Health bosses accused of flu-mongering
December 11, 2009
Comments on this story (32)
Theresa Boyle
HEALTH REPORTER
Related
H1N1 pales against earlier...
Health bosses accused of...
Where to get vaccinated
Your H1N1 questions
Complete H1N1 coverage
More on SwineFlu
H1N1 pales against earlier... Most flu-shot allergies... Clinics offer both... Severe H1N1 reactions in 48... Seasonal flu shots added at...
Most Read
From selling sex to Osgoode...
$2 billion in tax revenue...
$1,400 eatery bribe sought...
RCMP plays cat-and-mouse...
Garlic outperforming gold...
Public health officials are misleading Canadians by continuing to characterize the H1N1 virus as a threat in the hopes of unloading millions of doses of unused vaccine, charges Ontario's former chief medical officer of health.
They are trying to save face because of an expensive overreaction, Dr. Richard Schabas said Thursday as lineups for the vaccine continued to dwindle.
He made his comments the day after the Public Health Agency of Canada unveiled a new advertising campaign aimed at encouraging Canadians to get vaccinated.
"Spending Christmas in bed or in an ICU unit is no fun and the only way to actually avoid that is for a large number of Canadians to be immunized," agency head Dr. David Butler-Jones told a teleconference.
He also said discussions are underway with the World Health Organization on what to do with the surplus vaccine.
Schabas, who is medical officer of health for Hastings and Prince Edward Counties, estimates that 35 million of the 50.4 million doses of vaccine that Canada has ordered, at a cost of more than $400 million, will not be used.
"They bought 50 million doses of vaccine and it's an embarrassment to them that it's not being used," he said, adding that it became available too late.
"I think if you are going to make that push, you at least need to tell people that the outbreak is essentially over and you have to say to people any future risk of H1N1, at least this year, is extremely small. ... You shouldn't mislead people." Schabas said.
The number of Canadians visiting doctors with flu-like symptoms peaked in late October, he noted.
"The real story is the disconnect between what the senior public health officials, provincially and nationally, have been saying to people and what's actually been going on," Schabas argued. "They have been misrepresenting the state of the outbreak and the level of risk."
Schabas said health officials have been preparing for years for a deadly avian flu pandemic and have had trouble switching gears to respond the mild H1N1 pandemic.
He added, people aren't buying into the fear as is evidenced by closing flu clinics. Toronto's eight remaining clinics were all to close Sunday but three of them shut their doors earlier this week because of little traffic.
While government officials now acknowledge the pandemic has turned out to be not as bad as initially feared, Schabas said they have been slow to adjust their responses.
"I think they got their knickers in a knot because they responded to their preconceptions. There was a preconception that a pandemic was going to be a terrible event," he said.
Ontario's 600-plus-page pandemic plan, like pandemic plans around the world, is modelled on a "moderately severe" pandemic with assumptions based on the 1957 flu pandemic. It anticipated 13,000 could die and up to 54,000 could require hospitalization.
The latest provincial numbers show 104 H1N1-related deaths and 1,656 hospitalizations so far.
Toronto Star
Friday, December 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
On The Prospect Of Any 'Ultimate, Final, Absolute Synthesis'
There will never, ever be any 'Ultimate, Final, Absolute Synthesis'. Hegel was dead wrong on this account.
The only 'Ultimate Synthesis' -- is death.
What I mean by this, is that as long as we are living and breathing, we will always be in a fight for restoring 'balance in our lives' in a way that keeps us alive and fighting for life -- at least unless, or until, we decide to give up this fight.
Thus, the 'teeter-totter' or 'swinging pendulum' process in life is always with us -- both internally and externally -- until our life is over.
Only then can we talk about any 'Final Synthesis' -- complete entropy.
Until then, nothing is ever, ever going to be 'final'.
Any thought of a 'final ultimate Life Utopia' is completely bogus -- and simply gives new fodder for the gristmill of a whole host of new 'Counter-Utopias'...and 'New Syntheses' which in turn may be either warmly or coldly perceived and received...or both...and nothing ever ends unless or until there is some ultimate Holocaust...and even out of the ashes of this potential Holocaust new forms of life will likely spring anew...like new saplings springing out of the remnants of a Giant Forest Fire...
-- dgb, Nov. 17th, updated Nov. 22nd, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
The only 'Ultimate Synthesis' -- is death.
What I mean by this, is that as long as we are living and breathing, we will always be in a fight for restoring 'balance in our lives' in a way that keeps us alive and fighting for life -- at least unless, or until, we decide to give up this fight.
Thus, the 'teeter-totter' or 'swinging pendulum' process in life is always with us -- both internally and externally -- until our life is over.
Only then can we talk about any 'Final Synthesis' -- complete entropy.
Until then, nothing is ever, ever going to be 'final'.
Any thought of a 'final ultimate Life Utopia' is completely bogus -- and simply gives new fodder for the gristmill of a whole host of new 'Counter-Utopias'...and 'New Syntheses' which in turn may be either warmly or coldly perceived and received...or both...and nothing ever ends unless or until there is some ultimate Holocaust...and even out of the ashes of this potential Holocaust new forms of life will likely spring anew...like new saplings springing out of the remnants of a Giant Forest Fire...
-- dgb, Nov. 17th, updated Nov. 22nd, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
On The Dangers of 'Pigeon-Holing' Life Processes Into 'Neat' Verbal Concepts, Categories, and Theories: Aristotelean Either/Or Logic vs. Hegelian Dialectic Logic
At the risk of redundancy, I want to once again emphasize the dangers of attempting to pigeon-hole life into neat, verbal concepts, categories, classification systems, and theories...
This includes the danger of over-using -- to the point of abusing -- Aristotelean Logic. Now what exactly 'Aristotelean Logic' means is in need of some discussion. We will get back to this point very shortly.
Hegel was the first philosopher to strongly emphasize the dangers of Aristotelean Logic. From a slightly different standpoint, Alfred Korzybski would do the same thing about 125 years later in the latter's classic book, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelean Systems, 1933. You can read this book in its entirety now on line for free although it is not entirely an easy read...http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm).
In Hegel's Hotel, I wish -- because of the extreme importance of this message -- to repeat, emphasize, modify, update, and extrapolate on the same messages that were passed on to me, and those others who have read either Hegel and/or Korzybski, and/or interpretations of their work -- in particular here, relative to the dangers of Aristotelean logic.
What is Aristotelean Logic?
Well, there are two aspects of Aristotelean logic that we need to look at: 1. the syllogism; and 2. the law of identity and non-identy. I do not profess to be an expert in formal logic but, from what I can see, the syllogism is not reallya problem as long as it is used properly. However, the law of identity and non-identity is a problem. Let's take a look at both these aspects of Aristolean logic and how they inter-relate.
A/ The Syllogism
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
There is nothing wrong with this logic. If both the major and minor premise are right, and connected in such a way that the major premise represents an assertion or proposition about a certain class of things having a particular characteristic that is universal to that class of things; and the minor premise represents an assertion or proposition about a particular member of the class of things asserted in the major premise as having the particular universal characteristic asserted in the major premise -- then the conclusion should be 'logically right'.
Here is another example:
Major Premise: All snakes have no legs and slither when they move.
Minor Premise: This animal I am looking at has legs and is not slithering
Conclusion: Therefore this animal I am looking at is not a snake.
This type of Aristotelean logic can be otherwise stated like this:
If all members of a particular class of things have a particular universal characteristic.
Then a particular member of that same class of things is also going to have that universal characteristic.
B/ The Law of Identity and Non-Identity (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
So far so good. But here is where we get into trouble in a couple of different ways -- one emphasized by Hegel; the other emphasized by Korzybski.
A is A and B is B. A cannot be B. And B cannot be A.
This can be referred to as 'Aristotelean Either/Or Logic'.
Quite simply, this 'Law of Either/Or Logic' may be good for mathematics but it is not good for biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, politics, philosophy, religion, art, engineering, architecture, fashion, or any of a hundred other things that make up either 'evolution' or 'human culture'.
Worded otherwise, evolution does not work according to the principle of 'either/or' -- or at least not entirely. It works to the point where we can say that this bull seal won the battle against that bull seal in order to win 'mating rights' relative to a particular female seal.
However, it does not work to the extent that 'bi-polarizing' life only works to the extent that you allow for the possibility of a 'middle, interactive-integrative dialectic zone'.
It is in this sense here that what Aristotle did was he left out the excluded 'middle zone' in his multitude of 'bi-polar classification systems'. He excluded the 'gray zone', where 'gray' is both 'black' and 'white' as well as neither completely 'black' nor 'white'. 'Gray' borrows the partial characteristics of both black and white. Aristotle's 'either/or' logic does not reflect the 'gray zones' in life, in nature, in evolution, in human culture...
In this sense, evolution is often 'dialectically integrative evolution'.
'A' breeds with 'B' and the offspring become members of a new set which is partly both 'A' and 'B' but at the same time neither completely 'A' nor 'B'. In this regard, the offspring represents a new class of 'AB'. This is dialectic evolution which depends on the principle of 'biodiversity' based on the almost infinite potential of 'intermixing' different genes from different males and females, or for that matter, even different viruses, bacteria, molecules, and atoms.
Every modification in life creates a new life form.
A coyote is a coyote and cannot be a wolf.
A wolf is a wolf and cannot be a coyote.
Wrong! A wolf breeds with a coyote and now we have a 'new species of animal' -- we have a 'colf'.
A colf is both a wolf and a coyote but not entirely either a wolf or a coyote. It reflects particular characteristics of both a wolf and a coyote which takes life into a middle gray zone of dialectic evolution.
Aristotelean logic did not reflect this aspect of life.
Hegelian dialectic logic moved into to compensate for that 'gray area of life' that Aristotle did not account for.
Thesis intermingled with anti-thesis becomes a 'dialectic synthesis'. Hegel compensated for what Aristotle ignored or missed.
The problem is that many, many people today still use Aristotelean 'either/or' logic in context situatons where they should be using Hegelian Dialectic Logic instead. Not all the time. But in many, many cases which in turn causes many, many problems.
People try to 'pigeon-hole' life into two Aristotelean opposing categories -- A and B -- where they should not be leaving out the very viable and often superior Hegelian 'middle dialectic zone' of AB. That is why DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...uses a ton of 'hyphenated words' such as:
1. 'Liberal-Conservative' or 'Conservative-Liberal';
2. 'Republican-Democrat' or 'Democrat-Republican';
3. 'Apollonian-Dionysian' or 'Dionysian-Apollonian';
4. GAP Psychology (a mixture of Gestalt Therapy, Adlerian Psychology, and Psychoanalysis);
5. DGB Philosophy (Dialectic-Gap-Bridging Philosophy-Psychology-Politics-Science...)
A/ Is 'Bi-Polar Disorder' an 'illness' or an 'excuse'? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic0
B/ Can 'Bi-Polar Disorder' be both or either an 'illness' and/or an 'excuse'? (Hegelian Dialectic Logic)
A/ Is 'sczhizophrenia' a 'biochemical disorder ' or a 'transference neurosis'? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
B/ Can 'sczhizophrenia' be both a 'biochemical disorder' and a 'transference neurosis'? (Hegelian Dialectic Logic)
A/ Is orthodox prescription medicine superior to natural health medicine or visa versa? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
B/ Can both orthodox prescription medicine and natural health medicine learn from each other and become 'Integrative Wholistic Medicine'?
We will talk about Korzybski on another day. That is enough for today.
-- dgb, Nov. 17th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still In Process...
This includes the danger of over-using -- to the point of abusing -- Aristotelean Logic. Now what exactly 'Aristotelean Logic' means is in need of some discussion. We will get back to this point very shortly.
Hegel was the first philosopher to strongly emphasize the dangers of Aristotelean Logic. From a slightly different standpoint, Alfred Korzybski would do the same thing about 125 years later in the latter's classic book, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelean Systems, 1933. You can read this book in its entirety now on line for free although it is not entirely an easy read...http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm).
In Hegel's Hotel, I wish -- because of the extreme importance of this message -- to repeat, emphasize, modify, update, and extrapolate on the same messages that were passed on to me, and those others who have read either Hegel and/or Korzybski, and/or interpretations of their work -- in particular here, relative to the dangers of Aristotelean logic.
What is Aristotelean Logic?
Well, there are two aspects of Aristotelean logic that we need to look at: 1. the syllogism; and 2. the law of identity and non-identy. I do not profess to be an expert in formal logic but, from what I can see, the syllogism is not reallya problem as long as it is used properly. However, the law of identity and non-identity is a problem. Let's take a look at both these aspects of Aristolean logic and how they inter-relate.
A/ The Syllogism
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
There is nothing wrong with this logic. If both the major and minor premise are right, and connected in such a way that the major premise represents an assertion or proposition about a certain class of things having a particular characteristic that is universal to that class of things; and the minor premise represents an assertion or proposition about a particular member of the class of things asserted in the major premise as having the particular universal characteristic asserted in the major premise -- then the conclusion should be 'logically right'.
Here is another example:
Major Premise: All snakes have no legs and slither when they move.
Minor Premise: This animal I am looking at has legs and is not slithering
Conclusion: Therefore this animal I am looking at is not a snake.
This type of Aristotelean logic can be otherwise stated like this:
If all members of a particular class of things have a particular universal characteristic.
Then a particular member of that same class of things is also going to have that universal characteristic.
B/ The Law of Identity and Non-Identity (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
So far so good. But here is where we get into trouble in a couple of different ways -- one emphasized by Hegel; the other emphasized by Korzybski.
A is A and B is B. A cannot be B. And B cannot be A.
This can be referred to as 'Aristotelean Either/Or Logic'.
Quite simply, this 'Law of Either/Or Logic' may be good for mathematics but it is not good for biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, politics, philosophy, religion, art, engineering, architecture, fashion, or any of a hundred other things that make up either 'evolution' or 'human culture'.
Worded otherwise, evolution does not work according to the principle of 'either/or' -- or at least not entirely. It works to the point where we can say that this bull seal won the battle against that bull seal in order to win 'mating rights' relative to a particular female seal.
However, it does not work to the extent that 'bi-polarizing' life only works to the extent that you allow for the possibility of a 'middle, interactive-integrative dialectic zone'.
It is in this sense here that what Aristotle did was he left out the excluded 'middle zone' in his multitude of 'bi-polar classification systems'. He excluded the 'gray zone', where 'gray' is both 'black' and 'white' as well as neither completely 'black' nor 'white'. 'Gray' borrows the partial characteristics of both black and white. Aristotle's 'either/or' logic does not reflect the 'gray zones' in life, in nature, in evolution, in human culture...
In this sense, evolution is often 'dialectically integrative evolution'.
'A' breeds with 'B' and the offspring become members of a new set which is partly both 'A' and 'B' but at the same time neither completely 'A' nor 'B'. In this regard, the offspring represents a new class of 'AB'. This is dialectic evolution which depends on the principle of 'biodiversity' based on the almost infinite potential of 'intermixing' different genes from different males and females, or for that matter, even different viruses, bacteria, molecules, and atoms.
Every modification in life creates a new life form.
A coyote is a coyote and cannot be a wolf.
A wolf is a wolf and cannot be a coyote.
Wrong! A wolf breeds with a coyote and now we have a 'new species of animal' -- we have a 'colf'.
A colf is both a wolf and a coyote but not entirely either a wolf or a coyote. It reflects particular characteristics of both a wolf and a coyote which takes life into a middle gray zone of dialectic evolution.
Aristotelean logic did not reflect this aspect of life.
Hegelian dialectic logic moved into to compensate for that 'gray area of life' that Aristotle did not account for.
Thesis intermingled with anti-thesis becomes a 'dialectic synthesis'. Hegel compensated for what Aristotle ignored or missed.
The problem is that many, many people today still use Aristotelean 'either/or' logic in context situatons where they should be using Hegelian Dialectic Logic instead. Not all the time. But in many, many cases which in turn causes many, many problems.
People try to 'pigeon-hole' life into two Aristotelean opposing categories -- A and B -- where they should not be leaving out the very viable and often superior Hegelian 'middle dialectic zone' of AB. That is why DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...uses a ton of 'hyphenated words' such as:
1. 'Liberal-Conservative' or 'Conservative-Liberal';
2. 'Republican-Democrat' or 'Democrat-Republican';
3. 'Apollonian-Dionysian' or 'Dionysian-Apollonian';
4. GAP Psychology (a mixture of Gestalt Therapy, Adlerian Psychology, and Psychoanalysis);
5. DGB Philosophy (Dialectic-Gap-Bridging Philosophy-Psychology-Politics-Science...)
A/ Is 'Bi-Polar Disorder' an 'illness' or an 'excuse'? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic0
B/ Can 'Bi-Polar Disorder' be both or either an 'illness' and/or an 'excuse'? (Hegelian Dialectic Logic)
A/ Is 'sczhizophrenia' a 'biochemical disorder ' or a 'transference neurosis'? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
B/ Can 'sczhizophrenia' be both a 'biochemical disorder' and a 'transference neurosis'? (Hegelian Dialectic Logic)
A/ Is orthodox prescription medicine superior to natural health medicine or visa versa? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
B/ Can both orthodox prescription medicine and natural health medicine learn from each other and become 'Integrative Wholistic Medicine'?
