamental dogma that, since Islam represents the ultimate revealed truth, anyone exposed to it who then refuses to accept it is, by definition, an infidel and/or apostate and not only may, but must be forcibly converted. Failing this they may be freely enslaved or killed.

This is the enemy and the ideology that the non-Muslim world now faces.

There are several facts that both sides should consider. First, if the Islamists were correct in their claim that the west is already waging war against them, then they would already be dead, since the west possesses such overwhelming superiority of arms that it could simply wipe Islam from the face of the planet. Second, if the Islamists were correct in their view of the west as morally bankrupt, the same result would ensue. In sum, it is only because they are totally incorrect in their pronouncements about and assessment of the west, that they are able to say and otherwise behave as they do.

Should the Islamist movement succeed in provoking the global war they seek, perhaps by a major nuclear or biological attack, they need to be aware that the west will not sit idly by and allow itself to be so assailed without commensurate response. It is only the moral restraint exhibited by the west, a restraint apparently totally absent from the Islamist side, which has allowed the Islamists to survive. Should the excesses of Islamic aggression force the west to adopt the same standard of behavior now employed against it, the inevitable result would be the end of Islam. It would take only a small percentage of the neutron bomb arsenal available to the non-Muslim states, to eliminate the entire population of the Islamic nations of the earth. Since these weapons destroy tissue, and not property, they wouldn’t even damage the oil production facilities upon which the west is currently so dependent.

So, to the Islamists, beware what you wish for, lest you get it.

- posted by Martin Eagle @ 9:03 AM

 
For those who have visited my web site, www.martin-eagle.com, and listened to my music, you may have come across a composition called "Ava Gardner" from the "A Welcoming Beauty" CD. When I was very young I saw her in "One Touch Of Venus." She was in her early 20s and the paradigm of a beauty which, even then, was touched with sadness and vulnerability. It didn't hurt that this movie also introuced "Speak Low," one of my favorite tunes.

During the recording of this CD, I had a very hard time getting into my solo on that song. After struggling for a while, I realized that my difficulty arose from having something specific to say, literally, rather than metaphorically. So, I wrote out my brief Ode to Ava and, during the first chorus of my solo, that's what I played. If you read the following while listening, you'll hear what I mean.

Ava Gardner was the most lovely woman in the world.
Ava Gardner was the most lonely woman in the world.
Look in her eyes, there used to be laughter there.
But, there's no laughter anymore, for Ava Gardner.
Now there are tears, nothing but tears
for Ava Gardner,
lovely Ava Gardner.
- posted by Martin Eagle @ 12:15 PM

 
I know it is not politically correct to question the mental competence of one's intellectual oppononents, but the argument over the teaching of evolution seems to have brought out the mental midgets in unprecedented numbers.

I'm not talking about those who see in the majestic complexity of the universe an example of intelligent design, which is an article of faith rather than a matter of science. Instead, I refer to those critics of evolution who, in attacking it, demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the theory itself, or of the principles of reasoned thought in general.

Now, evolution is not a difficult theory - grammer school students have been grasping it pretty well for generations. Rather, it is their parents who seem most at sea. My own bias is that religious fervor is either a cause or an effect of intellectual incompetence, but, after all, these are the same people ( 75% of those who voted for Bush, according to exit polls, despite the Pres himself having repudiated this position) who continue to believe that Saddam had WMDs and was responsible for 9/11.

I don't mean to hold up the Democratic electorate as a paragon of inteligence or rationality (come on, have the last Democratic candidates really been the best they could do?), but, in the battle for the bottom rung, I think we have a clear winner.
- posted by Martin Eagle @ 5:59 AM

 
Here's a little something to chew on.

Religion

Religion is factually incorrect, psychologically pathogenic, sociologically divisive, politically totalitarian, economically avaricious, educationally stultifying, and morally evil.

That religion is riddled with factual errors is evident from even the most casual reading of any religious text. The cosmology is disputed by every geological and anthropological discovery since science began. The phenomena attributed to the deity violate every natural law ever discovered.

Now, believers will say that god transcends physical law. But, since these same believers will cite the awe and wonder of the physical universe and the majesty of how it obeys these self-same physical laws as evidence of the existence of god, it seems they are arguing both sides of the same point. If god has no need of physical laws, why inculcate them into his (its) creation.

In addition to scientific implausibility, the foundation documents of every religion are so filled with internal contradiction, that a passage can be found to support any behavior. Surely, divinely inspired text should be more clear and unambiguous. Further, each holy book is filled with commandments that the vast majority of the modern world’s population finds not only impossible, but absurd. In order to maintain belief in these writings, it is necessary to interpret them, which inevitably leads to both further ambiguity and to the torture of common sense beyond all recognition.

In this, as in all other debate, believers will say that god’s intent or meaning is beyond human understanding. At the same time they will say that god has a plan and an intention and that people have the responsibility to discern, comprehend and obey.

They will also say that reason and evidence are meaningless in a religious context, and that faith is the relevant criterion. By definition, faith cannot have proof; if proof exists, a belief is no longer a matter of faith.

