Orwell's '1984' Revisited

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Margaret Atwood called George W. Bush, the greatest threat to world peace to date! What Atwood did not mention was that Bushco derived its power from the deliberate and well-planned attack on truth by way of language. George Orwell predicted it; his works remain the textbook example of how governments may manipulate people by first manipulating the language.

If all else fails, a totalitarian regime may make the telling of truth a crime. Traditionally, the names given those truths are treason or sedition. A young United States experimented with the Alien and Sedition Acts giving near dictatorial powers to President John Adams, specifically, the power to imprison or deport aliens upon the mere suspicion that activities posed a threat to the new national government.

To his credit, Adams made no use of them but neither did he rebuke the Congress for passing them. George W. Bush proved a greater threat. Bush arrogated unto himself the power to 'define' the very word "terrorist"! Bush could create a 'terrorist' at will by merely re-defining a target. Indeed --Bush assumed and asserted the power and authority to make you a 'terrorist' by merely 'deeming' you to be one!

Orwell's classic cautionary tale, 1984, describes a fascist, totalitarian government spying on its own citizens, denying reality and creating an alternate state that exploits a fictional enemy in order to wage a perpetual war. Orwell's Big Brother tried to re-write history and succeeded.
In "It Can't Happen Here" Sinclair Lewis describes the dictatorship of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip who might have been inspired by George W. Bush had 'he' not preceded him. In both '1984' and in Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here", a fascist state justifies an omni-present dictatorship by maintaining states of perpetual war and perpetual terror.

The lesson of 1984 is less about the state itself than about the individual. When states are absolutely powerful, the individual ceases to exist. Philosophically, individuals robbed of free will are denied person-hood even as mere 'legal abstractions' (corporations) are made 'persons' by decree. In the U.S. 'corporations' are decreed to be persons by way of a bogus and dishonest decision by our Supreme Court, It remains the very worst decision since Dredd-Scott legitimized the keeping of slaves.

"In order to acknowledge the collapse of Soviet Communism and the failure of fascism to reemerge as a potent political force, I ditched Orwell's oppressive totalitarian state in favor of an entertainment-fueled nihilism in which dimwitted citizens frittered away their lives watching web TV and working at slightly overpaid jobs to buy worthless junk ... on web TV, natch. Where Orwell envisioned endless rows of soldiers marching in perfect unison to the strains of the Two-Minute Hate, I saw a world where nations had been replaced by trading blocs and the objects of hatred were the immigrants in our midst."

--Ted Rall, Addicted To Perpetual War

The images from 1984 are seared into our memories --big brother, the telescreen, the grotty bedroom, the cubicle, the memory hole, the drab gray existence, the rat cage. But 1984 is as much about language. It is more than mere sub-text. Language, in 1984, is the means by which Big Brother creates an alternate reality. It is only in the 'alternate reality' that Big Brother has power.
Big Brother is the Wizard of Oz, an illusion, an image on smoke if not mirrors. If millions suddenly deny the illusion, the lies, the bullshit, Big Bro is finished. The bad news is that, like the cowardly lion, we dare not challenge the great and powerful Oz

The most glaring use of Newspeak is the invention of what I have chosen to call "focus group phrases"; so called because they are invented, full cloth, by consultants who most certainly know their way around a focus group. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is just such a phrase. "911 Denier" is another. "Al Qaeda iln Iraq" is designed to make a lazy populace forget that the war was begun upon blackhearted lies about WMD.

"911 Denier" is 'Orwell-speak' or 'Newspeak' designed to shift the burden of proof when it is, in fact,  Bush who must prove his theory of 911 --a theory for which there is not a shred of evidence --let alone proof. Anyone believing it is either a part of the plot or stupid! The Bush administration used up several ex post facto rationales for war. None of them were true! "Al Qaeda in Iraq", for example, implies the existence of a shadowy enemy that was never defined! That was by design! A real enemy is defined and can be targeted! Shadows may be summoned up whenever they are needed! 'Al Qaeda in Iraq', we can be sure, tested well.

A lazy news establishment liked it because it saved them the trouble of trouble of describing reality! Orwell understood as few have the power of language and in, 1984 the "tool of power" is language. Language empowers the all-powerful party which dictates the nature and use of language. The institutions of state maintain their power by exploiting the power of language to shape the nature of thought itself. That is, in fact, the job of the protagonist, Winston Smith. Examples may be found in any study of the recent Bush administration.

The George W. Bush regime very nearly gave the game away with the use of the phrase Total Information Awareness. In response to criticism, the regime stopped using the phrase to denote their program of widespread domestic and illegal surveillance.

Orwell is, of course, most famous for 1984 but his great essay on politics and language should also be required reading. See: Orwell: Politics and the English Language. Orwell explores how politicians exploit language to accrue absolute power. Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.

The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious.

--George Orwell

All who have read Orwell's essay on how easily politicians debase the language for nefarious purposes have recognized in the Bush administration the very techniques that Orwell warned us about.

The White House saw September 11 as a golden opportunity. The first catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil sparked an unprecedented case of leadership projection: desperate for protection and answers (why do they hate us? can we kill them before they kill us?), Americans wishfully compared Bush to FDR and Churchill. Approval ratings hit 92 percent. But Bush's political advisors knew that peaking early wouldn't guarantee reelection in 2004. Bush's father had been turned out of office just 20 months after the Gulf War ratcheted his score up to 911.
...
The Bushies have lifted their reelection strategy straight out of "1984," and not just by creating ominous-sounding agencies like the Office of Homeland Security, the supposedly-closed Office of Strategic Information, and a "Shadow Government". As in "1984," the Bush regime tolerates zero dissent --a two-party system in name only has been distilled to one in which only Republicans express acceptable opinions. And an absence of follow-up attacks has been met by endless alerts, advisors and empty hysterics in the name of security, most recently culminating with Tom Ridge's much-mocked color-code warning system. 