We will talk about Korzybski on another day. That is enough for today.
-- dgb, Nov. 17th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still In Process...
Monday, November 16, 2009
More Thoughts On The Self-Destructive Direction of Uncontrolled Individual and Cultural Narcissism...
Practicing good ethics is like exercising each day and/ or like eating a good, calory restricted, healthy, nutritional diet...Tough work...but if you keep practising it more and more, day by day, you become much better, much more proficient at living an ethical, well-balanced lifestyle over time -- just like what it takes to get into a good, steady habit of healthy eating and exercising.
In contrast, practising narcissism is like eating a piece of cake, even worse, gorging on the whole cake, or like eating any and every type of junk food we can get our hands on and put into our mouth...It tastes great, it's easy, it satisfies at least a part of our hedonistic-narcissistic (pleasure-seeking) impulses...but there are not too many good vitamins, minerals, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, fiber and enzymes in what we are eating...most of what we are eating has no nutritional value at all and the older we get, the worse this can become as a health problem, especially as our metabolism slows down, usually exasperated by less and less exercise...
This is not to say that all hedonism and/or narcissism is bad -- because it's not -- our survival depends very much on our narcissistic genetics, biochemistry, and psychology. When our body tells us to eat, we need to eat. And similarly, with the other life-preserving impulses in our mind and body that help to keep us alive, both as individuals and as an ongoing species.
Indeed, like many things in life, narcissism becomes a paradox in our lives -- too much narcissism is not a good thing in our lives but so too is not enough narcissism in our lives.
Healthy aspects of narcissism include: self-assertion, self-confidence, self-awareness, self-propelled action...
Indeed, as humans we are probably largely programmed to be narcissistic unless or until we are taught differently -- or better -- to bring this, and keep this, in proper balance and perspective. Even teaching 'altruism' and 'ethics' and 'morals' does not completely, or even closely, eliminate or minimize our underlying narcissistic impulses. But for a 'civilized person and society' these counter-balancing beliefs and values of such things as altruism, social sensitivity, empathy, caring, love, ethics, morals... are essential in order to make our own lives and the lives of the people around us work properly.
Greed, selfishness, manipulation, corruption, fraud, collusion, abuse of power -- these are some of the different things that happen in our personal, social, business, and political lives when self and social narcissism start to slip and slide downhill and out of control....It becomes harder and harder to restore proper ethical, moral, and legal balance, the greater we let self and social narcissism slide down hill and out of control.
Nature injects us with narcissism. It doesn't really 'inject us' with much 'altruism' or 'ethics' or 'morals' -- these are all mainly culturally, religiously, educationally taught beliefs, values, and skills that take great time, energy, effort, and practice to develop. Like running uphill, in contrast to narcissistic self-absorption that requires little effort, energy, self-discipline...like running down hill with gravity as opposed to against gravity.
Living in a culture, an economy, an environment of 'unbridled narcissism' where narcissism -- like a fast, growing weed -- has 'propelled' itself beyond 'healthy civilian, egalitarian, fair and democratic boundaries', and into the area of 'crime, immorality, and corruption' where everyone develops a mindset of 'He's doing it so why can't I?' Or 'The company I work for or my government is being blatantly narcissistic -- using and abusing money unfairly, even corruptly, so therefore I am going to take certain narcissistic counter-measures as a way of compensating for the way that I am being unfairly treated -- these are the types of things that provide greater and greater 'fertilizer' for a larger and larger 'culture of unbridled narcissism'.
Most notably power corrupts -- unless or until there is some faction of society that says 'Enough is enough. This unbridled narcissism has to stop and brought back to more normal, healthy boundaries. If I don't say or do anything about what is happening here, who is? Everyone is passing the buck, remaining ethically passive, and letting their own ethics slip-slide away in the process...'
In Ontario here, we have a Liberal Government that is bringing in a new 'Harmonization Tax'. What a juxtaposition of words -- 'harmonization' and 'tax'. This is from a Liberal Government that has been audited as basically 'mispending millions if not billions of taxpayers money' in the just recently passed 'EHealth Scandal'. There is no Government Accountability here. If the government 'mis-spends' money -- with a lot of Liberal politicians and lobbyists getting 'quietly rich' in the process -- the government just shrugs its shoulders, perhaps offers one politician as a 'sacrifical lamb' (even though I am sure she has already made enough money off of Ehealth to retire for the rest of her life) -- and waits for the scandal to pass. Then they introduce the 'Harmonization Tax'.
As citizens of Ontario, we are far too passive not to mention probably mainly ignorant of the full extent of what this new tax is fully going to mean. We just shrug our shoulders and basically let the politicians get away with 'narcissistic mayhem'. Similarily to what happened on Wall Street. Unbridled and unethical narcissism permeates our culture like the dandelions in my front and back yard a few years ago. It took a lot of digging, over and over and over again, to get rid of most of these weeds. It still didn't get rid of them all.
I can't say that I am any type of 'ethical saint'. How many of us can? But there comes a point where narcissism eventually will destroy all semblence of what it means to be a 'civilized nation'.
Cultural narcissm propogates individual narcissism, and individual narcissism in turn propogates cultural narcissism. The two are 'dialectically entwined'. Without cultural and individual ethics counter-balancing the combined force of cultural and individual narcissism taking us all on a fast or slow roller coaster ride to self-destruction, bad things start to happen like we are seeing in the current recession. As a whole, we are all suffering from the malaise of personal and cultural narcissism destroying the ethical and economic balance in our society. We need more 'win-win' solutions -- not 'me-me', 'I win, you lose' solutions...In the end, we all lose...
One only has to go back and read some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes about how 'power corrupts'...and all of the other Enlightenment Philosophers -- John Locke, Diderot, Voltaire, Tom Paine, Montesquieu...to read how much work and effort has to be continually exercised in order to keep unethical power and narcissism out of government agencies and processes not to mention businesses... to fully understand that we cannot let this type of thing slide without drastic consequences eventually hitting us all...like the collapse of the major financial institutions on Wall Street and their essentially being 'rewarded' afterwards for their ethical and/or legal transgressions at the individual and collective expense of the rest of us, many of us who are fighting for our very economical survival...
Let me close with a few of the quotes that I mean...
...............................................................................................................................................
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson
Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.
Thomas Jefferson
Delay is preferable to error.
Thomas Jefferson
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Thomas Jefferson
Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it.
Thomas Jefferson
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
Thomas Jefferson
Don't talk about what you have done or what you are going to do.
Thomas Jefferson
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
Thomas Jefferson
Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson
Every generation needs a new revolution.
Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.
Thomas Jefferson
Happiness is not being pained in body or troubled in mind.
Thomas Jefferson
He who knows best knows how little he knows.
Thomas Jefferson
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
Thomas Jefferson
...........................................................................................................................
-- dgb, Nov. 14th-16th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcisism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process....
In contrast, practising narcissism is like eating a piece of cake, even worse, gorging on the whole cake, or like eating any and every type of junk food we can get our hands on and put into our mouth...It tastes great, it's easy, it satisfies at least a part of our hedonistic-narcissistic (pleasure-seeking) impulses...but there are not too many good vitamins, minerals, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, fiber and enzymes in what we are eating...most of what we are eating has no nutritional value at all and the older we get, the worse this can become as a health problem, especially as our metabolism slows down, usually exasperated by less and less exercise...
This is not to say that all hedonism and/or narcissism is bad -- because it's not -- our survival depends very much on our narcissistic genetics, biochemistry, and psychology. When our body tells us to eat, we need to eat. And similarly, with the other life-preserving impulses in our mind and body that help to keep us alive, both as individuals and as an ongoing species.
Indeed, like many things in life, narcissism becomes a paradox in our lives -- too much narcissism is not a good thing in our lives but so too is not enough narcissism in our lives.
Healthy aspects of narcissism include: self-assertion, self-confidence, self-awareness, self-propelled action...
Indeed, as humans we are probably largely programmed to be narcissistic unless or until we are taught differently -- or better -- to bring this, and keep this, in proper balance and perspective. Even teaching 'altruism' and 'ethics' and 'morals' does not completely, or even closely, eliminate or minimize our underlying narcissistic impulses. But for a 'civilized person and society' these counter-balancing beliefs and values of such things as altruism, social sensitivity, empathy, caring, love, ethics, morals... are essential in order to make our own lives and the lives of the people around us work properly.
Greed, selfishness, manipulation, corruption, fraud, collusion, abuse of power -- these are some of the different things that happen in our personal, social, business, and political lives when self and social narcissism start to slip and slide downhill and out of control....It becomes harder and harder to restore proper ethical, moral, and legal balance, the greater we let self and social narcissism slide down hill and out of control.
Nature injects us with narcissism. It doesn't really 'inject us' with much 'altruism' or 'ethics' or 'morals' -- these are all mainly culturally, religiously, educationally taught beliefs, values, and skills that take great time, energy, effort, and practice to develop. Like running uphill, in contrast to narcissistic self-absorption that requires little effort, energy, self-discipline...like running down hill with gravity as opposed to against gravity.
Living in a culture, an economy, an environment of 'unbridled narcissism' where narcissism -- like a fast, growing weed -- has 'propelled' itself beyond 'healthy civilian, egalitarian, fair and democratic boundaries', and into the area of 'crime, immorality, and corruption' where everyone develops a mindset of 'He's doing it so why can't I?' Or 'The company I work for or my government is being blatantly narcissistic -- using and abusing money unfairly, even corruptly, so therefore I am going to take certain narcissistic counter-measures as a way of compensating for the way that I am being unfairly treated -- these are the types of things that provide greater and greater 'fertilizer' for a larger and larger 'culture of unbridled narcissism'.
Most notably power corrupts -- unless or until there is some faction of society that says 'Enough is enough. This unbridled narcissism has to stop and brought back to more normal, healthy boundaries. If I don't say or do anything about what is happening here, who is? Everyone is passing the buck, remaining ethically passive, and letting their own ethics slip-slide away in the process...'
In Ontario here, we have a Liberal Government that is bringing in a new 'Harmonization Tax'. What a juxtaposition of words -- 'harmonization' and 'tax'. This is from a Liberal Government that has been audited as basically 'mispending millions if not billions of taxpayers money' in the just recently passed 'EHealth Scandal'. There is no Government Accountability here. If the government 'mis-spends' money -- with a lot of Liberal politicians and lobbyists getting 'quietly rich' in the process -- the government just shrugs its shoulders, perhaps offers one politician as a 'sacrifical lamb' (even though I am sure she has already made enough money off of Ehealth to retire for the rest of her life) -- and waits for the scandal to pass. Then they introduce the 'Harmonization Tax'.
As citizens of Ontario, we are far too passive not to mention probably mainly ignorant of the full extent of what this new tax is fully going to mean. We just shrug our shoulders and basically let the politicians get away with 'narcissistic mayhem'. Similarily to what happened on Wall Street. Unbridled and unethical narcissism permeates our culture like the dandelions in my front and back yard a few years ago. It took a lot of digging, over and over and over again, to get rid of most of these weeds. It still didn't get rid of them all.
I can't say that I am any type of 'ethical saint'. How many of us can? But there comes a point where narcissism eventually will destroy all semblence of what it means to be a 'civilized nation'.
Cultural narcissm propogates individual narcissism, and individual narcissism in turn propogates cultural narcissism. The two are 'dialectically entwined'. Without cultural and individual ethics counter-balancing the combined force of cultural and individual narcissism taking us all on a fast or slow roller coaster ride to self-destruction, bad things start to happen like we are seeing in the current recession. As a whole, we are all suffering from the malaise of personal and cultural narcissism destroying the ethical and economic balance in our society. We need more 'win-win' solutions -- not 'me-me', 'I win, you lose' solutions...In the end, we all lose...
One only has to go back and read some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes about how 'power corrupts'...and all of the other Enlightenment Philosophers -- John Locke, Diderot, Voltaire, Tom Paine, Montesquieu...to read how much work and effort has to be continually exercised in order to keep unethical power and narcissism out of government agencies and processes not to mention businesses... to fully understand that we cannot let this type of thing slide without drastic consequences eventually hitting us all...like the collapse of the major financial institutions on Wall Street and their essentially being 'rewarded' afterwards for their ethical and/or legal transgressions at the individual and collective expense of the rest of us, many of us who are fighting for our very economical survival...
Let me close with a few of the quotes that I mean...
...............................................................................................................................................
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson
Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.
Thomas Jefferson
Delay is preferable to error.
Thomas Jefferson
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Thomas Jefferson
Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it.
Thomas Jefferson
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
Thomas Jefferson
Don't talk about what you have done or what you are going to do.
Thomas Jefferson
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
Thomas Jefferson
Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson
Every generation needs a new revolution.
Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.
Thomas Jefferson
Happiness is not being pained in body or troubled in mind.
Thomas Jefferson
He who knows best knows how little he knows.
Thomas Jefferson
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
Thomas Jefferson
...........................................................................................................................
-- dgb, Nov. 14th-16th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcisism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process....
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
On Properly Functioning Democracies vs. Pseudo-Democracies, Pathological Ideology -- and 'Snake Oil'
When the people at the top of the Corporate, Business World cannot control and police themselves -- which, obviously, many of them can't, or won't -- then the Government has to do it for them, creating and policing laws that discourage and minimize 'white collar crime' -- particularly, 'corporate plundering' of 'corporate business coffers' at the top.
When the people in different Government Sectors who have control over their own spending and paycheques and who specifically they give government contracts to without a democratic bidding, cannot control and police themselves -- which, obviously, many of them can't or won't -- then, people above them in more powerful Government Positions have to do it for them, creating and policing laws that discourage and minimize this type of Government exploitation of taxpayers' money -- and 'white collar plundering of public coffers'.
When the people at even the highest levels of Government Positions and Trust cannot or will not police the people in charge of significant amounts of government funds below them -- and exploitation results -- then it is the duty of journalists and philosopher-writers and film makers (Michael Moore) to hammer certain 'unpleasant, unethical government and corporate truths (or even 'half-truths') home until the proper government people are 'impeached', 'resign', are 'fired', and/or arefinally voted out of office.
Failing this, we as individual citizens in a properly functioning democracy, need to continue to apply pressure on the particular guilty parties, or at the very least, vote them out of office when their time for potential re-election comes due.
Anything less than this is a 'pseudo-democracy' -- a 'fascade' of a democracy. It is 'Ideology' in the Marxian pathological sense of the word where 'Ideology' means 'hiding what is really happening underneath the superficial rhetoric and campaign promises and white-washing and pretenses of what transgressing politicians and/or corporate bigwigs and/or marketing people are trying to sell you.
'Ideology' in this pathological sense of the word is nothing more than -- as Senator Barney Frank has aptly put it -- 'snake oil'.
-- dgb, Nov. 4th, 2009.
-- david gordon bain
-- democracy goes beyond narcissism
-- dialectic gap-bridging negotiations...
-- are still in process...
When the people in different Government Sectors who have control over their own spending and paycheques and who specifically they give government contracts to without a democratic bidding, cannot control and police themselves -- which, obviously, many of them can't or won't -- then, people above them in more powerful Government Positions have to do it for them, creating and policing laws that discourage and minimize this type of Government exploitation of taxpayers' money -- and 'white collar plundering of public coffers'.
When the people at even the highest levels of Government Positions and Trust cannot or will not police the people in charge of significant amounts of government funds below them -- and exploitation results -- then it is the duty of journalists and philosopher-writers and film makers (Michael Moore) to hammer certain 'unpleasant, unethical government and corporate truths (or even 'half-truths') home until the proper government people are 'impeached', 'resign', are 'fired', and/or arefinally voted out of office.
Failing this, we as individual citizens in a properly functioning democracy, need to continue to apply pressure on the particular guilty parties, or at the very least, vote them out of office when their time for potential re-election comes due.
Anything less than this is a 'pseudo-democracy' -- a 'fascade' of a democracy. It is 'Ideology' in the Marxian pathological sense of the word where 'Ideology' means 'hiding what is really happening underneath the superficial rhetoric and campaign promises and white-washing and pretenses of what transgressing politicians and/or corporate bigwigs and/or marketing people are trying to sell you.
'Ideology' in this pathological sense of the word is nothing more than -- as Senator Barney Frank has aptly put it -- 'snake oil'.
-- dgb, Nov. 4th, 2009.
-- david gordon bain
-- democracy goes beyond narcissism
-- dialectic gap-bridging negotiations...
-- are still in process...
On The Positive and Negative Side of Narcissism (Hedonism, Egotism, Individualism)
I heard a commercial this morning on tv that sparked this brief DGB commentary.
The ad said something like this:
'When a man does something special -- something one of a kind -- he is proud to put his name to it.'
This beckons back to my dad's Ideal Capitalism influence and his introducing me to 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand when I was in my late teens.
Succinctly put, narcissism - and egotism -- and pleasure-seeking -- and searching for the self-fulfillment or self-actualization of one's own Self, one's own Soul -- is not all bad. It is only bad when it gets twisted out of control, and you start moving down a path of one-sidedness, self-absorption to the point of everyone else's needs becoming inferior to your own, down a path of self-destructiveness and/or towards the destructiveness and/or tearing down of others around you. It is only narcissism out of control, narcissism gone wild, narcissism that excludes all others, that eliminates any and/or all feeling of compassion and sensitivity and humanism towards those around you, either close to you or far away -- that is the point where narcissism, hedonism, and egotism all become 'pathological' -- 'psycho-pathological' and 'socio-pathological'.