Which brings me to psychology. By requiring that one believe that which not only cannot, but must not be proven, and to accept as real, that which contradicts every other aspect of daily reality, and to comprehend and obey a plan which is, by definition, beyond human comprehension, religion becomes psychoto-mimetic; that is, it imitates a psycho-social situation which induces psychosis.

The believer is forced to accept, and function in accord with, two mutually exclusive realities. Forced to conduct daily life based on the existence of apparently immutable physical laws while simultaneously accepting that these laws ultimately do not exist and that behavior should be guided by principles derived from a system which totally abandons them.

Further, the believer is forced to abandon the use of reason. This places the believer in the position of having no way to judge experience or behavior. Given the contradictions and ambiguities of religious instructions, it is impossible to accurately guide behavior in accordance with them. Given the dependence upon faith, it is impossible to subject experience to the test of evidence and logic.


The believer is at the mercy of ancient writings of questionable authorship, factual inaccuracy, logical inconsistency, and unquestionable sanctity.

Every religion believes that it is the one, true faith, and that all others are in error. Thus, it is intrinsically divisive and exclusionary. Whichever denomination achieves numerical dominance, uses that power to attempt social domination. From a historical perspective, whatever the origin of a particular religion, it is a matter of moments before it begins to splinter into sub-sects, each claiming the mantle of truth. While this is probably an inevitable consequence of both the flaws in religious texts, as well as the incompatibility of their teachings with the rest of human nature,
the result is a socio-political nightmare of warring beliefs, none of which may be excluded, because none of them can be disproved.

Each religion is dominated both by its dogma and its priestly class. These professionals, who claim the ultimate temporal and spiritual authority over their flock, can tolerate no dissent. Since the source of their authority is sacrosanct and its basis unquestionable, the result is a spiritual totalitarianism. Further, since all religion seeks not only to define spiritual belief, but also to control temporal behavior, a religion is, in fact, a political entity, again, a totalitarian one.

This priestly class is supported entirely by the work of its flock. Under the guise of an offering to the glory of god, they amass vast fortunes, hordes of art treasures, temples and other real estate of enormous luxury and value, and incredible political power. Within this priestly class, an inevitable hierarchy develops, with political power and luxury, as always, firmly yoked together.
All of this happens despite the injunction, within virtually all religions, against it.

Religions also seek to co-opt not only the spiritual, but also the lay education of their members. This is a logical outgrowth of the need to control their behavior and their finances, and to keep them strong in the faith. Since such education cannot be allowed to contravene the dogma, it is, inevitably, circumscribed.

There may be many words to describe an entity who’s intent is to use an unprovable dogma to control the behavior of its adherents; who’s methods require the abandonment of the only faculty of mind which is capable of critically evaluating it; who’s psychological effect is to deform the minds of its adherents; who’s historical effects, past and present, are to evoke and justify the most horrible excesses of human nature; and who’s manipulator’s lives are provided for entirely by the labor of those they manipulate. There may be many words, but the simplest and most expressive is, evil.

Believers tend to think that they represent an overwhelming majority in the world, while available data suggests a nearly equal division between those who do and do not recognize the existence of god. However, despite the prevalence of religion, a strong case could be made for the idea that those who profess belief do not actually have it.
Consider the following: most practicioners of a faith are unable to accurately state the tenets of that faith; most practicioners of a faith have merely accepted the sect of their parents and know little, if anything, of any other; most practicioners of a faith, if called upon to defend its tenets, will resort to arguments which radically diverge from those tenets.

Most religions prescribe that divergence from the religiously defined way of life results in horrific penalties, vastly exceeding any earthly punishments. Despite this, most practicioners routinely engage in behaviors which are certain to incur those penalties.

So, we have a situation in which most believers devote less effort to the selection of a religion than they would to the choice of a cough medicine, and routinely behave so as to damn their eternal souls to unspeakable torture, all the while professing their firm belief in the dogma.

One field of psychology has studied the development of morality in children. Several distinct stages appear to be almost universal. Moral values are first engendered by fear of punishment. Second, they become identified with other people who are objects of respect and admiration. Third, they become internalized as philosophical principles with rational support.

Virtually all religious morality is fixated at the most infantile level of moral development, fear. This is not surprising given the overwhelming likelihood that religion has its origins in fear. Most often, fear is thought of as being associated with a defined stimulus. However, given the early developmental origins of consciousness and the lack of available cognitive function, coupled with the presence of powerful stimuli from within and without the uterine environment, it is very likely that cognitive awareness is inevitably associated with some degree of unfocused, nameless fear. Not fear “of,” merely fear itself.

There are centuries of evidence to indicate that the human species does not tolerate anxiety well, and will go to great extremes of behavior and cognition to avoid it. That early humans, lacking even the most primitive knowledge of the nature of reality, should attempt any form of self-delusion to quell the terror that unexplained natural phenomena can inspire is in no way surprising.

The result, religion, both arises from and elicits the worst aspects of human consciousness: fear, ignorance, and denial.