--Ted Rall, Why Bush Is Addicted To Perpetual War

To be fair, it is not only politicians but bullshit artists who make us vulnerable to tyranny. This has been done by dumbing down the language and, thus, our ability to think critically. Until Bush, even Republican "Presidents" paid lip service to the Constitution.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

—Sinclair Lewis, author of "It Can't Happen here"!

In It Can't Happen Here Sinclair Lewis showed us how it might happen here and in ways not unlike those predicted by both Lewis and Orwell. The characteristics of the fascist state so vividly described by both authors were found in abundance in Bush's fascist regime. Millions are still in denial, evidence that truth is tragically denied. A quote from Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here":

"Senator Windrip has got an excellent chance to be elected President, next November, and if he is, probably his gang of buzzards will get us into some war, just to grease their insane vanity and show the world that we’re the huskiest nation going."

--It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis, page 20

Orwell and Lewis not only warned us, they predicted precisely how it would be done. As Shakespeare said: "All is true!" So --why didn't we listen? We did not listen because this nation has a fierce anti-intellectual streak which at its best makes us independent and at its worst makes us stupid!

---

---

Texas

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

A movie about and set in Texas starred mega-stars Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor. It was a huge box office draw in the early 1960s! The state itself may have dictated the wide screen and mega stars --Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor.

The movie was GIANT, inspired by The Edna Ferber novel of the same name! Giant, indeed!
The photo (left) is of the famous Monahans Sandhills west of Odessa, Texas, a city with an interesting history as a destination of gunslingers and seekers after the many treasures that were said to have been buried in West Texas by various outlaws, the Spanish, and Mexican Revolutionaries.

Texas is the second most populous, the second most extensive of the 50 states. It can boast (and often does) that it is the largest of the 48 contiguous United States with an area of over 268,000 square miles and a growing population of some 25.7 million residents.

The word 'Texas' is from the Caddo --Tejas which means 'friend' or 'ally'. It was the Spanish which appropriated the Caddo word and applied it to Texas.

Texas shares a long, winding international border with Mexico, specifically the states of Chihuhua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas as well as borders with the US states of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Houston is the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest in the United States. San Antonio --home of the famous Alamo --is the second largest city in the state, seventh largest in the U.S. Depicted in the montage are portions of downtown Houston and, below, an interior view of Houston's 'Galleria' --a famous mall just outside loop 610 at Westheimer Rd. The Galleria is famous for its ice skating rink and a 'collection' of designer shops that probably exceed the famous 'Rodeo Drive' in Los Angeles.
In the 70's, a New York columnist (as I recall) dubbed Houston the "Golden Buckle of the Sunbelt". The monicker may have stuck:

Houston, Texas is the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the country, with a diverse population of nearly six million and thousands of dynamic, growing businesses. Much of that growth is powered by the energy sector: Houston's nearly 4,000 energy-related companies are responsible for almost half of the city's economic output.
New ideas in energy, however, aren't always received with a warm welcome. "Energy companies can be very risk-averse," says Sarah Groen, a business consultant and investor. "That makes the market very tough for new businesses to break into."
Groen and her business partner, Kirk Brand Coburn, are working to change the status quo with the launch of SURGE Accelerator, an incubation and mentorship program for startups in the energy software space. Companies accepted into the program can focus on anything from digital oil field data to consumer energy efficiency--"as long as it's focused around energy, we're interested," says Groen.

In the program, which launched a year and a half ago, SURGE provides each company with $30,000 in seed funding, free office space, and access to dozens of mentors in Houston's vibrant energy sector in exchange for a six percent common equity stake. Over the course of the three-month program, the entrepreneurs focus their business models and learn from their mentors and one another; the program culminates with the opportunity to pitch to investors on SURGE Day.

"Most entrepreneurs are coming not for the money," says Groen. "It's for mentorship and the program, and access to investors they'd have trouble meeting otherwise."

--SURGE Accelerator Sets Out to Revolutionize the Energy Industry in Houston

It's now official: with a population of six million, greater Houston is now the nation's fourth largest city! Only New York, Chicago, Los Angeles are larger. The metropolitan areas of Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth are the fourth and fifth largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Other major cities include El Paso, the western most city in Texas and Austin --the state capital. Depicted (below, left) are downtown Houston (at sunset) and, below it, Houston's famous Galleria Mall. Inspired by the 'Galleria' in Milan, it was appropriately a pioneering work by developer Gerald Hines. Indoor malls with several levels of shopping integrated with both residence and office towers were groundbreaking at the time.

Because it was once an independent republic, Texas is sometimes called the Lone Star State. It is also a reminder of the state's struggle for independence from Mexico which most Americans associate with the siege at the Alamo. The "Lone Star" can be found on the Texas state flag and on the Texas state seal today. Another reminder of the Texas struggle for independence may be found just east of Houston where the 'Battle of San Jacinto' was fought and won by Gen Sam Houston for whom the present city is named. The following videos are a showcase of some of the most beautiful photography of Texas that can be found. Enjoy the tour.

Of late, Texas has acquired a bad name, a process begun, I believe, with the arrival of the Bush crime family, the assassination of JFK, the FBI atrocities against the Branch Davidians and, of course, the utterly failed and criminal regime of one George W. Bush!

By the way, George W. Bush is NOT a 'Native Texan'; he was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Sadly, thanks to GWB, it will require a small miracle to undo the harms done to education, the prison system and the 'state' of justice in the once and future great state of Texas!