As for the healthy type of narcissism that I am talking about here, it is well described in this internet (Wikipedia) summary of Ayn Rand's famous book, The Fountainhead (1943).
....................................................................................................................................................
The Fountainhead is a bestselling 1943 novel by Ayn Rand. It was Rand's first major literary success and its royalties and movie rights brought her fame and financial security. More than 5 million copies of the book have been sold worldwide and the work has been translated in several languages. [1]
The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision. The book follows his battle to practice modern architecture, which he believes to be superior, despite an establishment centered on tradition-worship. How others in the novel relate to Roark demonstrates Rand's various archetypes of human character, all of which are variants between Roark, the author's ideal man of independent-mindedness and integrity, and what she described as the "second-handers." The complex relationships between Roark and the various kinds of individuals who assist or hinder his progress, or both, allows the novel to be at once a romantic drama and a philosophical work. By Rand's own admission, Roark is the embodiment of the human spirit and his struggle represents the triumph of individualism over collectivism.
......................................................................................................................................................
Howard Roark -- and my dad's own real-life vision and self-enactment of him -- became one of my own earliest idealistic role models.
However, without character, integrity, fairness, compassion, accountability, humanism, and the ideal of a 'fair deal' -- a 'win-win business deal for both and/or all sides' -- Ethical, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism becomes Unbridled, Narcissistic Corrupt Capitalism where collusion and exploitation and kickbacks and bribery and 'Golden Parachute Contracts and Bonuses' rule the day. Employers exploit employees. And/or unions exploit businesses. Lobbyists exploit Governments. Governments exploit Lobbyists. Sellers exploit buyers. Governments and businesses exploit taxpayers.
And we wonder why we have a recession.
Capitalism has stopped playing by ethical rules. Businesses have stopped looking for 'win-win solutions'.
Everybody who has significant monetary power at the top is looking for their own narcissistic Golden Parachute, their Golden Retirement Package. Plunder the corporation. Plunder the taxpayer.
And we wonder why we have a recession.
-- dgb, Nov. 4th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
..........................................................................................................................
The ad said something like this:
'When a man does something special -- something one of a kind -- he is proud to put his name to it.'
This beckons back to my dad's Ideal Capitalism influence and his introducing me to 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand when I was in my late teens.
Succinctly put, narcissism - and egotism -- and pleasure-seeking -- and searching for the self-fulfillment or self-actualization of one's own Self, one's own Soul -- is not all bad. It is only bad when it gets twisted out of control, and you start moving down a path of one-sidedness, self-absorption to the point of everyone else's needs becoming inferior to your own, down a path of self-destructiveness and/or towards the destructiveness and/or tearing down of others around you. It is only narcissism out of control, narcissism gone wild, narcissism that excludes all others, that eliminates any and/or all feeling of compassion and sensitivity and humanism towards those around you, either close to you or far away -- that is the point where narcissism, hedonism, and egotism all become 'pathological' -- 'psycho-pathological' and 'socio-pathological'.
As for the healthy type of narcissism that I am talking about here, it is well described in this internet (Wikipedia) summary of Ayn Rand's famous book, The Fountainhead (1943).
....................................................................................................................................................
The Fountainhead is a bestselling 1943 novel by Ayn Rand. It was Rand's first major literary success and its royalties and movie rights brought her fame and financial security. More than 5 million copies of the book have been sold worldwide and the work has been translated in several languages. [1]
The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision. The book follows his battle to practice modern architecture, which he believes to be superior, despite an establishment centered on tradition-worship. How others in the novel relate to Roark demonstrates Rand's various archetypes of human character, all of which are variants between Roark, the author's ideal man of independent-mindedness and integrity, and what she described as the "second-handers." The complex relationships between Roark and the various kinds of individuals who assist or hinder his progress, or both, allows the novel to be at once a romantic drama and a philosophical work. By Rand's own admission, Roark is the embodiment of the human spirit and his struggle represents the triumph of individualism over collectivism.
......................................................................................................................................................
Howard Roark -- and my dad's own real-life vision and self-enactment of him -- became one of my own earliest idealistic role models.
However, without character, integrity, fairness, compassion, accountability, humanism, and the ideal of a 'fair deal' -- a 'win-win business deal for both and/or all sides' -- Ethical, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism becomes Unbridled, Narcissistic Corrupt Capitalism where collusion and exploitation and kickbacks and bribery and 'Golden Parachute Contracts and Bonuses' rule the day. Employers exploit employees. And/or unions exploit businesses. Lobbyists exploit Governments. Governments exploit Lobbyists. Sellers exploit buyers. Governments and businesses exploit taxpayers.
And we wonder why we have a recession.
Capitalism has stopped playing by ethical rules. Businesses have stopped looking for 'win-win solutions'.
Everybody who has significant monetary power at the top is looking for their own narcissistic Golden Parachute, their Golden Retirement Package. Plunder the corporation. Plunder the taxpayer.
And we wonder why we have a recession.
-- dgb, Nov. 4th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
..........................................................................................................................
Sunday, October 25, 2009
More Comments On The Similarities and Differences Between Classic Hegelian Philosophy and DGB (Post-Hegelian) Philosophy
Just finished, Oct. 25th, 2009.
A friend of mine asked me to put together an essay aimed at capturing the main energy, focus, and driving force of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
This, I have aimed to do in other introductory essays in the past, coming at the 'wholistic' issue from different angles, but given the fact that it has been a while now, I do believe, since I have written an 'all-encompassing' essay of this sort that aims to link everything I have written, and want to write, about together in one clear, readable package, and due to the fact that my writing has been more sporadic and without much seeming direction and/or overall vision lately -- I would agree that such an essay is once again in order. Even my Table of Contents is outdated and again needs a 'renewal' that reflects the clarity of vision of Hegel's Hotel.
So let me start by stating as clearly as possible what Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy has aimed to do in the essays that I have written, and is still aiming to do, in the remaining essays I would like to write:
1. Firstly, Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics... is an 'open philosophical system or treatise or forum' that continues to change and evolve from day to day, as its author changes and evolves -- that's me -- and it will continue to change and evolve until the day I die. Nothing is written in stone here. As life changes, and particularly as life changes for the main author who is writing Hegel's Hotel (again, that's me), I will continue to have something to write about as I continue to process other books and authors who I have read, and/or will continue to read, and as I continue to process my own life experiences in the context of those who I will continue to come into contact with, both good and bad, and as I continue to play 'the fitting game' as Fritz Perls used to call it, which can be both good in bad as we try to 'classify' and 'label' the life structures and processes we see around us, and in my case here, aim to compare and contrast the good with the bad, the right from the wrong, and the real with the ideal...
2. Secondly, Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...looks upon its main mentor, G.W. Hegel, and his main philosophical work, 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit', 1807, as the centrepiece -- as the philosophical 'Bible' if you will -- upon which everything I write gravitates from like the planets around the sun, or like ripples or waves of water that spread outward from a rock or stone that has just landed at some point and time in the middle of a large body of water -- call this, if you will, the main centrepoint, mind-body and 'multiple-bipolarity' of 'life', 'death', 'structure', 'process', 'evolution', 'non-evolution', and everything that runs in between....
3. Just because I call Hegel's classic philosophical work my 'philosophical Bible', does not mean that I treat it as a 'perfect philosophical work' nor do I view it as being like the closest thing to 'God' that any philosopher has ever written, and/or will ever write. I do not even view the Bible this way. I view the Bible in the same manner that Spinoza did, as something that was written by humans, as a philosophical/mythological treatise that has some messages that are important to read about life, man, and how we should behave, but not something that should be treated as a 'perfect treatise from God'. Both The Bible -- and Hegel's classic philosophical work, 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit' -- are worthy of great respect in certain areas of endeavor, but this does not mean that either of them is beyond human criticism in those areas that these human works could/can be better...Even the Bible is nnot always 'humanistic'. Just read the story of God, Abraham, and Isaac meeting on the mountain in an intended or 'pseudo-intended' human sacrifice. Just because God 'called off Abraham at the last minute' doesn't make the story any less 'barbaric'. Nor does Abraham sacrificing a ggoat instead of his son Isaac alleviate the story in any less sadistic manner. If I was Isaac, I would be wanting to 'sacrifice' both Abraham (i.e., his father) -- and God who played the ultimate 'sadist' in this twisted series of events. Perhaps, if anything, the ultimate 'humanistic-existential' message here was for Abraham and for all of us to know when and where to separate from authoritarian orders regardless of when and where they come from -- in the name of 'humanism' when humanism separates itself from God, or God's purported 'message of authority'. This is the humanistic-existential message that DGB Philosophy takes from the story of God, Abraham, and Isaac...
4. One of the most important words in the title of Hegel's most famous philosophical work is the word 'Geist' which in German can be -- and has been -- translated into English as either 'Mind' or 'Spirit'. I usually translate the German word 'Geist' (not that I know any German) as meaning both -- i.e., like this -- 'Mind/Spirit'. To leave out the word 'Spirit' -- and its intended meaning -- in my opinion, is a grave mistake. Hegel's own high degree of both 'Abstractionism' and 'Rationalism' partly contradicts the intent of his own philosophy which I believe is to blend 'Humanistic Enlightenment' Philosophy and 'Humanistic Romantic' Philosophy in the same philosophical work -- in his classic 'dialectic triadic style': 1. thesis: Enlightenment Philosophy in the context of German Idealism'; 2. anti-thesis: Romantic Philosophy in the context of German Idealism; 3. synthesis: Classic Hegelian Philosophy in the context of German Idealism.
Now, personally, I think that Schelling did a better job of handling 'the romantic-idealistic side' of 'dialectic idealism' than Hegel did. Hegel, as a whole, functioned more from 'the neck up' in his 'rational' dialectic philosophy whereas Schelling came closer to the 'romantic idealism and wholism' of Spinoza in the direction that Schelling took 'dialectic idealism'. The primary difference between Spinoza and Schelling is Schelling's 'dialectic romanticism and pantheism' vs. Spinoza's 'monistic' version of romanticism and pantheism. I prefer Schelling's dialectic-romantic-pantheistic philosophy over Spinoza's monistic version. I have not read much of Schelling's work -- from what I have read, it lacks the comprehensive, organizational structure of Hegel's more 'rational' dialectic philosophy. But it seems that Schelling was much clearer on the full extent of his dialectic-romantic-pantheistic-spiritual vision. On this level, I give Schelling full credit and perhaps even influencing Hegel more than Hegel influenced Schelling.
In this same respect, I am critically hardest on Hegel because Hegel's dialectic romanticism and pantheism, for the most part, gets buried beneath his high degree of abstractionism and rationalism -- even to the point where his so-called 'rationalism' is not rational -- or even humanistic -- in any sense that I believe in the word 'rational' or 'humanistic' should mean. Something like God on the mountain with Abraham and Isaac. From Hegel's 'deterministic-historical-rational' point of view, the so-called rational can be 'barbaric' and visa versa (following a very controversial and much contested Hegelian quote: 'The rational is real and the real is rational.') -- the idea here being that even when the 'rational' is seemingly 'irrational', the dialectic always leads to a 'rational self-correction' that could not and/or would not have happened without the historical context of the preceding 'irrational event' that made the following 'rational-dialectic-self-correction' possible based on historical 'hindsight'.
This is the alleged 'underlying rationality' of the dialectic engagement between human irrationality and rationality eventually correcting itself in human rationality. I can partly see Hegel's 'brand of dialectic logic' at work here but still, this point of view, I strongly take issue with as I aim to see such 'impending irrationalities 'ahead of time' -- or as they are happening -- in Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
Likewise, with Hegel's concept of 'The Absolute'. Absolute barbarism -- in any historical context of the dialectic in evolutionary process -- still does not constitute any form of either 'rationalism' or 'humanism' in Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy. Nor does DGB Philosophy, in any way, support -- as Hegel did -- the barbaric 'will to power' of Napoleon (especially against his own Prussian-pre-German State').
Actually, I should modify that last statement. None of us is either totally good or totally bad. And likewise with Napoleon. Napoleon stabilized France from/after 'The Reign of Terror'. Napoleon also abolished serfdom and emancipated the Jews when he conquered Prussia. (Introducing Hegel, Lloyd Spencer, 1996, 2006, p. 10. Napoleon then, can fit under one of those: 'Does the end justify the means?' questions. And Napoleon might be one of those examples that Hegel was referring to where 'Napoleon's brutal behavior actually led to some 'rationality' after he was finished 'conquering' different countries. I don't support Hegel's support of Napoleon's barbaric war actions anymore than I support the overcompensatory measures taken afterwards by Prussia, pre-Germany, and Germany towards 'German Nationalism, Arrogance, Superiority -- and its own evolutionary 'National Will to Power' over 'non-German States and ethnic groups. Germany, in essence, became worse than its main pre-German national victimizer (i.e., Napoleon) who seems to have been used as a 'Subconscious, National Idealistic Role Model'. This is an example of what I call 'National Transference and Identification With The Aggressor'...
...........................................................................From the internet...
Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the Universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities; or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions.
.................................................................................................................................................
Let me use the rest of this essay -- as I have also done in other essays but new material keeps coming into the forefront of my consciousness faster than I can process it all -- to compare and contrast some of the main similarities and differences between DGB (Post-Hegelian) Philosophy with Classic Hegelian Philosophy.
Put most simply, DGB Philosophy does not share Hegel's (or Fichte's, or Schelling's) enthrallment with the idea of 'The Absolute'. As much as I don't like Schopenhauer -- neither the person nor the one-sidedness of his overall 'cosmic, pessimistic, narcissistic' philosophy -- still, Schopenhauer's narcissisticly based philosophy cannot be overlooked, because everywhere we look around, we can see it exemplified in the many injustices, corruption, and wars that we see in the world today, and indeed, throughout most, if not all, of human history.
Man's perpetual greed, selfishness, and one-sided righteousness cannot be overlooked, no matter how much we indulge in the idea of 'The Absolute' or 'Absolute Knowledge' or 'Absolute Being'. Maybe these ideas are useful human ideals, maybe the dialectic -- and 'dialectic logic' -- can at different points, move us closer to these absolute ideals, but still, the dialectic just as often moves us away from these ideals as it moves us closer because the human dialectic process is fraught with individual and group 'power pushes' or 'wills to power' that are just as often, if not more often, aimed at one-sided outcomes of selfishness, greed, money, property, power, revenge, sex, and righteousness -- all of which I capture under the term 'human narcissism' than it is aimed at anything we might call 'human balance, harmony, unity, justice, democracy, equality, freedom, integrity, character, fairness, wholeness...
In short, there will always be a perpetual ongoing conflict between man's striving for balance, justice, equality, and democracy on the one hand vs. his more one-sided striving for all of the things that I have labelled above as human narcissism on the other side. This perpetual ongoing conflict -- and the dialectic process that continues to negotiate these two different sides of human nature and behavior -- will never take us to anything that we can remotely call 'The Absolute' -- unless, along Schopenhauer's line of thinking -- we call this 'Absolute Narcissism, Chaos, Corruption, and Self-Destruction'.
I am sorry to say this but 50 plus years of living on this earth have dulled my 'Enlightenment and Classic Hegelian Idealism' to the point where it is at least equally countered -- probably greater countered - by my perception of the realism of Schopenhaurian pessimism, whether we call that 'cosmic' or 'the darker side of being human'. (I remember reading Freud when he said very much the same thing.)
Thus, probably the main difference between Classic Hegelian Philosophy and Classic Hegelian Idealism is my basic, overall rejection of his concept of 'The Absolute'.
Now, this does not mean that we need to start jumping out of windows or take on an attitude of 'perpetual despair' -- a type of Schopenhaurian philosophical bleakness, and/or 'Lord of The Flies' mentality.
I read in a quote the other day -- and I am paraphrasing -- that no monument has every been erected of a 'pessimist'. I wonder if this is true. Are there no statues of 'The Sceptics', 'The Cynics', Thomas Hobbes, and/or Arthur Schopenhauer out there? Most certainly, there are monuments or statues or paintings of Sigmund Freud -- and by the end of his career at least -- Sigmund Freud was very much a 'pessimist' in terms of his not having much faith in the future of mankind. Freud had seen and experienced two World Wars.
I am looking around me in the world today at Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan...I think of AIG and a collapsing Wall Street. I think of CEO's abandoning their bankrupt companies -- or managing government-funded bankrupt companies -- and either running away with Golden Parachute Contracts, or continuing to manage a government funded bankrupt company like they should be paid like the wealthiest man on earth, I think of government and corporate lobbyism, and the human narcissism and corruption behind all levels of corporate and government politics -- and it is hard not to be pessimistic, even cynical.
Hegel's Hotel is still being built to foster and worship a particular type of human 'spirit' -- call this Hegel's 'Phenomenology of The Human Spirit' if you wish -- a particular type of Enlightenment integrity and idealism built around the ideals of reason, rationality, justice, fairness, equality, democracy, truth...in combination with a particular type of Romantic Human Idealism that can be captured in art, mythology, music, and even a Religious-Spiritual-Pantheist Idealism that embraces Humanism -- not the type of institutionalized and/or extremist-righteous religion that seeks to eliminate and destroy all of those people who are 'non-believers'...