While monotheistic religions differ in the details of their dogma, they hold common beliefs about the central attributes of god: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. These terms are not used ambiguously, but refer to their common, literal meaning. However, these terms give rise to unavoidable paradoxes which no religion has been able to resolve. The paradoxes associated with each of these terms blend into one another and are virtually impossible to separate.

If god is omnipresent, then, by definition, there is nothing else in the universe except god, for omnipresent means everywhere, with no exceptions. From the smallest quantum phenomenon to the entirety of existence, there is nothing but god. If, to take only a small example, we are god, how do we not know it and behave accordingly? If we have somehow lost that awareness, how does god lose awareness of itself? If we are not god, then god is not omnipresent.

If god is omniscient, then god knows everything that ever has or will happen, which makes free will an impossibility. If god knows everything, then everything is just as god wants it. Which makes god responsible for disaster, pain and evil. If we can behave in such a way that god did not know would occur, than god is not omniscient.

If god is omnipotent, and has a plan, then the entire universe is behaving exactly according to that plan. If all behavior is in accord with god’s plan, then notions like crime, punishment, responsibility, good, evil, etc., become meaningless. If we are to have personal responsibility, then we must be able to act contrary to god’s plan and wish, which means god is not omnipotent.

If god is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, what relevance does it have, even if it exists? If god possesses these qualitites, and is thus responsible for the behavior of the entire universe, then the values espoused in religious texts are meaningless, god acts like a psychopathic murderer, and is certainly not worth either reverence or obedience. If god has these properties, but has chosen for some unknowable reason, to behave as if it does not, and if it is beyond human ability to comprehend the nature of god or its plan, then the admonition to behave according to a set of rules which purport to derive from knowledge of god and its plan, is simply absurd.

All monotheistic, as well as most polytheistic religions posit an ongoing war between good and evil. From the above it is clear that this is impossible. If god is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, then all good and all evil are god, the outcome is already known and the winner pre-ordained, unless you find some satisfaction in the notion of a schizoid deity which, if it existed might surely warrant fear, but not worship.

Of course, these are all arguments based on rationality which, according to religion, must be abandoned when dealing with such questions. However, the requirement to behave according to a set of standards while simultaneously abandoning any means for validating those standards, and to accept that the attributes of the god upon who’s existence all such standards depend engenders unresolvable paradoxes, makes a believer totally vulnerable to control and manipulation, not to mention, insane.
- posted by Martin Eagle @ 1:56 PM

 
The Republican party operates on the principal that the American electorate is composed of bovine idiots who will accept any candidate that appeals to their prejudices and believe any lie that is enclosed in the ideological parentheses of god and anti-liberalsim. So far, they appear to be right, despite the fact that for any non-plutocrat to vote Republican, is like the chickens in the hen house voting for the fox.

This election is a particularly virulent example of the success of this strategy. We have a sitting president who obtained the post under questionable circumstances, who's military record is little more than that of a legally sanctioned draft dodger - yet who has the gall to attack the record of a decorated veteran, who took our country into a demented war for the most venal of motives and, now that even his fragile evidentiary justification has been totally discredited, continues to squander the lives of our military for the sake of his own ego and the monetary gain of his cronies.

He and his cohorts have no shame. And why should they, since half the electorate swallows this bilge like nectar and, like a hoarde of Archie Bunkers, responds to reasonable rebuttal of their position with an ever escalating chorus of God Bless America and Hail To The Chief.

If there is any truth to the maxim that, by and large, people get the government they deserve, then we americans have surely lost the right to the blessing of our democracy.

- posted by Martin Eagle @ 4:51 AM

 
Women and Islam

When one looks at the writings and practices of Islamic fundamentalists, the most revealing psychological component is their belief about and practice towards women. This is significant not only with regard to them, but to us all.

Starting with the origin of the species, men, based on their ignorance about childbirth and their desire for sex, have feared, needed and consequently hated women. Since men, generally speaking, are physically stronger, more aggressive and more violent than women, and since might almost always triumphs over reason, men have gained a dominant position in the world. They have virtually always used this power to subjugate women.

Over time, western civilzation has come to the grudging realization that this is wrong and has institutionalized measures to prevent such abuse. However, the continued prevalance of rape, domestic violence as well as the widespread lack of economic parity, show that this aspect of civilization is a desperately thin veneer covering a cesspool of atavistic rage.

In the world of Islam, even this veneer is absent. While claiming its sanction from the Koran, the real root of Muslim's abuse of women lies in that ancient ignorance and fear which is the legacy of us all. It is no accident that, in their critique of the west, our "liberated" women are seen as the greatest sign of our decadence and evil.

Islamicism is locked into a psychological state which harks back to the "dark ages" of the west. It has cut itself off from learning, from rationality, and from the very possibility of growth. Until their children receive secular education, until their culture embraces the hundreds of years of knowledge which they now reject, until they become able to compete on an equal economic footing with the rest of the world and, most importantly, until they learn to stop hating women, there is no hope for, them, and, I fear, for us.
- posted by Martin Eagle @ 10:34 AM