---

---

On Liberty: More Relevant Than Ever

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

In his classic essay "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill deals with the issue of "civil liberties" --not the metaphysical issue of "free will". While most attacks on civil liberties have historically occurred from the right within the context of a tyrannical or an aristocratic rule, Mill deals with threats against liberty from within the institutions of democracy itself. The issue is especially relevant at a time when widespread domestic wiretapping and surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The aim of early libertarians was to limit the power of the ruler over those governed; Mill, however, identifies a need to limit the power of elected governments and officials as well. Mill is not merely addressing the issue of "who should rule?", he seeks to establish limits on the power that government may exercise over minorities and individuals. His work is more relevant now than ever.

While "government of the people" is an ideal to be sought, Mill argues that such an ideal is often not the case in fact. He argues that those exerting the power of the government --elected officials, bureaucrats, the judiciary --often develop their own interests. They may be influenced by those constituencies in ways that are at odds with the interests and liberties of individuals or other groups.

Mill makes no distinction between a tyranny of one and a tyranny of many. A tyrannical majority running roughshod over the rights of individuals and minorities is no less a tyrant because it is a majority, because it is elected, or because it is elected by a majority.

While society may not tolerate criminal behavior, for example, society may not legitimately interfere with or suppress all non-conforming behaviors indiscriminately or because a majority may not approve. What then are the powers that society may legitimately exercise over the individual? Mill answers:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

-J.S. Mill, On Liberty

James Madison --called the "Father of the Constitution" --may have anticipated Mill's ideas in his draft of the Bill of Rights --the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Implicit in the Bill of Rights is the recognition that the power of the state is a blunt instrument. Abused, it can oppress and repress individuals and minority groups alike. The Bill of Rights addresses this issue by guaranteeing "due process of law", limiting state power over individuals and groups, guaranteeing that groups and individuals may speak freely, worship freely.

The Fourth Amendment specifically is a promise that our government made to us in its very founding:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

-Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

Let's make something abundantly clear: there are no "inherent powers", "implicit" authorizations" that would, in any way, overturn, limit, or repeal the Fourth Amendment. Many politicians are not only wrong about that, they may have deliberately lied about it. Moreover, Congress may not overrule the Fourth Amendment with statutory law. Constitutional Law is supreme and provisions in the Bill of Right are valid until amended as set out in the Constitution itself. Widespread domestic surveillance is illegal whatever is done by Congress ex post facto --and until the Constitution is amended, it will remain illegal. At last, ex post facto laws, themselves, are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Mill is all the more remarkable for his insight into issues that remain contemporary. In every literate criticism of "special interest groups", PAC's, the gun lobby, the tobacco lobby, the Military/Industrial Complex, one sees the lasting influence of John Mill.

On Liberty is essential reading for anyone interested in law, the principles of government, political science, political philosophy, indeed, freedom itself. It is also essential reading for anyone interested in learning about the intellectual underpinnings of Anglo-American civil liberties.

---

---

Political Decision Theory Made Easy

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I lost patience long ago with so-called 'progressives' because Democrats are 'imperfect'! Who is perfect? I've never seen such a person on any ballot! I prescribe an introductory course in 'decision making'! So what if the MESSIAH is not on the ballot!? You are stuck with two viable choices in any case. You don't like either though one is clearly superior to the other.

NOT voting is not an option; it puts a crooked moron in the Whie House! So --what do you do? You stay home, don't vote and piss and moan about it on FB while a criminal elitist takes over the White House.

I actually consulted a GOP campaign once. I wish I could say that it was an act of 'infiltration' to study GOP tactics and attitudes. Though it was not, I did learn --from the inside --how the GOP thinks. I was in the 'Belly of the Beast'. I even picked the 'brains' of one Tom DeLay --the evil genius who delivered Texas to the GOP on a platter.

Texas had been a Democratic state for some 100 years prior to Tom DeLay's GOP 'revolution'. The GOP campaign manuals actually cover the art of voter suppression. The GOP does not want you to vote. The GOP wants you to BELIEVE that Dems are not better. And --if you buy that crap --you lose!

Short of real revolution, we are stuck with a crappy and inaccurate system, a system that seems designed to keep the very best candidates OFF the ballot. It could not have worked out better for the GOP had they conspired to create it. Come to think of it --they did. That said, the GOP could NEVER, EVER have gone as far as they have of late if idealistic Democrats and Utopian progressives had not decided to boycott the election.

---

---

The Price We Paid for the GOP's Free Lunch with Ruling Elites

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I am in a cranky mood!

C'mon Obama! Take the gloves off! Obama did not mention several issues that may be found in his own ads. Why not hit Romney with the infamous '47 percent'? Obama could have beaten Romney with his own words. Obama could have held Romney to his his own failed 'standard'.

Obama might have, could have disproved the utter and often meaningless crap that passes for speech these days. Obama might have hit Romney on the issue of the many jobs Romney cut at Bain. Will Democrats never learn this lesson: put the GOP on the ropes or let them hang themselves with GOP absurdities, lies and significant omissions?

Whomever really 'won' the first debate no longer matters. The issue is about the effect it's had on Romney's billionaire buddies who are now prepared to BUY the office for a moron and co-conspirator.
Romney is reported to be collecting money from his millionaire donors "hand over fist". Unless Democrats reach down deep, the race could turn around and elect an UN-ABASHED SHILL for the ruling elites. Latest polls put Romney within one point in Florida (47-46) and just two in Virginia (48-46s).

It would not be this close but for the money factor. Until that issue is addressed, Americans must live under an oligarchy at best, a dictatorship of the 1 percent at the very worst.

While the GOP, kowtowing to the desires of the ruling 1 percent of its creation, poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law, the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights, the rights of everyone who must, of necessity, work for a living, the rights of those would dissent and protest the right wing destruction of the values of our founding.