Hegel's Hotel trumpets Hegel's main driving spirit of 'Enlightenment-Romanticism' and/or 'Humanistic-Existentialism' as developed before Hegel by such noted Enlightenment philosophers as John Locke, Adam Smith, Diderot, Montesquieu, Tom Paine, Jefferson, Rousseau, and after Hegel by the likes of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre and complemented by 'Constructive Deconstructionists' like Socrates, Sir Francis Bacon, David Hume, Voltaire, Nietzsche at his best when he wasn't going off the deep end, Foucault, and significant elements of Derrida....
Hegel's Hotel trumpets the 'Dialectic Pantheism' of philosophers and/or philosophies like Heraclitus, Lao Tse, Daoism, Schelling, even the 'Mono-Wholistic-Pantheism' of Spinoza....
And Hegel's Hotel trumpets the 'pessimistic' evolutionary wisdom and understanding of the significance of 'human narcissism', 'freedom', 'alienation', and 'the will to power' as passed through the many years to us by such noted ancient and more recent philosophers as Anaxamander, Diogenes, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida...
And throughout all of this Hegel's Hotel strives for its own 'idealistic-realistic', 'Enlightenment-Romantic', 'Humanistic-Existential balance....
DGB Philosophy, in the spirit of Hegel and his masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' views the dialectic as the ultimate, central, driving, both uniting and separating, force of nature and evolution.
The dialectic is a self-correcting mechanism. But it is also a self-destructing mechanism. It is both a life and a death force at the same time. It is like the contradiction of oxygen -- which acts as both the breath of life on the one hand, and the ultimate destruction of life on the other hand (through the side-effect of oxidation.)
Indeed, at least in part, the dialectic might be viewed as the ultimate contradiction, the ultimate paradox of life. Hegel has stated that any theory, any perspective, any characteristic, taken to the limit -- will ultimately self-destruct in its own self-contradiction. We use the term 'bipolarity disorder' to describe a certain biochemical and psychological illness that we used to call 'manic-depression'. And yet everything we do in life is connected to the idea of 'bipolarity'. Indeed, 'health' and 'illness' is a bipolarity. And every bipolarity is connected by a dialectic process and/or alienated by the absence of a dialectic process.
Indeed, the dialectic might be viewed as being even more fundamental to life and evolution than oxygen (air) as well as water, earth, and fire. This argument goes back to some of the earliest arguments of the Pre-Socratic, Greek philosophers (and hundreds or thousands of miles away -- I don't know my geographical distance here too well -- to philosophers like Lao Tsu and Confucius in ancient China. They were working on the same types of philosophical problems -- i.e., the origin and dynamics of the world -- and coming up with similar answers.)
While monistic philosophers like Thales, Anaxamenes, and Heralclitus each trumpeted what they believed to be the original essence of life -- i.e., water, air, or fire respectively, Anaxamander -- in a much more metaphysical but more philosophically important manner -- trumpeted the beginning of 'dialectic philosophy' -- talking about 'The Apeiron' which might be translated as either 'Chaos' or 'The Wholistic, Preorganized Universe', before 'life is split into polar opposites which compete with each other for their very existence, or at least their primary, dominant existence (for the winner) and a return to 'The Shadows' of The Apeiron (for the loser to re-group, re-energize, and re-fight another war for supremacy with its more dominant polar opposite. In such a fashion, in Anaxamander's ancient Greek thinking, day dominates while night recedes back into the Apeiron. Then night overtakes and dominates day, and day retreats back into the Shadows of the Apeiron.
As primitive as Anaxamander's argument may seem, given the example cited above, this line of thinking became the essence of Hegelian thinking which still has a dominant place in philosophy, psychology, politics, biology and evolution theory today, and indeed can be incorporated into every aspect of human thinking, behavior, and culture. This continuation of Anaxamander's thinking -- through Heraclitus, through Lao Tse (in the start of Daoism), through Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, through Schopenhauer, Marx, and Kierkegaard, through, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida, through Freud, Adler, Jung, and Fritz Perls -- is the direction of philosophical movement -- the evolution of the dialectic phenomenon and concept in both Western and Eastern Philosophy -- that Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy is both striving to historically trace and to continue to advance along its more idealistic 'Enlightenment-Romantic', 'Humanistic-Existential' path
In this last context, I will return to the German word 'Geist' which I will translate here as 'Spirit'.
Without the best of the human spirit implicit its every evolutionary development, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit -- becomes Spiritless. Lifeless. Dead. It becomes just another form of the type of 'alienation' that Hegel introduced to the many profound philosophers who he most influenced -- even as many rebelled against him, and more specifically, his 'over-abstractionism' and 'over-rationalism'.
And similarly too this is probably the most important area where I do indeed follow -- and elaborate on -- Hegel's intended German 'Dialectical-Enlightenment-Romantic-Humanistic-Existential' Idealism.
Because the same thing can be said for Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...
Without the best of the intended human spirit implicit in its every driving force, its every driving essay, Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy becomes just another philosophical treatise. Indeed, worse than just another philosophical treatise. It becomes spiritless, lifeless, alienated, humanistically and existentially -- dead.
In most of my philosophical essays I write about the need for 'homeostatic' or 'dialectic-democratic' balance between opposite, bi-polar forces and perspectives. I write about the potential and real scourge of unbridled human narcissism -- gone mad and out of control.
But in this essay, I am writing about the need to choose one human bi-polarity over another.
I am writing about the need for the soaring of the human essence and spirit -- in dialectic contact and embracement with our and each and every day existence -- over the alternative: a lifeless, spiritless, humanistic-existential death.
As I just heard coming fresh out of the mouth of another limousine driver who I work with each and every day, we chase the supposed idealism of Capitalism as we are taught it in Western Society: more individualism, more freedom, more money, more time, more commodities, more human spirit...
And paradoxically, again coming out of the mouth of the fellow driver I was talking to just yesterday, we see all around us people chasing a dream that doesn't seem to have either a happy process and/or a happy ending -- we see an American-Canadian dream that, for many or most of us, is definitely heading down the wrong life path.
We see people working more hours, some putting in 50, 60, and 70 hour work weeks, spending less time with their families, spending less time with their loved ones, we see less human spirit, we see more and more human alienation, less freedom, less time, less energy, less money, less commodities, less individualism -- except in the most alienated and negative respect of individuals being more and more lonely even in the throngs of more and more people that they connect -- but don't really connect with -- in their day to day existence.
And this is where our so-called American-Canadian Dream seems to stand right now.
Hegel's Hotel wants to take this dream down a different path.
Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy wants to help re-create 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' -- with an elaborated Enlightenment-Romantic-Humanistic-Existential component -- in man.
That is where Hegel's Hotel stands today as it moves forward in its both its construction and its evolution...
-- dgb, Oct. 25th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still In Process...
....................................................................
A friend of mine asked me to put together an essay aimed at capturing the main energy, focus, and driving force of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
This, I have aimed to do in other introductory essays in the past, coming at the 'wholistic' issue from different angles, but given the fact that it has been a while now, I do believe, since I have written an 'all-encompassing' essay of this sort that aims to link everything I have written, and want to write, about together in one clear, readable package, and due to the fact that my writing has been more sporadic and without much seeming direction and/or overall vision lately -- I would agree that such an essay is once again in order. Even my Table of Contents is outdated and again needs a 'renewal' that reflects the clarity of vision of Hegel's Hotel.
So let me start by stating as clearly as possible what Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy has aimed to do in the essays that I have written, and is still aiming to do, in the remaining essays I would like to write:
1. Firstly, Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics... is an 'open philosophical system or treatise or forum' that continues to change and evolve from day to day, as its author changes and evolves -- that's me -- and it will continue to change and evolve until the day I die. Nothing is written in stone here. As life changes, and particularly as life changes for the main author who is writing Hegel's Hotel (again, that's me), I will continue to have something to write about as I continue to process other books and authors who I have read, and/or will continue to read, and as I continue to process my own life experiences in the context of those who I will continue to come into contact with, both good and bad, and as I continue to play 'the fitting game' as Fritz Perls used to call it, which can be both good in bad as we try to 'classify' and 'label' the life structures and processes we see around us, and in my case here, aim to compare and contrast the good with the bad, the right from the wrong, and the real with the ideal...
2. Secondly, Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...looks upon its main mentor, G.W. Hegel, and his main philosophical work, 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit', 1807, as the centrepiece -- as the philosophical 'Bible' if you will -- upon which everything I write gravitates from like the planets around the sun, or like ripples or waves of water that spread outward from a rock or stone that has just landed at some point and time in the middle of a large body of water -- call this, if you will, the main centrepoint, mind-body and 'multiple-bipolarity' of 'life', 'death', 'structure', 'process', 'evolution', 'non-evolution', and everything that runs in between....
3. Just because I call Hegel's classic philosophical work my 'philosophical Bible', does not mean that I treat it as a 'perfect philosophical work' nor do I view it as being like the closest thing to 'God' that any philosopher has ever written, and/or will ever write. I do not even view the Bible this way. I view the Bible in the same manner that Spinoza did, as something that was written by humans, as a philosophical/mythological treatise that has some messages that are important to read about life, man, and how we should behave, but not something that should be treated as a 'perfect treatise from God'. Both The Bible -- and Hegel's classic philosophical work, 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit' -- are worthy of great respect in certain areas of endeavor, but this does not mean that either of them is beyond human criticism in those areas that these human works could/can be better...Even the Bible is nnot always 'humanistic'. Just read the story of God, Abraham, and Isaac meeting on the mountain in an intended or 'pseudo-intended' human sacrifice. Just because God 'called off Abraham at the last minute' doesn't make the story any less 'barbaric'. Nor does Abraham sacrificing a ggoat instead of his son Isaac alleviate the story in any less sadistic manner. If I was Isaac, I would be wanting to 'sacrifice' both Abraham (i.e., his father) -- and God who played the ultimate 'sadist' in this twisted series of events. Perhaps, if anything, the ultimate 'humanistic-existential' message here was for Abraham and for all of us to know when and where to separate from authoritarian orders regardless of when and where they come from -- in the name of 'humanism' when humanism separates itself from God, or God's purported 'message of authority'. This is the humanistic-existential message that DGB Philosophy takes from the story of God, Abraham, and Isaac...
4. One of the most important words in the title of Hegel's most famous philosophical work is the word 'Geist' which in German can be -- and has been -- translated into English as either 'Mind' or 'Spirit'. I usually translate the German word 'Geist' (not that I know any German) as meaning both -- i.e., like this -- 'Mind/Spirit'. To leave out the word 'Spirit' -- and its intended meaning -- in my opinion, is a grave mistake. Hegel's own high degree of both 'Abstractionism' and 'Rationalism' partly contradicts the intent of his own philosophy which I believe is to blend 'Humanistic Enlightenment' Philosophy and 'Humanistic Romantic' Philosophy in the same philosophical work -- in his classic 'dialectic triadic style': 1. thesis: Enlightenment Philosophy in the context of German Idealism'; 2. anti-thesis: Romantic Philosophy in the context of German Idealism; 3. synthesis: Classic Hegelian Philosophy in the context of German Idealism.
Now, personally, I think that Schelling did a better job of handling 'the romantic-idealistic side' of 'dialectic idealism' than Hegel did. Hegel, as a whole, functioned more from 'the neck up' in his 'rational' dialectic philosophy whereas Schelling came closer to the 'romantic idealism and wholism' of Spinoza in the direction that Schelling took 'dialectic idealism'. The primary difference between Spinoza and Schelling is Schelling's 'dialectic romanticism and pantheism' vs. Spinoza's 'monistic' version of romanticism and pantheism. I prefer Schelling's dialectic-romantic-pantheistic philosophy over Spinoza's monistic version. I have not read much of Schelling's work -- from what I have read, it lacks the comprehensive, organizational structure of Hegel's more 'rational' dialectic philosophy. But it seems that Schelling was much clearer on the full extent of his dialectic-romantic-pantheistic-spiritual vision. On this level, I give Schelling full credit and perhaps even influencing Hegel more than Hegel influenced Schelling.
In this same respect, I am critically hardest on Hegel because Hegel's dialectic romanticism and pantheism, for the most part, gets buried beneath his high degree of abstractionism and rationalism -- even to the point where his so-called 'rationalism' is not rational -- or even humanistic -- in any sense that I believe in the word 'rational' or 'humanistic' should mean. Something like God on the mountain with Abraham and Isaac. From Hegel's 'deterministic-historical-rational' point of view, the so-called rational can be 'barbaric' and visa versa (following a very controversial and much contested Hegelian quote: 'The rational is real and the real is rational.') -- the idea here being that even when the 'rational' is seemingly 'irrational', the dialectic always leads to a 'rational self-correction' that could not and/or would not have happened without the historical context of the preceding 'irrational event' that made the following 'rational-dialectic-self-correction' possible based on historical 'hindsight'.
This is the alleged 'underlying rationality' of the dialectic engagement between human irrationality and rationality eventually correcting itself in human rationality. I can partly see Hegel's 'brand of dialectic logic' at work here but still, this point of view, I strongly take issue with as I aim to see such 'impending irrationalities 'ahead of time' -- or as they are happening -- in Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
Likewise, with Hegel's concept of 'The Absolute'. Absolute barbarism -- in any historical context of the dialectic in evolutionary process -- still does not constitute any form of either 'rationalism' or 'humanism' in Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy. Nor does DGB Philosophy, in any way, support -- as Hegel did -- the barbaric 'will to power' of Napoleon (especially against his own Prussian-pre-German State').
Actually, I should modify that last statement. None of us is either totally good or totally bad. And likewise with Napoleon. Napoleon stabilized France from/after 'The Reign of Terror'. Napoleon also abolished serfdom and emancipated the Jews when he conquered Prussia. (Introducing Hegel, Lloyd Spencer, 1996, 2006, p. 10. Napoleon then, can fit under one of those: 'Does the end justify the means?' questions. And Napoleon might be one of those examples that Hegel was referring to where 'Napoleon's brutal behavior actually led to some 'rationality' after he was finished 'conquering' different countries. I don't support Hegel's support of Napoleon's barbaric war actions anymore than I support the overcompensatory measures taken afterwards by Prussia, pre-Germany, and Germany towards 'German Nationalism, Arrogance, Superiority -- and its own evolutionary 'National Will to Power' over 'non-German States and ethnic groups. Germany, in essence, became worse than its main pre-German national victimizer (i.e., Napoleon) who seems to have been used as a 'Subconscious, National Idealistic Role Model'. This is an example of what I call 'National Transference and Identification With The Aggressor'...
...........................................................................From the internet...
Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the Universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities; or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions.
.................................................................................................................................................
Let me use the rest of this essay -- as I have also done in other essays but new material keeps coming into the forefront of my consciousness faster than I can process it all -- to compare and contrast some of the main similarities and differences between DGB (Post-Hegelian) Philosophy with Classic Hegelian Philosophy.
Put most simply, DGB Philosophy does not share Hegel's (or Fichte's, or Schelling's) enthrallment with the idea of 'The Absolute'. As much as I don't like Schopenhauer -- neither the person nor the one-sidedness of his overall 'cosmic, pessimistic, narcissistic' philosophy -- still, Schopenhauer's narcissisticly based philosophy cannot be overlooked, because everywhere we look around, we can see it exemplified in the many injustices, corruption, and wars that we see in the world today, and indeed, throughout most, if not all, of human history.
Man's perpetual greed, selfishness, and one-sided righteousness cannot be overlooked, no matter how much we indulge in the idea of 'The Absolute' or 'Absolute Knowledge' or 'Absolute Being'. Maybe these ideas are useful human ideals, maybe the dialectic -- and 'dialectic logic' -- can at different points, move us closer to these absolute ideals, but still, the dialectic just as often moves us away from these ideals as it moves us closer because the human dialectic process is fraught with individual and group 'power pushes' or 'wills to power' that are just as often, if not more often, aimed at one-sided outcomes of selfishness, greed, money, property, power, revenge, sex, and righteousness -- all of which I capture under the term 'human narcissism' than it is aimed at anything we might call 'human balance, harmony, unity, justice, democracy, equality, freedom, integrity, character, fairness, wholeness...
In short, there will always be a perpetual ongoing conflict between man's striving for balance, justice, equality, and democracy on the one hand vs. his more one-sided striving for all of the things that I have labelled above as human narcissism on the other side. This perpetual ongoing conflict -- and the dialectic process that continues to negotiate these two different sides of human nature and behavior -- will never take us to anything that we can remotely call 'The Absolute' -- unless, along Schopenhauer's line of thinking -- we call this 'Absolute Narcissism, Chaos, Corruption, and Self-Destruction'.
I am sorry to say this but 50 plus years of living on this earth have dulled my 'Enlightenment and Classic Hegelian Idealism' to the point where it is at least equally countered -- probably greater countered - by my perception of the realism of Schopenhaurian pessimism, whether we call that 'cosmic' or 'the darker side of being human'. (I remember reading Freud when he said very much the same thing.)
Thus, probably the main difference between Classic Hegelian Philosophy and Classic Hegelian Idealism is my basic, overall rejection of his concept of 'The Absolute'.
Now, this does not mean that we need to start jumping out of windows or take on an attitude of 'perpetual despair' -- a type of Schopenhaurian philosophical bleakness, and/or 'Lord of The Flies' mentality.
I read in a quote the other day -- and I am paraphrasing -- that no monument has every been erected of a 'pessimist'. I wonder if this is true. Are there no statues of 'The Sceptics', 'The Cynics', Thomas Hobbes, and/or Arthur Schopenhauer out there? Most certainly, there are monuments or statues or paintings of Sigmund Freud -- and by the end of his career at least -- Sigmund Freud was very much a 'pessimist' in terms of his not having much faith in the future of mankind. Freud had seen and experienced two World Wars.
I am looking around me in the world today at Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan...I think of AIG and a collapsing Wall Street. I think of CEO's abandoning their bankrupt companies -- or managing government-funded bankrupt companies -- and either running away with Golden Parachute Contracts, or continuing to manage a government funded bankrupt company like they should be paid like the wealthiest man on earth, I think of government and corporate lobbyism, and the human narcissism and corruption behind all levels of corporate and government politics -- and it is hard not to be pessimistic, even cynical.
Hegel's Hotel is still being built to foster and worship a particular type of human 'spirit' -- call this Hegel's 'Phenomenology of The Human Spirit' if you wish -- a particular type of Enlightenment integrity and idealism built around the ideals of reason, rationality, justice, fairness, equality, democracy, truth...in combination with a particular type of Romantic Human Idealism that can be captured in art, mythology, music, and even a Religious-Spiritual-Pantheist Idealism that embraces Humanism -- not the type of institutionalized and/or extremist-righteous religion that seeks to eliminate and destroy all of those people who are 'non-believers'...
Hegel's Hotel trumpets Hegel's main driving spirit of 'Enlightenment-Romanticism' and/or 'Humanistic-Existentialism' as developed before Hegel by such noted Enlightenment philosophers as John Locke, Adam Smith, Diderot, Montesquieu, Tom Paine, Jefferson, Rousseau, and after Hegel by the likes of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre and complemented by 'Constructive Deconstructionists' like Socrates, Sir Francis Bacon, David Hume, Voltaire, Nietzsche at his best when he wasn't going off the deep end, Foucault, and significant elements of Derrida....
Hegel's Hotel trumpets the 'Dialectic Pantheism' of philosophers and/or philosophies like Heraclitus, Lao Tse, Daoism, Schelling, even the 'Mono-Wholistic-Pantheism' of Spinoza....
And Hegel's Hotel trumpets the 'pessimistic' evolutionary wisdom and understanding of the significance of 'human narcissism', 'freedom', 'alienation', and 'the will to power' as passed through the many years to us by such noted ancient and more recent philosophers as Anaxamander, Diogenes, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida...
And throughout all of this Hegel's Hotel strives for its own 'idealistic-realistic', 'Enlightenment-Romantic', 'Humanistic-Existential balance....
DGB Philosophy, in the spirit of Hegel and his masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' views the dialectic as the ultimate, central, driving, both uniting and separating, force of nature and evolution.
The dialectic is a self-correcting mechanism. But it is also a self-destructing mechanism. It is both a life and a death force at the same time. It is like the contradiction of oxygen -- which acts as both the breath of life on the one hand, and the ultimate destruction of life on the other hand (through the side-effect of oxidation.)
Indeed, at least in part, the dialectic might be viewed as the ultimate contradiction, the ultimate paradox of life. Hegel has stated that any theory, any perspective, any characteristic, taken to the limit -- will ultimately self-destruct in its own self-contradiction. We use the term 'bipolarity disorder' to describe a certain biochemical and psychological illness that we used to call 'manic-depression'. And yet everything we do in life is connected to the idea of 'bipolarity'. Indeed, 'health' and 'illness' is a bipolarity. And every bipolarity is connected by a dialectic process and/or alienated by the absence of a dialectic process.
Indeed, the dialectic might be viewed as being even more fundamental to life and evolution than oxygen (air) as well as water, earth, and fire. This argument goes back to some of the earliest arguments of the Pre-Socratic, Greek philosophers (and hundreds or thousands of miles away -- I don't know my geographical distance here too well -- to philosophers like Lao Tsu and Confucius in ancient China. They were working on the same types of philosophical problems -- i.e., the origin and dynamics of the world -- and coming up with similar answers.)
While monistic philosophers like Thales, Anaxamenes, and Heralclitus each trumpeted what they believed to be the original essence of life -- i.e., water, air, or fire respectively, Anaxamander -- in a much more metaphysical but more philosophically important manner -- trumpeted the beginning of 'dialectic philosophy' -- talking about 'The Apeiron' which might be translated as either 'Chaos' or 'The Wholistic, Preorganized Universe', before 'life is split into polar opposites which compete with each other for their very existence, or at least their primary, dominant existence (for the winner) and a return to 'The Shadows' of The Apeiron (for the loser to re-group, re-energize, and re-fight another war for supremacy with its more dominant polar opposite. In such a fashion, in Anaxamander's ancient Greek thinking, day dominates while night recedes back into the Apeiron. Then night overtakes and dominates day, and day retreats back into the Shadows of the Apeiron.
As primitive as Anaxamander's argument may seem, given the example cited above, this line of thinking became the essence of Hegelian thinking which still has a dominant place in philosophy, psychology, politics, biology and evolution theory today, and indeed can be incorporated into every aspect of human thinking, behavior, and culture. This continuation of Anaxamander's thinking -- through Heraclitus, through Lao Tse (in the start of Daoism), through Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, through Schopenhauer, Marx, and Kierkegaard, through, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida, through Freud, Adler, Jung, and Fritz Perls -- is the direction of philosophical movement -- the evolution of the dialectic phenomenon and concept in both Western and Eastern Philosophy -- that Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy is both striving to historically trace and to continue to advance along its more idealistic 'Enlightenment-Romantic', 'Humanistic-Existential' path
In this last context, I will return to the German word 'Geist' which I will translate here as 'Spirit'.
Without the best of the human spirit implicit its every evolutionary development, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit -- becomes Spiritless. Lifeless. Dead. It becomes just another form of the type of 'alienation' that Hegel introduced to the many profound philosophers who he most influenced -- even as many rebelled against him, and more specifically, his 'over-abstractionism' and 'over-rationalism'.
And similarly too this is probably the most important area where I do indeed follow -- and elaborate on -- Hegel's intended German 'Dialectical-Enlightenment-Romantic-Humanistic-Existential' Idealism.
Because the same thing can be said for Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...
Without the best of the intended human spirit implicit in its every driving force, its every driving essay, Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy becomes just another philosophical treatise. Indeed, worse than just another philosophical treatise. It becomes spiritless, lifeless, alienated, humanistically and existentially -- dead.
In most of my philosophical essays I write about the need for 'homeostatic' or 'dialectic-democratic' balance between opposite, bi-polar forces and perspectives. I write about the potential and real scourge of unbridled human narcissism -- gone mad and out of control.
But in this essay, I am writing about the need to choose one human bi-polarity over another.
I am writing about the need for the soaring of the human essence and spirit -- in dialectic contact and embracement with our and each and every day existence -- over the alternative: a lifeless, spiritless, humanistic-existential death.
As I just heard coming fresh out of the mouth of another limousine driver who I work with each and every day, we chase the supposed idealism of Capitalism as we are taught it in Western Society: more individualism, more freedom, more money, more time, more commodities, more human spirit...
And paradoxically, again coming out of the mouth of the fellow driver I was talking to just yesterday, we see all around us people chasing a dream that doesn't seem to have either a happy process and/or a happy ending -- we see an American-Canadian dream that, for many or most of us, is definitely heading down the wrong life path.
We see people working more hours, some putting in 50, 60, and 70 hour work weeks, spending less time with their families, spending less time with their loved ones, we see less human spirit, we see more and more human alienation, less freedom, less time, less energy, less money, less commodities, less individualism -- except in the most alienated and negative respect of individuals being more and more lonely even in the throngs of more and more people that they connect -- but don't really connect with -- in their day to day existence.
And this is where our so-called American-Canadian Dream seems to stand right now.
Hegel's Hotel wants to take this dream down a different path.
Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy wants to help re-create 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' -- with an elaborated Enlightenment-Romantic-Humanistic-Existential component -- in man.
That is where Hegel's Hotel stands today as it moves forward in its both its construction and its evolution...
-- dgb, Oct. 25th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still In Process...
....................................................................
Friday, October 9, 2009
Harper's Conservative Government Fails on Unemployment Insurance Policy
Freshly reconstructed, Oct. 9th, 2009.
This is an essay mainly directed at Canadian politics and Canadian leaders but there are enough references and parallels to American politics in this essay to warrant the essay being included here too...
..............................................................................
They call it 'unemployment insurance'. But perhaps it should be better called 'unemployment non-insurance'.
While other political parties -- specifically the Liberals and the NDPs -- have been harp(er)ing on adding more unemployment insurance to the tail of the benefits program, or allowing self-employed citizens to collect unemployment insurance during a parental leave of absence, I for one, am particularly disturbed about the 'front end' of the program and how many ex-workers are actually screened out of the program before they even get on it.
.................................................................................
Employment Insurance program
Employment Insurance (EI) provides regular benefits to individuals who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
.....................................................................................
You pay into it for your whole adult life while you are working. Then you find out that you are ineligible for it you resign from your job -- or you are 'dismissed for violating a corporate policy'.
What's with this?
What if the 'corporate policy' is blatantly unethical -- if not illegal? What if someone working on Wall Street before the American mortgage and banking collapse, had told his or her boss:
'I am resigning. I don't like 'hedge funds'. I think they are unethical. And/or 'I don't like duping people into accepting sub-prime mortgages only to fleece them a few years later with unbearable interest rates.'
In Canada, such a person would not be eligible for Unemployment Insurance. Nor would anyone who was dismissed in this type of toxic work environment for 'violating corporate policies'.
I have a better idea.
How about a 'no fault-finding' Canadian Unemployment Insurance Department?
We have 'no fault' insurance.
We have 'no fault' divorce.
It is time -- long past the time -- that the government of Canada, and particularly the Unemployment Insurance Department, should get out of the 'fault-finding' business. They have no business being in it -- especially when an agent of the UI department says that you are ineligible for UI because you 'violated a corporate policy'. What this statement blatantly asserts is the prejudice that the government is showing in favor of corporations (as socio-pathological as they may be with possibly 'corrupt corporate policies') and, at the same time, the prejudice that the government is showing against the individual working who may be rebelling against a pathological work environment.
The government of Canada obviously does not care.
Because it continues to be in the 'fault-finding' business while at the same time wording their government policies such that they assume corporate normalcy when everything over the last number of years -- from last year's collapse of the Wall Street mortgage and banking businesses
to the collapse of the car industries, and the exporting of North American jobs to cheaper foreign labour markets, to Michael Moore's latest film production, 'Capitalism: A Love Story', tells us that many if not most corporations today -- and their particular 'corporate policies' -- are far from 'healthy' or 'normal'.
What, in effect, the government of Canada is supporting then, or at least turning a 'blind eye' to -- and this shouldn't really surprise us, especially when it is Harper's Conservative Party -- is Corporate Pathology which includes: corporate narcissism, corporate greed, corporate gouging, corporate filtering of money out the top of the corporation into private bank accounts (even in the government as witnessed by the late eHealth scandal) while the people who put the money there for supposedly legitimate purposes, are in essence being scammed, corporations in this manner can in effect be either bled dry and/or bled alive while the corporation continues to survive while still scamming either customers and/or the people at the bottom of the organization who naively or not so naively continue to help to put the money at the top of the organization where it continues to be filtered out....
Need I go on in this regard?
Now the fact that our Harper-led minority Conservative Government continues to ideologically support and/or turn a blind eye to Pathological Corporations and Pathological, Corporate Narcissistic Capitalism through the government policies it continues to implement, and the wording in these policies -- such as UI -- tells us only one thing: specifically, that the Conservative Harper-led Government suffers from the same general malaise as the rest of Corporate Canada and North America does -- as far better depicted by Michael Moore in his new movie, than I could depict in any one of my individual essays on this subject matter.
Specifically,
'Corporate and Government Unbridled Narcissistic Capitalism -- Completely Gone Wild and Out of Control'
In essence, Marx's prophecy about 'Capitalism, in effect, destroying itself and all the people in its way through the pathology of its own process -- specifically, uncontrolled human power and greed' (my words, not his).
Forget about the 'market correcting itself'.
How can the market correct itself when all these top corporate executives are draining public and private coffers alike, and leading the rest of us to suffer from all this 'unpunished corporate thievery'? Oftentimes, there is nothing left to 'correct' unless it is a 'bonus stimulation or separation package' to these same corporate thieves -- which in effect calls upon the 'victim' (non-transgressing Canadian citizens) to further 'stimulate the victimizer' (the person at the top of the public and/or private corporate ladder who has just drained the corporate coffers).
These are the same people -- more and more often these days -- who we 'trust' (or at least our Harper-led Canadian government 'trusts') to tell us what is 'right' and 'wrong' as far as 'corporate policy'.
Meanwhile, the individual worker who 'resigns' or is 'dismissed' from this type of corporate environment, is told that he or she was 'wrong' for 'violating corporate policy'.
And we call this 'capitalist and corporate normalcy'?
We call this 'fairness to the worker'?
We call this 'no prejudice'?
We call this 'equal rights' between the corporation and the corporate worker?
Think long and hard about this one, Prime Minister Harper...
Because I call it giving more and more food to 'certain corporate pigs at the trough'...
Now to be clear, this type of harsh statement is not directed at every corporation and every corporate executive in Canada.
There are some corporate owners and corporate executives who treat their employees extremely well.
However, there are many who don't.
And in this latter regard, it is time -- long past time -- that the government started legislating 'corporate executive diets'...for those who do not know how to, or are unwilling to, stop eating at the corporate trough.
And this should apply to both public and private corporations.
At the same time, it is time -- long past time -- that the government of Canada addressed the blatant coporporate bias and prejudice inherent in its Unemployment Insurance Program.
As long as an employee has a good track record of paying into the UI system, his or her 'resignation' or 'dismissal' should not be discriminated against by the Government of Canada.
The Government of Canada has no right to put a 'great big black X on your forehead' -- eliminating you from the UI program -- just because you have resigning from, or been dismissed from, a job. UI should be in the 'no fault' business just like the divorce courts are.
I would even support a 'personalized user system' where you can use what you have available to you in your own account, and anything you don't use when your retire gets transferred to your 'personal Canadian Pension Plan'.
Let me be clear on this point: I have a strong 'Protestant -- and 'Conservative' -- work ethic. I don't think I missed a day of work in the last year of my last job.
But I do not support blatant Government prejudice in favor of often pathologically narcissistic Corporations, and against individual workers who to be sure may be partly or totally in the wrong, just as the Corporation may be.
Which is exactly why the government of Canada shouldn't have any 20 year old agent -- let alone anybody regardless of their age or experience level -- saying to a Canadian worker that 'you do not qualify for UI because you violated the corporate policy of the company you worked for'.
I support a more 'Dialectically-Democratic Unemployment Insurance' that gives equal rights and respect to both the corporation and the individual worker. And if the individual worker has been paying into the UI system for a long enough time to qualify, then he or she should be granted UI without any 'fault-finding' mission.
The key reason for UI should be to help a recently unemployed Canadian worker through that economically tough period of transition time while he or she is looking for a new job that will reasonably support him or her.
No prejudice.
No bias.
Just a 'safety net' to help the unemployed worker who has been paying into the insurance program for a sufficient amount of time to help him or her through this heavy period of economic stress.
Everything else is government -- 'snake oil' (to use Senator Barney Frank's famous words aimed at AIG).
The Government of Canada needs to get out of the 'snake oil' business.
Either it is protecting the Canadian worker with Unemployment Insurance,
Or it is not.
And if it is not,
Even though it is collecting UI premiums from these same denied workers...
Then this is the 'snake oil' business.
Indeed, it is very close to government fraud.
And when the government of Canada says that its 'numbers for unemployment insurance',
Have gone down since the previous month,
We should be very wary of this type of statement,
Because nobody in the Government is saying,
How many people are being 'denied' Unemployment Insurance each month...
Numbers -- taken out of their proper full context -- can be made to appear to say anything.
Prime Minister Harper may call it 'Capitalism: A Love Story' -- and mean it.
Michael Moore might call it 'Capitalism: A Love Story' -- and not mean it, the sarcasm dripping out of the side of his mouth as he says it.
Right now it is no Capitalist love story.
There are people out there drowning in economic bills and debt.
And there are many, many unemployed Canadian workers,
Who are being denied the 'supposed safety net' of Unemployment Insurance',
Because of the stringent -- almost fraudulent -- parameters that have been put on it.
And I say that the answers to all of these government and corporate parameters,
Lie at the top, not the bottom.
But only if and when the many people in the middle and bottom portions of the economic and corporate pyramid and hierarchy hold the people at the top of this pyramid and hierarchy -- accountable for their actions.
Now politicians love to use words like 'integrity' and 'accountability' and 'transparency' when they are campaigning for election.
It is just that these words often tend to disappear from their vocabulary as soon as they are elected.
What did you say you were going to do with the Senate again, Prime Minister Harper?