The rights of those who wish to work honestly for their living are likewise threatened by the documentable export of jobs during every GOP administration, the export of jobs that are, in fact, the RESULT of GOP policies. And --no --assertions that there are no differences between the parties is (politely) uninformed; and less politely, it's stupid. Democrats who stay at home believing Obama is at fault might as well wait in vain for a Messiah to come again or a Klaato to beam down out of a space craft. Rather than waiting for a 'bailout', I urge Democrats and/or progressives to assume some responsibility and, at the very least, show some initiative.

This is, in a nutshell, the core problem facing liberals. Those who wish to become activists need to direct their energies to dismantling the corporate special interest system and restoring greater equality of income.

--Steve Kangas, The Origins of the Overclass

If the GOP did not invent the sellout, this ongoing auction of the U.S. to the ruling elites, they might as well have. This 'sellout' has enslaved U.S. citizens and, at the same time expects them to pick up the tab for their military adventures on behalf of the obscenely wealthy.

In the meantime, the American people are brainwashed by big media. That's by design. Why do you suppose the Reagan administration worked tirelessly to abolish, perhaps erase the memory of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE?

Why do you suppose that the ownership of media is concentrated in the hands of some five or six huge conglomerates? Was this decreed by God? Is this the result of 'natural selection', good genes, or is it a product of the Big Bang. No --it was the planned result of the Reagan attack on the Fairness Doctrine specifically and, in general, every provision of the Communications Act of 1934.
The internet has proven NOT to have been effective in countering the well-oiled, well-heeled right wing money and propaganda MACHINES.

---

---

What Will We Make of Earth? Heaven or Hell?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

We have known about threats to planet earth for years if not decades! Possibly even longer! And NOTHING is ever done to restrain rapacious assaults on the only environment that we will ever have; nothing is done to slow the increases in the consumption of fossil fuels; nothing is ever done to preseve the integrity of habitats, estuaries et al; nothing or very, very little is done to improve air quality as a result of a rapacious consumption of fossiul fuels, the use of oil derivatives in motor vehicles or the alarming rate with which we destroy habitats on the land and throughout the world's oceans --the ONLY oceans that we will ever have.

Bottom line: we MUST enact and abide by 'Limits to Growth' --the topic of a conference that was held in the 'Woodlands' near Houston.

At this conference, scholars, environmentalists, economists as well as representatives from some of the world's major oil companies met and discussed nothing less than the future of planet earth.

I covered this early (if not their first such meeting) for a Washington D.C. based journal: "Energy Users Report". Following is an excerpt from one of the papers that had been submitted:

II. How the Unlimited Growth Ethic Exascerbates Organizational Unresponsiveness

Unrestrained production, assumed desirable and feasible in the belief system underlying unrestrained growth, depends on and encourages unlimited rising expectations. In turn these lead to increasing numbers of conflicting demands on organizations (a) to be responsive by producing more goods and se)-vices, and (b) to be responsive to the adverse consequences of that growth. (Production and product-produced pollution are obvious examples.) Particularly distressing and complex are the demands growing from life conditions in the third and fourth worlds since the gap between them and the first and second worlds is almost certain to continue to grow in the absence of an interpretive context premised on interdependence in a finite world. Such conflicting local and planetary demands generate more information, and require attention to more information,if organizations are to be responsive. This, of course, increases information and decision over-load and is likely to lead to comparatively less responsiveness because comparatively more information. needed for discriminating responses, would be screened out or ignored.

The myth that production can be indefinitely increased also encourages tendencies toward splintering and the establishment of autonomous groups and activities. That is, ifthere need be no limits on matter and energy each dissenting group will feel encouraged to go its own way. “do its own thing”, believing it can be self-sufficient and feeling little need for interdependence or to be concerned for the welfare of others. Others can “get theirs” bv also tapping into the gravy train via the time-tested means for flourishing in a capitalistic or socialistic economy.

Autonomy and differentiation, operating in and stimulated by the absence of a shared set 01‘ values and rules of conduct. will Icad to continuing challenges to legitimacy: each group will be devoted to its interpretive context and to the specification of factual importance justified by its values.

--On Growth and the Limits of Organizational Responsiveness, DONALD N. MICHAEL

This dates to the middle 70s! Essentially ---we knew then what we know now: Earth is finite and dying! As nothing seems to have been done to prolong our planet's life, the question remains: are we resigned to sitting back, pointing fingers and, in other ways, refusing to accept responsibility for the fate of the ONLY planet that we have ever known or inhabited, the ONLY planet that any of us will ever call 'home'?

A 'bail out' is simply not a part of the equation! We do not have that luxury! Where would a 'bail out' come from? Heaven? The only world of which we have intimate knowledge is Earth. And it is on Earth that we must make a heaven or create hell itself!

Sydney Poitier Reads Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"

---

---

A Vote for the GOP is a Vote Against the Middle Class

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There is --unfortunately --NO middle ground in a two-party system. There is no compromising with evil. The fact is the GOP is the enemy of the middle class; it is, in fact, the party of 'make war and share the booty with the cult of the ruling elites".

Put another way: the GOP is the party of 1) WARS FOR BOOTY 2) WARS which benefit ONLY the ruling elites.

The Romney-Ryan-Republican plan in a nutshell:

1. It would, in effect, end Medicare, defund Planned Parenthood, repeal Obamacare
2. It would slash student aid;
3. it would GUT Social Security.

FACE THE FACT

The United State is not nor has it been for some time a NET EXPORTING NATION. The U.S. no longer markets its products abroad; the United States no longer makes a living.

Rather --the U.S. makes a KILLING by waging wars of naked aggression which benefit ONLY the Military-Industrial Complex and a ruling elite class to whom our nation is economically enslaved.