Well, forget about the Senate -- you obviously have, anyhow -- Prime Minister Harper.
Let's start with overhauling the Unemployment Insurance Department,
To show that -- dare I say this -- you might indeed have some compassion for the unemployed worker, regardless of how their work came to an end.
Otherwise, refund them their Unemployment Insurance money,
That they may have been paying to the Canadian Government for 20 or 30 years,
And call this their 'Unemployment Insurance Benefit' --
The money that you may have 'forgotten' that you collected.
-- dgb, Sept. 22nd, reconstructed October 9th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are still in process.
......................................................................
Stuffing the Senate
Aug 28, 2009 04:30 AM
There he goes again. After stuffing the Senate with Conservative bagmen, backroomers and election losers barely eight months ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was dishing out the $132,000 cash-for-life prizes again yesterday, vaulting yet more cronies into cushy places instead of naming people who are respected leaders in their fields.
Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Harper's communications director, got her seat in the Red Chamber. So did Doug Finley, the Tory election campaign director. Don Plett, party president. Failed candidate Claude Carignan. And Judith Seidman, from the party national council.
Toronto writer Linda Frum Sokolowski also made the list.
And while Harper says they're expected to retire in eight years, the law lets them stay to 75. A nation is not holding its collective breath.
This glut of cronyism overshadowed the few credible appointments: Canadiens head coach Jacques Demers, Northwest Territories premier Dennis Patterson, and scientist/academic Kelvin Ogilvie.
In short, it was business as usual for a PM who once derided the Senate as a "dumping ground" for cronies, and vowed to reform it. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's office duly howled "Harpocrisy," but without much conviction. Both parties have sinned.
Still, Harper well deserves the title "Senate patronage king," bestowed upon him by the opposition for naming a record 27 senators in a single year. For all his past preaching against patronage, the Prime Minister has now proven himself a master of dispensing it.
........................................................................
Posted by david gordon bain at 9:53 AM
This is an essay mainly directed at Canadian politics and Canadian leaders but there are enough references and parallels to American politics in this essay to warrant the essay being included here too...
..............................................................................
They call it 'unemployment insurance'. But perhaps it should be better called 'unemployment non-insurance'.
While other political parties -- specifically the Liberals and the NDPs -- have been harp(er)ing on adding more unemployment insurance to the tail of the benefits program, or allowing self-employed citizens to collect unemployment insurance during a parental leave of absence, I for one, am particularly disturbed about the 'front end' of the program and how many ex-workers are actually screened out of the program before they even get on it.
.................................................................................
Employment Insurance program
Employment Insurance (EI) provides regular benefits to individuals who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
.....................................................................................
You pay into it for your whole adult life while you are working. Then you find out that you are ineligible for it you resign from your job -- or you are 'dismissed for violating a corporate policy'.
What's with this?
What if the 'corporate policy' is blatantly unethical -- if not illegal? What if someone working on Wall Street before the American mortgage and banking collapse, had told his or her boss:
'I am resigning. I don't like 'hedge funds'. I think they are unethical. And/or 'I don't like duping people into accepting sub-prime mortgages only to fleece them a few years later with unbearable interest rates.'
In Canada, such a person would not be eligible for Unemployment Insurance. Nor would anyone who was dismissed in this type of toxic work environment for 'violating corporate policies'.
I have a better idea.
How about a 'no fault-finding' Canadian Unemployment Insurance Department?
We have 'no fault' insurance.
We have 'no fault' divorce.
It is time -- long past the time -- that the government of Canada, and particularly the Unemployment Insurance Department, should get out of the 'fault-finding' business. They have no business being in it -- especially when an agent of the UI department says that you are ineligible for UI because you 'violated a corporate policy'. What this statement blatantly asserts is the prejudice that the government is showing in favor of corporations (as socio-pathological as they may be with possibly 'corrupt corporate policies') and, at the same time, the prejudice that the government is showing against the individual working who may be rebelling against a pathological work environment.
The government of Canada obviously does not care.
Because it continues to be in the 'fault-finding' business while at the same time wording their government policies such that they assume corporate normalcy when everything over the last number of years -- from last year's collapse of the Wall Street mortgage and banking businesses
to the collapse of the car industries, and the exporting of North American jobs to cheaper foreign labour markets, to Michael Moore's latest film production, 'Capitalism: A Love Story', tells us that many if not most corporations today -- and their particular 'corporate policies' -- are far from 'healthy' or 'normal'.
What, in effect, the government of Canada is supporting then, or at least turning a 'blind eye' to -- and this shouldn't really surprise us, especially when it is Harper's Conservative Party -- is Corporate Pathology which includes: corporate narcissism, corporate greed, corporate gouging, corporate filtering of money out the top of the corporation into private bank accounts (even in the government as witnessed by the late eHealth scandal) while the people who put the money there for supposedly legitimate purposes, are in essence being scammed, corporations in this manner can in effect be either bled dry and/or bled alive while the corporation continues to survive while still scamming either customers and/or the people at the bottom of the organization who naively or not so naively continue to help to put the money at the top of the organization where it continues to be filtered out....
Need I go on in this regard?
Now the fact that our Harper-led minority Conservative Government continues to ideologically support and/or turn a blind eye to Pathological Corporations and Pathological, Corporate Narcissistic Capitalism through the government policies it continues to implement, and the wording in these policies -- such as UI -- tells us only one thing: specifically, that the Conservative Harper-led Government suffers from the same general malaise as the rest of Corporate Canada and North America does -- as far better depicted by Michael Moore in his new movie, than I could depict in any one of my individual essays on this subject matter.
Specifically,
'Corporate and Government Unbridled Narcissistic Capitalism -- Completely Gone Wild and Out of Control'
In essence, Marx's prophecy about 'Capitalism, in effect, destroying itself and all the people in its way through the pathology of its own process -- specifically, uncontrolled human power and greed' (my words, not his).
Forget about the 'market correcting itself'.
How can the market correct itself when all these top corporate executives are draining public and private coffers alike, and leading the rest of us to suffer from all this 'unpunished corporate thievery'? Oftentimes, there is nothing left to 'correct' unless it is a 'bonus stimulation or separation package' to these same corporate thieves -- which in effect calls upon the 'victim' (non-transgressing Canadian citizens) to further 'stimulate the victimizer' (the person at the top of the public and/or private corporate ladder who has just drained the corporate coffers).
These are the same people -- more and more often these days -- who we 'trust' (or at least our Harper-led Canadian government 'trusts') to tell us what is 'right' and 'wrong' as far as 'corporate policy'.
Meanwhile, the individual worker who 'resigns' or is 'dismissed' from this type of corporate environment, is told that he or she was 'wrong' for 'violating corporate policy'.
And we call this 'capitalist and corporate normalcy'?
We call this 'fairness to the worker'?
We call this 'no prejudice'?
We call this 'equal rights' between the corporation and the corporate worker?
Think long and hard about this one, Prime Minister Harper...
Because I call it giving more and more food to 'certain corporate pigs at the trough'...
Now to be clear, this type of harsh statement is not directed at every corporation and every corporate executive in Canada.
There are some corporate owners and corporate executives who treat their employees extremely well.
However, there are many who don't.
And in this latter regard, it is time -- long past time -- that the government started legislating 'corporate executive diets'...for those who do not know how to, or are unwilling to, stop eating at the corporate trough.
And this should apply to both public and private corporations.
At the same time, it is time -- long past time -- that the government of Canada addressed the blatant coporporate bias and prejudice inherent in its Unemployment Insurance Program.
As long as an employee has a good track record of paying into the UI system, his or her 'resignation' or 'dismissal' should not be discriminated against by the Government of Canada.
The Government of Canada has no right to put a 'great big black X on your forehead' -- eliminating you from the UI program -- just because you have resigning from, or been dismissed from, a job. UI should be in the 'no fault' business just like the divorce courts are.
I would even support a 'personalized user system' where you can use what you have available to you in your own account, and anything you don't use when your retire gets transferred to your 'personal Canadian Pension Plan'.
Let me be clear on this point: I have a strong 'Protestant -- and 'Conservative' -- work ethic. I don't think I missed a day of work in the last year of my last job.
But I do not support blatant Government prejudice in favor of often pathologically narcissistic Corporations, and against individual workers who to be sure may be partly or totally in the wrong, just as the Corporation may be.
Which is exactly why the government of Canada shouldn't have any 20 year old agent -- let alone anybody regardless of their age or experience level -- saying to a Canadian worker that 'you do not qualify for UI because you violated the corporate policy of the company you worked for'.
I support a more 'Dialectically-Democratic Unemployment Insurance' that gives equal rights and respect to both the corporation and the individual worker. And if the individual worker has been paying into the UI system for a long enough time to qualify, then he or she should be granted UI without any 'fault-finding' mission.
The key reason for UI should be to help a recently unemployed Canadian worker through that economically tough period of transition time while he or she is looking for a new job that will reasonably support him or her.
No prejudice.
No bias.
Just a 'safety net' to help the unemployed worker who has been paying into the insurance program for a sufficient amount of time to help him or her through this heavy period of economic stress.
Everything else is government -- 'snake oil' (to use Senator Barney Frank's famous words aimed at AIG).
The Government of Canada needs to get out of the 'snake oil' business.
Either it is protecting the Canadian worker with Unemployment Insurance,
Or it is not.
And if it is not,
Even though it is collecting UI premiums from these same denied workers...
Then this is the 'snake oil' business.
Indeed, it is very close to government fraud.
And when the government of Canada says that its 'numbers for unemployment insurance',
Have gone down since the previous month,
We should be very wary of this type of statement,
Because nobody in the Government is saying,
How many people are being 'denied' Unemployment Insurance each month...
Numbers -- taken out of their proper full context -- can be made to appear to say anything.
Prime Minister Harper may call it 'Capitalism: A Love Story' -- and mean it.
Michael Moore might call it 'Capitalism: A Love Story' -- and not mean it, the sarcasm dripping out of the side of his mouth as he says it.
Right now it is no Capitalist love story.
There are people out there drowning in economic bills and debt.
And there are many, many unemployed Canadian workers,
Who are being denied the 'supposed safety net' of Unemployment Insurance',
Because of the stringent -- almost fraudulent -- parameters that have been put on it.
And I say that the answers to all of these government and corporate parameters,
Lie at the top, not the bottom.
But only if and when the many people in the middle and bottom portions of the economic and corporate pyramid and hierarchy hold the people at the top of this pyramid and hierarchy -- accountable for their actions.
Now politicians love to use words like 'integrity' and 'accountability' and 'transparency' when they are campaigning for election.
It is just that these words often tend to disappear from their vocabulary as soon as they are elected.
What did you say you were going to do with the Senate again, Prime Minister Harper?
Well, forget about the Senate -- you obviously have, anyhow -- Prime Minister Harper.
Let's start with overhauling the Unemployment Insurance Department,
To show that -- dare I say this -- you might indeed have some compassion for the unemployed worker, regardless of how their work came to an end.
Otherwise, refund them their Unemployment Insurance money,
That they may have been paying to the Canadian Government for 20 or 30 years,
And call this their 'Unemployment Insurance Benefit' --
The money that you may have 'forgotten' that you collected.
-- dgb, Sept. 22nd, reconstructed October 9th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are still in process.
......................................................................
Stuffing the Senate
Aug 28, 2009 04:30 AM
There he goes again. After stuffing the Senate with Conservative bagmen, backroomers and election losers barely eight months ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was dishing out the $132,000 cash-for-life prizes again yesterday, vaulting yet more cronies into cushy places instead of naming people who are respected leaders in their fields.
Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Harper's communications director, got her seat in the Red Chamber. So did Doug Finley, the Tory election campaign director. Don Plett, party president. Failed candidate Claude Carignan. And Judith Seidman, from the party national council.
Toronto writer Linda Frum Sokolowski also made the list.
And while Harper says they're expected to retire in eight years, the law lets them stay to 75. A nation is not holding its collective breath.
This glut of cronyism overshadowed the few credible appointments: Canadiens head coach Jacques Demers, Northwest Territories premier Dennis Patterson, and scientist/academic Kelvin Ogilvie.
In short, it was business as usual for a PM who once derided the Senate as a "dumping ground" for cronies, and vowed to reform it. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's office duly howled "Harpocrisy," but without much conviction. Both parties have sinned.
Still, Harper well deserves the title "Senate patronage king," bestowed upon him by the opposition for naming a record 27 senators in a single year. For all his past preaching against patronage, the Prime Minister has now proven himself a master of dispensing it.
........................................................................
Posted by david gordon bain at 9:53 AM
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Harper photos removed from government website
Harper photos removed from government website
Only a half-dozen of PM's 40 or more photos survive the cut after boosterism accusations
Sep 22, 2009 04:30 AM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–The Government of Canada website set up to promote the Conservative economic action plan had a leaner look yesterday: more than 30 photos of Prime Minister Stephen Harper had been removed.
Critics have complained that the website, actionplan.gc.ca, looks like a partisan promotion – complete with a Tory-blue colour scheme, glowing third-party testimonials, more than 40 photos of Harper and repeated references to "the Harper government" rather than the Government of Canada.
Published reports have highlighted the $34-million budget for promoting the economic plan.
A story by The Canadian Press, published in the Star yesterday, noted that the $34-million budget for promoting the economic plan dwarfs the federal budget provided for informing Canadians about swine flu prevention as the flu season starts.
Non-partisan public service ads on preventing the spread of the H1N1 virus began airing yesterday. The Public Health Agency of Canada picked up the $2 million tab.
The latest TV ads promoting the stimulus package, part of a $34-million campaign, cost $5 million, and include Conservative-friendly tag lines such as "We can't stop now."
Rules on government advertising say it is to be non-partisan and not promote any party or individual.
There are also rules on government branding, including using the word Canada in any department or agency name, or including Government of Canada in close proximity.
References to the "Harper government" remained on the website yesterday. But photos of the Prime Minister were reduced to about seven, from the original 40-plus.
Ontario adopted a law in 2004 in an effort to prevent partisanship in taxpayer-funded provincial government ads. The rules include barring any images of the premier in government-paid promotions.
On Sunday, a PCO spokeswoman defended the Harper photos on the website, writing by email that "(Harper) is the chief spokesperson in the Government of Canada for the (action plan)."
Further written questions to the Privy Council Office about government policy on advertising received no immediate response yesterday.
Only a half-dozen of PM's 40 or more photos survive the cut after boosterism accusations
Sep 22, 2009 04:30 AM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–The Government of Canada website set up to promote the Conservative economic action plan had a leaner look yesterday: more than 30 photos of Prime Minister Stephen Harper had been removed.
Critics have complained that the website, actionplan.gc.ca, looks like a partisan promotion – complete with a Tory-blue colour scheme, glowing third-party testimonials, more than 40 photos of Harper and repeated references to "the Harper government" rather than the Government of Canada.
Published reports have highlighted the $34-million budget for promoting the economic plan.
A story by The Canadian Press, published in the Star yesterday, noted that the $34-million budget for promoting the economic plan dwarfs the federal budget provided for informing Canadians about swine flu prevention as the flu season starts.
Non-partisan public service ads on preventing the spread of the H1N1 virus began airing yesterday. The Public Health Agency of Canada picked up the $2 million tab.
The latest TV ads promoting the stimulus package, part of a $34-million campaign, cost $5 million, and include Conservative-friendly tag lines such as "We can't stop now."
Rules on government advertising say it is to be non-partisan and not promote any party or individual.
There are also rules on government branding, including using the word Canada in any department or agency name, or including Government of Canada in close proximity.
References to the "Harper government" remained on the website yesterday. But photos of the Prime Minister were reduced to about seven, from the original 40-plus.
Ontario adopted a law in 2004 in an effort to prevent partisanship in taxpayer-funded provincial government ads. The rules include barring any images of the premier in government-paid promotions.
On Sunday, a PCO spokeswoman defended the Harper photos on the website, writing by email that "(Harper) is the chief spokesperson in the Government of Canada for the (action plan)."
Further written questions to the Privy Council Office about government policy on advertising received no immediate response yesterday.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
On Patronage and Senate Appointments
Last updated at 8:29 AM on 14/09/09
Cheers & Jeers
CHEERS & JEERS
The Telegram
Jeers: to the continuing effort to fight patronage - by stuffing more of your own party members into federal jobs. Fresh from packing the Senate with cronies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Tories have named a former Conservative cabinet minister to head the Federal Court of Appeal. And right on the heels of Harper being caught on videotape complaining about the Liberals appointing their own to the courts when they were in power. Apparently, it's not really hypocrisy when you're doing it yourself.
.................................................................................
dgb...
Ethics and integrity, transparency and accountability, congruence -- saying what you mean, and meaning what you say: all of these are 'election buzz words' that prospective leaders use all the time to try to seduce the public into giving them a shot at power.
Pessimism, cynicism, hyprocrisy, and narcissism often become the 'public sentiment and buzz words' after these former 'supposedly charging political idealists' actually take office for a year or less and start withering into complacency, entropy, and narcissistic consolidation.
In Canada -- and probably to a greater or lesser extent in America too -- ethics seems to be something that is largely left outside the Prime Minister's (President's) door as other more politically pragmatic characteristics seem to take priority.
Election promises are 'forgotten'. No more 'Senate Reform'. Just 'load the Senate with your own'.
As power increases, personal and party ethics tends to decrease while personal and party narcissism tends to increase. Such is the nature of politics and, indeed, seemingly any rise to more and more unbridled power.
Thus, the need for more and more journalist and philosophical candor -- to show how pre-election 'ethical idealism' changes to 'partisan righteous-narcissistic ideology' based solely on being either out of power, looking in, or in power, looking out.
-- dgb, Sept. 15th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
Cheers & Jeers
CHEERS & JEERS
The Telegram
Jeers: to the continuing effort to fight patronage - by stuffing more of your own party members into federal jobs. Fresh from packing the Senate with cronies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Tories have named a former Conservative cabinet minister to head the Federal Court of Appeal. And right on the heels of Harper being caught on videotape complaining about the Liberals appointing their own to the courts when they were in power. Apparently, it's not really hypocrisy when you're doing it yourself.
.................................................................................
dgb...
Ethics and integrity, transparency and accountability, congruence -- saying what you mean, and meaning what you say: all of these are 'election buzz words' that prospective leaders use all the time to try to seduce the public into giving them a shot at power.
Pessimism, cynicism, hyprocrisy, and narcissism often become the 'public sentiment and buzz words' after these former 'supposedly charging political idealists' actually take office for a year or less and start withering into complacency, entropy, and narcissistic consolidation.
In Canada -- and probably to a greater or lesser extent in America too -- ethics seems to be something that is largely left outside the Prime Minister's (President's) door as other more politically pragmatic characteristics seem to take priority.
Election promises are 'forgotten'. No more 'Senate Reform'. Just 'load the Senate with your own'.
As power increases, personal and party ethics tends to decrease while personal and party narcissism tends to increase. Such is the nature of politics and, indeed, seemingly any rise to more and more unbridled power.
Thus, the need for more and more journalist and philosophical candor -- to show how pre-election 'ethical idealism' changes to 'partisan righteous-narcissistic ideology' based solely on being either out of power, looking in, or in power, looking out.
-- dgb, Sept. 15th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
MLA expenses: Openness welcome
MLA expenses: Openness welcome
Mon. Aug 17 - 4:47 AM
NOVA SCOTIA MLAs should have to provide receipts for all reimbursable expenses.
Period.
There simply isn’t any justifiable reason why provincial politicians should be given $1,000 a month, to cite one current practice, when there’s no way to verify if the funds are being spent on legitimate public purposes.
Defeated MLAs in Nova Scotia also get $45,000, no receipts required, to wrap up their constituency offices.
As NDP Deputy Premier Frank Corbett put it succinctly last week, "when there’s no receipt, there’s a chance for misuse."
So we heartily applaud the NDP government’s intention, as laid out by Mr. Corbett, to reform all expense claim accounting procedures for MLAs.
The deputy premier said the government intends to make recommendations to the legislature on the issue this fall, likely around the same time the province’s auditor general issues his own report on MLA expenses.
Scott Hennig, a spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says it is "very unusual" for provincial politicians to have significant expense accounts for which they do not have to provide receipts.
Earlier this year, a scandal over the misuse of MPs’ expense claims erupted in Britain, resulting in resignations of half a dozen cabinet ministers and reimbursement to the public purse of about $900,000.
We’re not suggesting there’s a similar problem here. The point is, however, that without records of receipts, it’s impossible to know.
Public cynicism about politicians is already well entrenched. A system that puts thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money into politicians’ hands every year, to spend without a speck of scrutiny, only deepens that public distrust.
Given that, it was also welcome to hear Mr. Corbett say the NDP government wants the legislature’s internal economy board, the committee of MLAs who meet in private to approve increases in various politicians’ expenses, to become "more open and transparent."
Overall, Mr. Corbett said, the government wants to look for "efficiencies" and "savings."
The NDP can certainly show the party is serious about changing the way politics is practised here in Nova Scotia by significantly tightening up MLA expense accounts.
The public will no doubt be supportive.
As of yet, of course, it’s too early to know just how far, or deep, such changes could — or will — go, if and when implemented.
Nova Scotians will certainly be watching closely to see if the new majority NDP government turns good intentions into concrete reforms.
( edits@herald.ca)
RECOMMEND THIS STORY?
10 votes
COMMENTS
(5)
POST YOUR COMMENT
Malachy wrote:
Oh I'm sure we'll see some changes from the NDP (well, not a name change...)but they will be small changes and enough to show the press and public that they "at least did something". Pittance really to what could - nay, should - be done. If the public truly knew how much money politicians wasted and how taxpayer dollars are really spent, when so many people go without and are barely able to feed, house and clothe themselves, there would be rioting in front of province house. Maybe that's what the city needs - a good, anarchy-like riot to slap the politicos across the back of the head. Or maybe its the people that need the slap to wake them up.
MarkyMark wrote:
I agree 100% with this editorial.
Although I do not suspect the majority of our elected representatives of taking advantage of the lax financial reporting rules, the potential for abuse is there.
Creating unambiguous transparency is an important part of the democratic process and the Dexter Government is to be commended for taking this next logical step.
The editorial cites the recent spending scandal in the UK parliament but we have one much closer to home in Atlantic Canada with the Newfoundland and Labradador legislative assembly, not to mention the sponsorship scandal in the Canadian parliament, as well as numerous cases of questionable past provincial legislative spending practices across this country.
Democracy 250 was a bust last year with the tomfoolery that went on here in Nova Scotia with the minority government of Rodney MacDonald. Please make a lasting legacy for D-250 and enact reforms such as this one to make this province the shining example of open transparent government - at the provincial and municipal levels.
Another beef of mine is all the in-camera sessions that municipal councils have - fix it !!!!!
JABBPR wrote:
Let's also remember that although $1,000 may not be a large sum to them, it's actually more then some incomes out there. Some people raise children on that amount of money. I'm a student and I'm earning hardly more then that a month. They're burning it up on drinks at the Old Triangle!
danby wrote:
Cancer patients often live on less than $1000 per month are expected to pay medicare and drugs so they must do without as well.Yes, they should live within our means and cut non-necessity perks.The money is no longer there to live the good life so people have to get real.
worldly wrote:
While I believe the vast majority of politicians are prudent with their expenses, and I have no issues with the salary and expenses, I do see the lack of accountability for the spending as a real concern. I'm glad to see that's being tackled. In fact, the honest politicians should be in support of any measure that shields them from undue criticism.
..................................................................
Mon. Aug 17 - 4:47 AM
NOVA SCOTIA MLAs should have to provide receipts for all reimbursable expenses.
Period.
There simply isn’t any justifiable reason why provincial politicians should be given $1,000 a month, to cite one current practice, when there’s no way to verify if the funds are being spent on legitimate public purposes.
Defeated MLAs in Nova Scotia also get $45,000, no receipts required, to wrap up their constituency offices.
As NDP Deputy Premier Frank Corbett put it succinctly last week, "when there’s no receipt, there’s a chance for misuse."
So we heartily applaud the NDP government’s intention, as laid out by Mr. Corbett, to reform all expense claim accounting procedures for MLAs.
The deputy premier said the government intends to make recommendations to the legislature on the issue this fall, likely around the same time the province’s auditor general issues his own report on MLA expenses.
Scott Hennig, a spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says it is "very unusual" for provincial politicians to have significant expense accounts for which they do not have to provide receipts.
Earlier this year, a scandal over the misuse of MPs’ expense claims erupted in Britain, resulting in resignations of half a dozen cabinet ministers and reimbursement to the public purse of about $900,000.
We’re not suggesting there’s a similar problem here. The point is, however, that without records of receipts, it’s impossible to know.
Public cynicism about politicians is already well entrenched. A system that puts thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money into politicians’ hands every year, to spend without a speck of scrutiny, only deepens that public distrust.
Given that, it was also welcome to hear Mr. Corbett say the NDP government wants the legislature’s internal economy board, the committee of MLAs who meet in private to approve increases in various politicians’ expenses, to become "more open and transparent."
Overall, Mr. Corbett said, the government wants to look for "efficiencies" and "savings."
The NDP can certainly show the party is serious about changing the way politics is practised here in Nova Scotia by significantly tightening up MLA expense accounts.
The public will no doubt be supportive.
As of yet, of course, it’s too early to know just how far, or deep, such changes could — or will — go, if and when implemented.
Nova Scotians will certainly be watching closely to see if the new majority NDP government turns good intentions into concrete reforms.
( edits@herald.ca)
RECOMMEND THIS STORY?
10 votes
COMMENTS
(5)
POST YOUR COMMENT
Malachy wrote:
Oh I'm sure we'll see some changes from the NDP (well, not a name change...)but they will be small changes and enough to show the press and public that they "at least did something". Pittance really to what could - nay, should - be done. If the public truly knew how much money politicians wasted and how taxpayer dollars are really spent, when so many people go without and are barely able to feed, house and clothe themselves, there would be rioting in front of province house. Maybe that's what the city needs - a good, anarchy-like riot to slap the politicos across the back of the head. Or maybe its the people that need the slap to wake them up.
MarkyMark wrote:
I agree 100% with this editorial.
Although I do not suspect the majority of our elected representatives of taking advantage of the lax financial reporting rules, the potential for abuse is there.
Creating unambiguous transparency is an important part of the democratic process and the Dexter Government is to be commended for taking this next logical step.
The editorial cites the recent spending scandal in the UK parliament but we have one much closer to home in Atlantic Canada with the Newfoundland and Labradador legislative assembly, not to mention the sponsorship scandal in the Canadian parliament, as well as numerous cases of questionable past provincial legislative spending practices across this country.
Democracy 250 was a bust last year with the tomfoolery that went on here in Nova Scotia with the minority government of Rodney MacDonald. Please make a lasting legacy for D-250 and enact reforms such as this one to make this province the shining example of open transparent government - at the provincial and municipal levels.
Another beef of mine is all the in-camera sessions that municipal councils have - fix it !!!!!
JABBPR wrote:
Let's also remember that although $1,000 may not be a large sum to them, it's actually more then some incomes out there. Some people raise children on that amount of money. I'm a student and I'm earning hardly more then that a month. They're burning it up on drinks at the Old Triangle!
danby wrote:
Cancer patients often live on less than $1000 per month are expected to pay medicare and drugs so they must do without as well.Yes, they should live within our means and cut non-necessity perks.The money is no longer there to live the good life so people have to get real.
worldly wrote:
While I believe the vast majority of politicians are prudent with their expenses, and I have no issues with the salary and expenses, I do see the lack of accountability for the spending as a real concern. I'm glad to see that's being tackled. In fact, the honest politicians should be in support of any measure that shields them from undue criticism.
..................................................................
Monday, June 15, 2009
Harper invites Ignatieff to rare tete-a-tete before critical vote
From Yahoo News....
2 hours, 11 minutes ago
8:50pm Monday June 15th, 2009.
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - The threat of a BBQ-season election hovered over the nation's capital like smoke off the grill after Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Liberal rival made tactical moves designed to place the fate of Parliament in the other's hands.
Harper invited Michael Ignatieff to a rare tete-a-tete Tuesday to see if a truce could be forged before a critical confidence vote by week's end.
With the NDP and Bloc Quebecois committed to voting against supplementary budget estimates, the ball and the government's fate was in Ignatieff's hands.
Ignatieff took the ball Monday morning and tapped it softly at Harper.
Show me your plans for EI, how much has been spent so far on stimulus projects, when you'll pay down the deficit and what your plan is for medical isotopes, Ignatieff demanded gently.
But if meeting those demands takes longer than this week, that's OK too by Ignatieff.
Cooperation, not confrontation, was the Liberal leader's mantra. That conciliatory tone was carefully calibrated to betray neither weakness nor bloodlust.
"My party doesn't control the timing of elections in any case. It's the prime minister and his government's responsibiity to maintain the confidence of the House," Ignatieff told reporters.
"For our part, the Liberal party has consistently shown that we want to make Parliament work for all Canadians. The real question is does Mr. Harper want Parliament to work?"
Harper's response was equally measured, offering the slightest hint of compromise.
He noted that his government planned to announce changes that would bring self-employed Canadians into the EI program, but that they were not measures that could be finalized in a matter of days.
"I would encourage Mr. Ignatieff and his party if they want to contribute to that idea or if they have other ideas, to be clear about them, and we'll certainly be prepared to dialogue about them over the summer," Harper told reporters.
But that was as far as Harper would go, underlining that the opposition would be to blame for stalled stimulus spending if the government fell. That provided a glimpse of the prime minister's campaign rhetoric.
"It's quite a contradiction. You can't say you're concerned about spending not happening and then vote against giving the government the parliamentary authority to spend money."
NDP Leader Jack Layton scoffed at Harper's line.
"They can't have it both ways. They're saying all this money has gone out, but now they're saying this money won't go out if there's an election - which is it?"
Ignatieff later said that Harper had taken a "couple of milimetre steps," but "we're not out of the woods yet."
No party in the Commons wants an election. The Conservatives are declining in the polls, the Liberals are cash-strapped, the NDP are trying to regain ground they've lost since last fall and the Bloc Quebecois are also on shifting ground in their home province.
The public doesn't want one either. A Harris-Decima poll Monday pegged the number at 78 per cent opposed.
Pollster Nik Nanos, of Nanos Research, calls it a "game of poker where everyone's bluffing, but nobody's holding anything."
Nanos said Ignatieff made an impressive strategic play - exploiting perceived Harper weaknesses of transparency, accountability and intractability.
"The prime minister has to be looking at the current environment and the numbers and knowing that he can't really risk his government on an election, knowing that Michael Ignatieff hasn't set anything down that's a big ask," Nanos said.
But it's a high stakes game for Ignatieff too, who is haunted by the shadow of former leader Stephane Dion. The former Liberal leader made and lost a leadership career by excoriating the government's policies and then ensuring that his caucus turned up for confidence votes in insufficient numbers to bring the government down.
....................................................................................
2 hours, 11 minutes ago
8:50pm Monday June 15th, 2009.
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - The threat of a BBQ-season election hovered over the nation's capital like smoke off the grill after Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Liberal rival made tactical moves designed to place the fate of Parliament in the other's hands.
Harper invited Michael Ignatieff to a rare tete-a-tete Tuesday to see if a truce could be forged before a critical confidence vote by week's end.
With the NDP and Bloc Quebecois committed to voting against supplementary budget estimates, the ball and the government's fate was in Ignatieff's hands.
Ignatieff took the ball Monday morning and tapped it softly at Harper.
Show me your plans for EI, how much has been spent so far on stimulus projects, when you'll pay down the deficit and what your plan is for medical isotopes, Ignatieff demanded gently.
But if meeting those demands takes longer than this week, that's OK too by Ignatieff.
Cooperation, not confrontation, was the Liberal leader's mantra. That conciliatory tone was carefully calibrated to betray neither weakness nor bloodlust.
"My party doesn't control the timing of elections in any case. It's the prime minister and his government's responsibiity to maintain the confidence of the House," Ignatieff told reporters.
"For our part, the Liberal party has consistently shown that we want to make Parliament work for all Canadians. The real question is does Mr. Harper want Parliament to work?"
Harper's response was equally measured, offering the slightest hint of compromise.
He noted that his government planned to announce changes that would bring self-employed Canadians into the EI program, but that they were not measures that could be finalized in a matter of days.
"I would encourage Mr. Ignatieff and his party if they want to contribute to that idea or if they have other ideas, to be clear about them, and we'll certainly be prepared to dialogue about them over the summer," Harper told reporters.
But that was as far as Harper would go, underlining that the opposition would be to blame for stalled stimulus spending if the government fell. That provided a glimpse of the prime minister's campaign rhetoric.
"It's quite a contradiction. You can't say you're concerned about spending not happening and then vote against giving the government the parliamentary authority to spend money."
NDP Leader Jack Layton scoffed at Harper's line.
"They can't have it both ways. They're saying all this money has gone out, but now they're saying this money won't go out if there's an election - which is it?"
Ignatieff later said that Harper had taken a "couple of milimetre steps," but "we're not out of the woods yet."
No party in the Commons wants an election. The Conservatives are declining in the polls, the Liberals are cash-strapped, the NDP are trying to regain ground they've lost since last fall and the Bloc Quebecois are also on shifting ground in their home province.
The public doesn't want one either. A Harris-Decima poll Monday pegged the number at 78 per cent opposed.
Pollster Nik Nanos, of Nanos Research, calls it a "game of poker where everyone's bluffing, but nobody's holding anything."
Nanos said Ignatieff made an impressive strategic play - exploiting perceived Harper weaknesses of transparency, accountability and intractability.
"The prime minister has to be looking at the current environment and the numbers and knowing that he can't really risk his government on an election, knowing that Michael Ignatieff hasn't set anything down that's a big ask," Nanos said.
But it's a high stakes game for Ignatieff too, who is haunted by the shadow of former leader Stephane Dion. The former Liberal leader made and lost a leadership career by excoriating the government's policies and then ensuring that his caucus turned up for confidence votes in insufficient numbers to bring the government down.
....................................................................................
Monday, June 8, 2009
MPs' secret meetings loosen rules for cash and benefits
MPs' secret meetings loosen rules for cash and benefits
Sat Jun 6, 1:07 PM
By Tim Naumetz, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Members of Parliament have exempted the cash and benefits they receive from political parties and riding associations from restrictions and public disclosure under the House of Commons conflict-of-interest code.