Tax cuts benefting ONLY the ruling elite has very nearly wiped out the middle class. The millions who still believe in the middle class and/or 'fair play' MUST organize at the grassroots now. Otherwise, the GOP will BUY ITS way into power with a flood of million-dollar checks from the Koch brothers.

Also see: U.S. workers stand against Mitt Romney model of outsourced jobs

REPUBLICAN'S WAR AGAINST THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN

---

---

Creationist Nonsense Exposed and Debunked

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Creationists believe that the age of both Earth and Universe can be derived by adding up the "begats" in the Old Testament. That is the methodology of latter-day creationists who, like Sarah Palin recently, have concluded that the age of the universe is about six-thousand years.

In fact, any number not in the billions is not even close. As science, the creationist ideology is easily disproved. Any geological period older than Sarah Palin's estimate of the Earth's age disproves her.

The verifiable age of fossils proves Palin wrong. I chose, as an example, the Permian era because I have some personal knowledge of that period having grown up in what is called the 'Permian Basin' in West Texas.

As a child of six, I assembled an interesting collection of fossils that I had found on my own explorations of King Mountain, a long plateau in West Texas, near the town of McCamey. Any ONE of those fossils disproves Sarah Palin. All of them date to a period far, far older than a mere 6,000 years.

A plateau [King Mountain] itself was probably underwater at one time. If you can see King Mountain with Google earth, you have proven Palin both wrong and stupid. Fossils found there are dated to the "Permian period" --a geologic period lasting from about 299.0 million to 251.0 million years ago. It is the last period of the Paleozoic Era. Any one of those fossils disproves Palin. Anyone of them is considerably older that Palin's estimate of some 6,000 years --a mere blink of an eye by comparison.

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, ninety percent of marine species disappeared and life on land suffered greatly during the world's largest mass extinction.
The cause of this great dying-off has baffled scientists for decades. Recent speculations invoke asteroid impacts as a kill mechanism. Yet a new study published in the December issue of Geology provides strong indications that the extinction cause did not come from the heavens but from Earth itself.

--New Evidence Supports Terrestrial Cause Of End-Permian Mass Extinction, Space Daily

It comes down to this: if we can look up at the sky at night and see Andromeda "creationists" are wrong! Andromeda --proven to be over 2 million light years distant --is the only galaxy that can be seen with the naked eye. We see Andromeda as it was over 2 million years ago. Seeing it --with or without a telescope --proves that the universe is exponentially older than the mere several thousand years that Palin ascribes to it. If we can see it at all, creationism is wrong.

Creationism is not science. The distance to Andromeda can be determined precisely.

By comparing the absolute and apparent magnitudes, Ribas's team concluded the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.52±0.14 million light-years from Earth. This agrees perfectly with the Cepheid-based distance to Andromeda: 2.5 million light-years. The newly determined distance, however, does not depend on assuming a distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud. The agreement means astronomers can trust Cepheid distances to more distant galaxies, such as those in the Virgo and Fornax clusters.

--First direct distance to Andromeda...

This alone disproves Palinesque nonsense. We can see Andromeda. We can date the age of rocks as well as the rock of ages.

We can also determine very precisely the distance to stars and galaxies. I found the Andromeda Galaxy as a kid in Odessa, TX. I had nothing more than a good pair of hand-me-down binoculars, a shaky tripod and a star map. It is the only Galaxy visible to the naked eye. Merely seeing it disproves Palin's theory that the earth is but a few thousand years old.

If we had discovered no other object but Andromeda --the only Galaxy visible to the naked eye --we must conclude, therefore, that the universe is very, very old. Most scientists are agreed that the age of the universe is some 13.7 billion years. Palin is utterly refuted by impeccable science conducted by reputable scientists and confirmed countless times in many ways by the world-wide scientific community.

---

---

Truth, Time and 'Absolute Space'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

When Galileo was compelled to recant, it is said that he muttered inaudibly under his breath: "...but it does move". 'It' being Earth, of course. The Catholic Church had maintained its doctrine of an unmoving Earth in unmoving space, a 'God's eye view' of absolute space about unmoving objects. The Church insisted upon its version of the way the universe was created and worked.

If I should ever be compelled to recant my liberal, progressive views of both politics and metaphysics, it will be because the American right wing will have created and enforced a dictatorship of both the very stupid and those who choose to be ignorant; however faith based this vision may be it is best described as a faith based tyranny.

Those who know better but rationalize their accommodation with such a dictatorship epitomize what Existentialists call bad faith! Any school curriculum, any dictatorship derived from either deliberate ignorance or bad faith must be opposed to be replaced by a true democratic system based on egalitarian principles subject to reality checks and pragmatic expectations.

My views are entirely consistent with any religion based on 'faith'. Faith does not require proof or even meaningful sentences. Faith is just that: faith. But 'certitude' –certainly the best word to describe the more militant fundamentalist churches –is inconsistent with both faith and science. One cannot have faith if one is certain and if one is certain faith is not required. It cannot be both ways. Therefore, religion, by definition, must not be militant. If militant, it ceases to be religion and becomes dogma. Even the fundamentalist baptist church in which I grew up "preached" that the acceptance of Christ must be chosen freely! It follows, then, that if it is coerced or induced through brainwashing, the choice is not free. Like a bad vaccination, it doesn't "take".

One is reminded of the storied contest that pitted the storied attorney, Clarence Darrow vs William Jennings Bryan who was, in many respects, a very admirable and honest person. Nevertheless,  at Dayton, TN he supported state efforts to impose upon a curriculum a religious agenda. By definition, faith cannot be imposed. An oath imposed by law or coerced at the point of a gun or threat of excommunication is invalid. The very notion that religion can be compelled is self-contradictory.