The move was unanimously approved without a vote in the Commons after a series of committee hearings conducted entirely in secret.
The closed-door decision counters a trend to more accountability in government and should have come under public scrutiny, a democracy advocate says.
The change also could erode the independence of backbench MPs and make them more beholden to party bosses instead of voters, adds Democracy Watch chief Duff Conacher.
All four parties in the Commons approved the change last Thursday after a House rules committee and one of its subcommittees held eight meetings on the topic that were closed to the public.
The watchdog over conflict of interest for MPs and public office holders, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, gave evidence and advice at four of the closed-door meetings.
But her comments will remain a secret, along with all statements and comments MPs made about the topic during the in-camera hearings.
Conacher - who says he gave an invited opinion at one of the meetings on condition that portion remain open to the public and then answered questions in camera - criticized Dawson for taking part in the secret deliberations.
"She's a watchdog," he said. "A watchdog does not meet behind closed doors with the people they watch."
A committee report on the change says Dawson advised MPs to replace a blanket prohibition on gifts related to their positions, other than those they receive as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol, with a more relaxed test that nonetheless is aimed at preventing improper influence.
The code requires MPs to disclose all gifts and benefits valued at more than $500.
The MPs expanded the change to specifically exclude money that is not repayable and property and services obtained from a political party or riding association from the definition of "benefit" in the code.
The amendment means there is no limit on money or goods and services MPs may receive in that context, and no obligation to report it on a public registry maintained by the ethics commissioner.
"Political parties and riding associations oftentimes pay, or reimburse, registration fees, travel expenses and hospitality to members for their participation at political events," the committee report says.
"These benefits cannot, under any circumstances, be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity, and, therefore, should be excluded from the definition of 'benefit."'
Conacher argues the change means MPs might be able to build up campaign war chests under the radar between elections - a practice Parliament itself ended several years ago with the elimination of blind trusts in riding associations.
He says the change could also lead to the kind of MP expense abuse that has rocked the British Parliament.
"If you look at the whole scandal of what happened in Britain, this will allow parties to give all those kinds of gifts, those were gifts of services and money, to MPs in secret," he said.
"It will allow the parties to buy off MPs in secret and make it much more likely that they will toe the party line instead of representing voter concerns."
Conacher also noted between 30 and 60 per cent of the coffers of federal political parties come from taxpayers through tax deductions for contributions, election reimbursements or public allowances from Elections Canada.
Dawson did not respond directly to the criticism that she took part in closed-door hearings to amend the code, but confirmed she earlier raised concerns with MPs about difficulties interpreting the previous ban on gifts.
"This committee decided to hold in-camera meetings to consider the provisions of the code that relate to gifts," Dawson's communications officer, Jocelyne Brisebois, said in an email.
"The commissioner was pleased to work with the subcommittee."
While MPs exempted the monetary and other benefits from their own conflict-of-interest code, an Elections Canada spokesperson said the transactions must be disclosed if they occur during an election campaign.
"If the benefit given to a candidate by a party or a registered association is given to the candidate personally and not for the use of his campaign, it is a gift and the candidate will be required to report it under the Canada Elections Act if the value exceeds $500," said Maureen Keenan.
"The cost of the gift would eventually be reported by the party or a registered association in its financial reports.
"If the benefit is used to directly promote the candidate during an election period, it constitutes either a monetary or non-monetary transfer and will be required to be reported both by the candidate and by the political entity that made the transfer."
MPs defended the secrecy of the hearings, arguing they wanted to discuss personal experiences with the conflict code.
"I guess we want to protect personal identities," said Liberal MP Marcel Proulx.
Sat Jun 6, 1:07 PM
By Tim Naumetz, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Members of Parliament have exempted the cash and benefits they receive from political parties and riding associations from restrictions and public disclosure under the House of Commons conflict-of-interest code.
The move was unanimously approved without a vote in the Commons after a series of committee hearings conducted entirely in secret.
The closed-door decision counters a trend to more accountability in government and should have come under public scrutiny, a democracy advocate says.
The change also could erode the independence of backbench MPs and make them more beholden to party bosses instead of voters, adds Democracy Watch chief Duff Conacher.
All four parties in the Commons approved the change last Thursday after a House rules committee and one of its subcommittees held eight meetings on the topic that were closed to the public.
The watchdog over conflict of interest for MPs and public office holders, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, gave evidence and advice at four of the closed-door meetings.
But her comments will remain a secret, along with all statements and comments MPs made about the topic during the in-camera hearings.
Conacher - who says he gave an invited opinion at one of the meetings on condition that portion remain open to the public and then answered questions in camera - criticized Dawson for taking part in the secret deliberations.
"She's a watchdog," he said. "A watchdog does not meet behind closed doors with the people they watch."
A committee report on the change says Dawson advised MPs to replace a blanket prohibition on gifts related to their positions, other than those they receive as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol, with a more relaxed test that nonetheless is aimed at preventing improper influence.
The code requires MPs to disclose all gifts and benefits valued at more than $500.
The MPs expanded the change to specifically exclude money that is not repayable and property and services obtained from a political party or riding association from the definition of "benefit" in the code.
The amendment means there is no limit on money or goods and services MPs may receive in that context, and no obligation to report it on a public registry maintained by the ethics commissioner.
"Political parties and riding associations oftentimes pay, or reimburse, registration fees, travel expenses and hospitality to members for their participation at political events," the committee report says.
"These benefits cannot, under any circumstances, be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity, and, therefore, should be excluded from the definition of 'benefit."'
Conacher argues the change means MPs might be able to build up campaign war chests under the radar between elections - a practice Parliament itself ended several years ago with the elimination of blind trusts in riding associations.
He says the change could also lead to the kind of MP expense abuse that has rocked the British Parliament.
"If you look at the whole scandal of what happened in Britain, this will allow parties to give all those kinds of gifts, those were gifts of services and money, to MPs in secret," he said.
"It will allow the parties to buy off MPs in secret and make it much more likely that they will toe the party line instead of representing voter concerns."
Conacher also noted between 30 and 60 per cent of the coffers of federal political parties come from taxpayers through tax deductions for contributions, election reimbursements or public allowances from Elections Canada.
Dawson did not respond directly to the criticism that she took part in closed-door hearings to amend the code, but confirmed she earlier raised concerns with MPs about difficulties interpreting the previous ban on gifts.
"This committee decided to hold in-camera meetings to consider the provisions of the code that relate to gifts," Dawson's communications officer, Jocelyne Brisebois, said in an email.
"The commissioner was pleased to work with the subcommittee."
While MPs exempted the monetary and other benefits from their own conflict-of-interest code, an Elections Canada spokesperson said the transactions must be disclosed if they occur during an election campaign.
"If the benefit given to a candidate by a party or a registered association is given to the candidate personally and not for the use of his campaign, it is a gift and the candidate will be required to report it under the Canada Elections Act if the value exceeds $500," said Maureen Keenan.
"The cost of the gift would eventually be reported by the party or a registered association in its financial reports.
"If the benefit is used to directly promote the candidate during an election period, it constitutes either a monetary or non-monetary transfer and will be required to be reported both by the candidate and by the political entity that made the transfer."
MPs defended the secrecy of the hearings, arguing they wanted to discuss personal experiences with the conflict code.
"I guess we want to protect personal identities," said Liberal MP Marcel Proulx.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees
DGB Editorial: It is about time someone started to do something about these Somalian pirates. They are not going to stop pirating these vessels unless or until there are significant negative consequences to those who do it? Who is standing up to the plate? Who is going to do anything about these Somalian pirates? At least this article indicates a start. Much more is needed.
Is there a NATO jail anywhere in the world? What happens to violators of international law? Obviously the Somalian pirates and North Korea are two entirely different cases. However, the dynamics are the same. Some bands of people/countries (The Somalian Pirates, The Taliban, North Korea...) are going to keep pushing The United Nations and/or NATO, transgressing international law at their leisure and whim, unless or until they are faced with, and confronted by, a more powerful international police force and/or army that is capable of destroying and/or at least imprisioning them.
It seems obvious to me that there is a growing need for a stronger, more powerful, more intimidating international governing body of politics, law, and soldiers/police force that is better than anything we have in existence right now. This concept goes right back to Thomas Hobbes philosophy. Diplomcacy and democracy must be essential features of this international governing body. But when push comes to shove, there has to be a very real powerful international army to 'outmuscle' the capabilities of any one democratically transgressing nation, or band of pirates, or international group of extremist-terrorists -- religious and/or political.
-- dgb, April 5th, 2009.
........................................................................
From the internet, Yahoo News...
Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees
2 hours, 27 minutes ago, April 5th, 2009.
By The Canadian Press
TORONTO - Warding off suspected pirates and coming to the aid of a boatload of fleeing Somali refugees is all in a day's work for the crew of HMCS Winnipeg in the Gulf of Aden.
In the past 24 hours the Canadian warship has sent its Sea King helicopter after several skiffs that were shadowing a commercial vessel, using a large red "Stop" sign to tell the speedboat crews to get lost.
Commander Craig Baines says the suspected pirates did just that when they saw the sign, written in Somali, hanging out to chopper's door - along with the aircraft's machine-gun.
The Pacific Opal vessel had earlier radioed for help.
Baines adds that today the Winnipeg saw more action when it spotted a boatload of Somalis, trying to get from Somalia to Yemen.
He says they had been at sea for two days and were hungry and thirsty, so crew from the Winnipeg were able to get supplies to them.
The Winnipeg is currently participating in a NATO-led counter-piracy mission known as Operation Allied Protector.
With a crew of approximately 240 officers and non-commissioned members, the warship has been at sea since early February, and won't return to Victoria until August.
Is there a NATO jail anywhere in the world? What happens to violators of international law? Obviously the Somalian pirates and North Korea are two entirely different cases. However, the dynamics are the same. Some bands of people/countries (The Somalian Pirates, The Taliban, North Korea...) are going to keep pushing The United Nations and/or NATO, transgressing international law at their leisure and whim, unless or until they are faced with, and confronted by, a more powerful international police force and/or army that is capable of destroying and/or at least imprisioning them.
It seems obvious to me that there is a growing need for a stronger, more powerful, more intimidating international governing body of politics, law, and soldiers/police force that is better than anything we have in existence right now. This concept goes right back to Thomas Hobbes philosophy. Diplomcacy and democracy must be essential features of this international governing body. But when push comes to shove, there has to be a very real powerful international army to 'outmuscle' the capabilities of any one democratically transgressing nation, or band of pirates, or international group of extremist-terrorists -- religious and/or political.
-- dgb, April 5th, 2009.
........................................................................
From the internet, Yahoo News...
Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees
2 hours, 27 minutes ago, April 5th, 2009.
By The Canadian Press
TORONTO - Warding off suspected pirates and coming to the aid of a boatload of fleeing Somali refugees is all in a day's work for the crew of HMCS Winnipeg in the Gulf of Aden.
In the past 24 hours the Canadian warship has sent its Sea King helicopter after several skiffs that were shadowing a commercial vessel, using a large red "Stop" sign to tell the speedboat crews to get lost.
Commander Craig Baines says the suspected pirates did just that when they saw the sign, written in Somali, hanging out to chopper's door - along with the aircraft's machine-gun.
The Pacific Opal vessel had earlier radioed for help.
Baines adds that today the Winnipeg saw more action when it spotted a boatload of Somalis, trying to get from Somalia to Yemen.
He says they had been at sea for two days and were hungry and thirsty, so crew from the Winnipeg were able to get supplies to them.
The Winnipeg is currently participating in a NATO-led counter-piracy mission known as Operation Allied Protector.
With a crew of approximately 240 officers and non-commissioned members, the warship has been at sea since early February, and won't return to Victoria until August.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law
From the internet...Yahoo news...
PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law
April 1st, 2009, 6:15pm.
39 minutes ago
By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Angry Canadian politicians say the country hasn't sacrificed soldiers' lives and spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan so that men there could be permitted to rape their wives.
There's growing outrage over legislation that would restrict the rights of Afghanistan's minority Shia women, making it illegal for them to refuse sex to their husbands or even leave the house without permission.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he's deeply troubled by a move which flies in the face of what the international community wants to accomplish in Afghanistan.
"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," he told a Canadian media outlet in London, where he's attending the G20 summit.
"The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country. . .
"It's a significant change we want to see from the bad, old days of the Taliban."
Canada has lost 116 soldiers and spent up to $10 billion to support the government of President Hamid Karzai. Several members of Harper's cabinet voiced similar outrage, as did opposition politicians and one military family.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said he will use this week's NATO summit to put "direct" pressure on his Afghan counterparts to abandon the legislation.
"That's unacceptable - period," he said Wednesday. "We're fighting for values that include equality and women's rights. This sort of legislation won't fly."
The proposed Shia family law has cast a shadow over an international conference in Europe on Afghanistan's future.
Critics say Karzai approved the law in advance of his country's elections in the hope of winning critical swing votes from conservative Shia men.
But it remains shrouded in mystery: it has not been published, Karzai's office has refused to comment on it, and its alleged details have been made public by Afghan parliamentarians who opposed it.
There are even differences of opinion about whether the law is in effect; the Canadian government says it understands the law is not yet finalized.
Confusion over the legislation is so widespread that even Afghan diplomats appeared sideswiped by the news. Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, said he's unclear on its basic details and is working to get information from Kabul.
Canadian officials have contacted Karzai's office and demanded more details.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly upbraided Karzai over the proposed law during this week's 80-country Afghanistan summit in The Hague.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he's outraged by the legislation and Canada must make it clear to Karzai that it's unacceptable.
International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said she was in "disbelief" when she first heard about the legislation. She noted that the equality of the sexes is a key Canadian objective in Afghanistan.
"We've invested a lot, we've put a lot of energy and resources into that," Oda said.
"It's very problematic. It's of great concern, and it is going to be a difficulty for Canada - because of our investment and our commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and equality. . . the steps we're taking, the investment we're making, and the work we're doing."
The father of a dead soldier also expressed anger. But he said Canada must continue working to modernize the country.
"My son gave his life up for all these causes and to have President Karzai's government bring in a law like that, that's insulting," said Jim Davis of Nova Scotia, whose son, Cpl. Paul Davis, was killed in Afghanistan in 2006.
"The law is offensive but what is the alternative? We just have to continue on with our effort and hope that we can make some improvements. . . The country has a long way in the last six years so hopefully we can just continue on our efforts and see some more improvements."
PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law
April 1st, 2009, 6:15pm.
39 minutes ago
By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Angry Canadian politicians say the country hasn't sacrificed soldiers' lives and spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan so that men there could be permitted to rape their wives.
There's growing outrage over legislation that would restrict the rights of Afghanistan's minority Shia women, making it illegal for them to refuse sex to their husbands or even leave the house without permission.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he's deeply troubled by a move which flies in the face of what the international community wants to accomplish in Afghanistan.
"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," he told a Canadian media outlet in London, where he's attending the G20 summit.
"The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country. . .
"It's a significant change we want to see from the bad, old days of the Taliban."
Canada has lost 116 soldiers and spent up to $10 billion to support the government of President Hamid Karzai. Several members of Harper's cabinet voiced similar outrage, as did opposition politicians and one military family.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said he will use this week's NATO summit to put "direct" pressure on his Afghan counterparts to abandon the legislation.
"That's unacceptable - period," he said Wednesday. "We're fighting for values that include equality and women's rights. This sort of legislation won't fly."
The proposed Shia family law has cast a shadow over an international conference in Europe on Afghanistan's future.
Critics say Karzai approved the law in advance of his country's elections in the hope of winning critical swing votes from conservative Shia men.
But it remains shrouded in mystery: it has not been published, Karzai's office has refused to comment on it, and its alleged details have been made public by Afghan parliamentarians who opposed it.
There are even differences of opinion about whether the law is in effect; the Canadian government says it understands the law is not yet finalized.
Confusion over the legislation is so widespread that even Afghan diplomats appeared sideswiped by the news. Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, said he's unclear on its basic details and is working to get information from Kabul.
Canadian officials have contacted Karzai's office and demanded more details.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly upbraided Karzai over the proposed law during this week's 80-country Afghanistan summit in The Hague.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he's outraged by the legislation and Canada must make it clear to Karzai that it's unacceptable.
International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said she was in "disbelief" when she first heard about the legislation. She noted that the equality of the sexes is a key Canadian objective in Afghanistan.
"We've invested a lot, we've put a lot of energy and resources into that," Oda said.
"It's very problematic. It's of great concern, and it is going to be a difficulty for Canada - because of our investment and our commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and equality. . . the steps we're taking, the investment we're making, and the work we're doing."
The father of a dead soldier also expressed anger. But he said Canada must continue working to modernize the country.
"My son gave his life up for all these causes and to have President Karzai's government bring in a law like that, that's insulting," said Jim Davis of Nova Scotia, whose son, Cpl. Paul Davis, was killed in Afghanistan in 2006.
"The law is offensive but what is the alternative? We just have to continue on with our effort and hope that we can make some improvements. . . The country has a long way in the last six years so hopefully we can just continue on our efforts and see some more improvements."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