A more recent example is Sarah Palin whose record of trying to put creationists on School Boards is anathema to those who believe in freedom of religion as guaranteed in the First Amendment. This is not a matter of faith; creationists believe their theory to be fact. As their acts have now made this a political issue, it is fair game for debate. For them creationism is not a matter of faith but of fact. The truth is that creationism is a pseudo-science that they would have us teach in school science classes. I oppose that because creationism is not science. I would oppose it for that reason even if I subscribed to creationist ideology. I am convinced that creationists would oppose in any case, confirmation that their position is ideological, inflexible, dogmatic, utterly without any empirical support whatsoever. As Cafferty said of Palin: "...   this women is one 72 year old's heartbeat away from the White House and if that doesn't scare you it should."

Creationism is not science but faith, in fact, "bad faith". As science, the creationist ideology is easily disproved. Andromeda has been proven to be about 2.5 million light years from Earth. Ergo: we see Andromeda as it was some 2.5 million years ago. If we can look up at the sky at night and see Andromeda, we have destroyed "creationism". Creationists are wrong!  Seeing it proves that the universe is exponentially older than the the mere six thousand years ascribes to it by Palin et al. If we can see it at all, creationism is wrong.

The distance to Andromeda can be determined precisely.

By comparing the absolute and apparent magnitudes, Ribas's team concluded the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.52±0.14 million light-years from Earth. This agrees perfectly with the Cepheid-based distance to Andromeda: 2.5 million light-years. The newly determined distance, however, does not depend on assuming a distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud. The agreement means astronomers can probably trust Cepheid distances to more distant galaxies, such as those in the Virgo and Fornax clusters.

--First direct distance to Andromeda

This alone disproves Palinesque nonsense. We can see Andromeda; Palin is wrong.
I found Andromeda as a kid in Odessa, TX. I had nothing more than a good pair of hand-me-down binoculars, a shaky tripod and a star map. It is the only Galaxy visible to the naked eye. If we had discovered no other object, we must conclude, therefore, that the universe is very old. Most scientists are agreed that the age of the universe is some 13.7 billion years. Recently, astronomers have discovered that is the oldest object yet discovered, a galaxy some 13.7 billion years from our own Galaxy, the Milky Way. It is a relic of our early universe. When Astronomers look into space --deep or otherwise --they are, in fact, looking back into time. The new discovery has taken us where no man has gone before.

Of course, there are many objects much, much more distant than Andromeda; the new discovery is the best example to date. Even prior to this recent discovery, scientists were buoyed by images from the Hubble telescope, considerably more advanced than a simple pair of hand me down 7x35 binoculars duct taped to a half-assed tripod. That and a cheap telescope were my tools as a youngster enamored with astronomy.

Theory is good! The 'creationist' position with regard to the teaching of 'creationism' in public schools, however, is a straw man. Every curriculum I have ever seen teaches science as theory. But creationism is not science nor is it a scientific 'theory'. Scientific theories are subject to being disproved and upon being disproved ––discarded. Religious dogma, by contrast, is 1) believed and/or espoused upon faith – not fact; 2) almost never provable one way or another even by experiment; 3) embraced or adopted upon 'decrees' issued by an 'authority' of some sort; in every imaginable instant it is a self-appointed 'authority'. The process differs little from that of 'the Church' in Rome which opposed Galileo. They were the 'authority' and Galileo was not. Galileo was compelled to recant for having proposed that the Earth revolved about the Sun. It is said he muttered inaudibly under his breath: "...but it (the Earth) does move"!

The authority of the church was, in the final analysis, merely assumed. It was asserted, conveniently, by those who had assumed it. It was decreed from the top and compelled with horrific threats of torture here on Earth and eternal fiery hell in the "after life". Churches of almost every persuasion may all be alike in this respect. Upon no proof or evidence, they presume to tell rational human beings what to think. The authoritarian nature of organized religion, thus, nullifies the individual conscience. In all matters verifiable, the church may be at odds.

In Existentialist terms, the worst creationists espouse their theory in bad-faith. They know it to be untrue but insist that you believe it. Many may know it to be untrue or --as bad --beyond verification by any means. But they will espouse it anyway. This is dis-honest. This is "bad faith". This is a crime against truth. As Bertolt Brecht said:

"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!"

Fundamentalists are crooks. Meaningful theories are subject to proof or disproof. Articles of faith, by definition, are not. If an assertion can be proven, there is no need for "faith". Because of the genius of our founders, people are free to act upon their religious convictions and may worship in the church of their choice –or not! Anyone insisting that religious faith be taught in schools financed with your tax monies violates your rights, specifically "Freedom of Religion" guaranteed you in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is the law!

'My good friend Douglas Drenkow wrote:

On the other hand, the Left – from the beginnings of humankind – has challenged us to think for ourselves, in both matters of reason and faith, while respecting those who have proven themselves advanced in studies or achievements in various fields.

That describes what should be our role. The First Amendment is respectful of those who profess a faith in "good faith" and guarantees a right of dissent for those who are of differing persuasions. Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertolt Brecht have defined 'integrity' far more effectively than any 'bible thumping' fundamentalist preacher that I had been forced, as a child, to endure. Both Sartre and Brecht addressed the issue of bad faith, essentially, the condition in which an individual appropriates a false notion of self. The fashion photographer Richard Avedon was even more succinct than was Brecht (quoted above):

You cannot expect another man to carry your shit!

Jean-Paul Sartre had his own version:

A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself!

The GOP –as a whole –is premised on "bad faith". Recent GOP Presidents –Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. –courted the religious right in bad faith. The two Bushes, specifically, may be cause for alarm. Both were members of Yale's infamous "Skull and Bones", a secret society about which John F. Kennedy had warned the nation in his so-called "Secret Societies Speech". What little is known of the Skull and Bones leads one to believe that it is a Satanic Cult at odds with both religion, enlightenment, the various pursuits of verifiable truth. To the extent that much organized religion in America (especially the 'super churches' of the 'super' fundamentalist evangelical movement) is but a mass manifestation of 'bad faith'.

People do not seek religion because they wish to be moral. I would challenge any assertion that there is a statistical correlation between the espousal of religion and morality. On the other hand, moral people may be found among atheists and agnostics.

I am in good company when I am criticized for raising doubts among the faithful. Upon his conviction on similar charges, Socrates was forced to drink hemlock. He might have saved himself had he re-canted –a tactic favored by the most "establishments". The tactic is, In fact, a Faustian bargain in which one trades his soul for his life. Because he believed that "a man's soul is his self" [the existentialist point of view], St. Thomas More turned down the "offer". In Robert Bolt's great play "A Man for All Seasons", More tells his daughter, Meg:

...when a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. And if he opens his fingers –he needn't hope to find himself again.

That is a description of "bad faith". Later, when More is sold out by the ambitious Richard Rich: "Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... But for Wales?"

Another great existentialist play from the period is Jean Anouilh's Becket; ou l'honneur de Dieu. As the title suggests, Becket, having first served his King with distinction, found his honor in the service of God. To act contrary to that would have been, for Becket, the supreme act of bad faith. Forced to make the existential choice, Becket chose the honor of God above his duty to his King. Somewhat simplistically, he lost his life but saved his soul. Poor Galileo! He saved only his life.

I saw both movies in the same year in which I heard Stokely Carmichael address an audience at Cullen Auditorium on the University of Houston campus. It was historic –Stokely Carmichael's promise to keep alive the revolution that the assassinations of RFK and Martin Luther King Jr the following year would end. With them, the "dream" seemed to have perished.

JFK could have made the Faustian bargain with the Bush crime family that even then, via the Sr Bush, was directing CIA efforts against Cuba. RFK threatened the same people. Just recently, a BBC documentary established that RFK's "killer" was most certainly the CIA. Martin Luther King, of course, represented the 'black' revolution that would have rocked the establishment.

If a man's soul is his "self", then one may never find it in "organized religion", a standardized journey through preconceived dogma. By definition, every individual must take this journey and experience it. The journey differs with each individual; therefore, it cannot become scripture. However, the "form" seems always to be the same: the individual, in crisis, is given or confronts a choice: his life or his soul. It is no coincidence that this form is likewise the structure of almost every work of literature worth reading or watching.

Science and the Pursuit of 'Self'

I am quite sure that 'gravity waves' are a type of electro-magnetic wave like light, radio waves, and certain waves reaching Earth from deep space. It is tempting to imagine an inter-galactic space craft with sufficient energy to produce it's own gravity waves relative to a local field. The degree to which it is either negatively or positively in or out of phase with the surrounding gravity field just might get you from one planet to another, or from one star system to another. If I were to design such a craft, I would make it look just like the sleek craft that Klaato and Gort emerged from in "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Klaatu barada nikto

'Particle' and 'wave' are just words to describe a 'noumenon' --as Immanuel Kant called things as they just are –before names are stuck on them, things NOT as they are perceived or measured but things in the state of mere being. As I recall, Kant may have referred to it a God's eye point of view. Not a "God's view" is the "snapshot" we make of waves. We may think of a particle as the "snapshot" we make of a "wave". Waves, by definition, are manifested only over time, however short that instant may be.
,
Certainly –Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" is verbally stated thus: a particle's position or its velocity may be measured at any given instant but not both at the same instant. I like the photographic analogy. If I use a slow shutter speed, my photograph of some object making a looping motion as it moves from point A to point B will look like a solid object if my shutter speed is –say–one half second or longer depending up the lateral speed of the object photographed. See: Pablo Picasso: Light Painting

An object making a looping motion while moving from point 'A' to point 'B' will look amazingly different if photographed at 1,1000th of a second than over a period of 1,2 or 3 seconds or an hour, a day! Depending upon how quickly the 'object' is moving. At very fast shutter speeds, my photographs are sure to suggest the shape of the "actual object". The question is: what is the "actual object". Point being, the faster my shutter speed, the closer I get to the actual shape of the object but at the expense of being able to determine its speed. This is the visual proof of Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' which I summarize thus: either the position or the speed of an object may be precisely determined but not both at the same time. This is the very crux of quantum mechanics.

For me, this principle evokes my recollection of seeing Pablo Picasso's lighting paintings for the very first time. Over a period of several seconds, his "light pen" has created an object, the shape of which is limited only by Picasso's imagination. If the shutter is is made longer, a different shape will emerge. As the shutter speed is made faster, Pablo's creation becomes increasingly smaller. Likewise, physicists hoping to pin down sub-atomic particles. As Heisenberg discovered: we pin down the location of a particle at the expense of learning its velocity; we may pin down its velocity at the expense of learning its shape.

As a child on a road trip with may parents, I asked by father: how fast are we going? My father answered: "...fifty miles per hour". I responded: what does that mean? He answered: "...over the course of an hour we will have gone fifty miles." I responded as a child might: "But how fast are we going right now?" I might not have known, at age 5, that my question was consistent with if it did not invoke Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

At the Movie Theater

By definition, a shadow, or projection of a 3D object, indeed, any n-dimensional object will always be 2D. In other words, an (n-1) dimensional image; a 3D object makes a 2D 'projection' or, by analogy, a 2D shadow. Physical reality may, therefore, consist of 3-dimensional projections of 4D objects just as a 'time-line' through Platonia may be considered the 3D projection of a higher dimensional reality of at least four dimensions. Our world may be but "images" or "shadows", integrated projections of a 4th (or higher ) reality. We are not living in a movie; we are a living movie!

Depending upon its forward velocity, a looping object will describe a sine wave as it moves. In those instances, orbits are "frozen" sine waves. The moon, for example, orbits the earth but describes a wave as it follows the Earth in its orbit about the sun. An electron orbiting an atom makes a sine wave if both electron and nucleus are in motion...and they are always in motion. Depending upon how it is "photographed" (to use the analogy) it is both a particle and a wave. Electrons are particles if their position is pinned down, but waves otherwise. At the quantum level, particles are still blurs but smaller blurs. One wonders if anything really exists at all.

To use the photography analogy again –what shows up on the 'photograph' depends upon the shutter speed. Slow shutter speeds make blurry photographs in which small objects may appear to be large and blurry. A very fast shutter speed will result in a smaller, sharper object. Similarly, Heisenberg's equation describes the relationship between the accuracy of a position vis a vis a velocity. A precise determination of velocity can only be made at the expense of a precise determination of the object's position.

The question that I asked my father was really not a bad one. At that age, however, I could not have known the power of graphs, slopes, tangents and co-ordinates to any given point on a curve. It does make sense to say that at an infinitesimally small "point" representing an "instant", a speed is "X". One could define the car as the fourth dimensional shape manifested over the duration of a one hour trip. Theoretically, I could take a long exposure photograph of the entire trip. The result would not resemble a car. It would resemble a "string". String theory?


Zooming in to the quantum level, I will learn the shape of particles but I will have done so at the expense of the fourth dimensional shape manifested over the course of "trip". I like the description of "gravity waves" –that they are ripples in the fabric of space-time. I found some very interesting GIF animations of gravity waves in a 3-D graphics program. That, of course, is a projection twice removed --but nevertheless one gets the idea. If a craft is ever built utilizing the interference patterns generated by two dissimilar wave fronts, inter-stellar travel will allow one to "surf" the universe. Thought of in this way, such a craft is also a time machine.

The work of Julian Barbour is consistent with Occam's Razor. I believe that Barbour did not find it necessary to posit additional dimensions as he must surely be convinced that they are not necessary to his hypothesis. Barbour's theory is fully developed within four dimensions. If one is otherwise satisfied or convinced of Barbour, then the question is: what purpose is served by positing additional dimensions?

An atomic clock works like any other clock, that is, it measures time against oscillations of a known duration. For a Grandfather clock, it is the oscillations of a pendulum. For an atomic clock it is the oscillation of electrons about a nucleus. I have problems with the conventional MODEL of the atom depicting electrons orbiting a nucleus. As atoms are always in motion, those "ORBITS" are oscillations. Likewise, the moon is said to orbit Earth but because the Earth itself is in motion about the sun, and the sun about the about the center of the Galaxy, and the Galaxy about the center of the 'local group' etc, etc, ALL, it would appear, are oscillations. The universe is an oscillating machine.

Also see: Nasa Seeks 'Warp Drive', Anti-Gravity Space Craft

---

---

How Citizens United Subverted the Rights of Real People

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I've often written about the detailed and vivid account of A. Htler's meeting with top German industrialists --Krupp, Thyseen, I.G. Farben et al. It was in that meeting that the German fascism was made real in terms of an agreement between the Reich and its 'fascist' sponsors, the huge corporations who would benefit from aggression, death and destruction. The meeting may not have defined the word 'fascism' but it most certainly birthed a Nazi regime in which corporations were given and promised not only privileges but, most importanly, big juicy contracts.

From a lesser known source is another detailed description of the nature of Hitler's fascist partnership with big business:

"From now on, the government in Berlin will allocate large sums to industrialists so that each can establish a secure post-war foundatin in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empire can be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required," he continued, "that the large factories in Germany establish small technical offices or research bureaus which will be absolutely independ and have no connection with the factory. The bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons, as well as document which they will need to cotninue their researh. These special offices are to be established in large cities where security is better, although some might be formed in small villagtes nears sources of hyrdropeletric power, where these party member can pretend to be studying the development of water resources for benefit of Allied investigators."

--Martin Bormann, Nazi in Exile, Paul Manning, [http://spitfirelist.com/books/manning.pdf]

Some have said that the 'brand' of fascism now emerging in Western democracies, the U.S. in particular is a completely new phenomenon. I disagree! The odious 'Citizen-United' decision, in which SCOTUS decreed that corporations were 'persons', is an open and odious declaration that a corporation may utilize its wealth, riches and privileges to enslave a population of 'real people' whose humanity is as self-evident as Thomas Jefferson had declared of 'real' persons in our own 'Declaration of Independence":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Earlier, John Adams had written of the same concepts in somewhat different words:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Now, of course, we know that these rights extend to women as well. Surely --even our crooked court must understand that. Even so, the Roberts court cannot be trusted to defend the rights of persons of any color, creed or sex. Our court cannot be trusted to recognize an even older and more venerable position: that governments derive their power power, right and right of power from the peole who are ---alone --sovereign!

We must not be surprised to find among GOPPERS an obsessive fascination with all things 'German' --inclinations, interests, political philsophies. Paul Ryan, Mitt's desperate choice for running mate, now says that Ayn Rand is not his only idol; he says that in his offices, NIETZCHE is required reading, though he is accurately described with just two words: "moral Platonist". It was Neitzche who described the world as nasty and brutish and life as short.

---

---

The Time has Come to Indict and Try George W. Bush/U.S War Criminals

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It has been said that George W. Bush is immune from prosecution for war crimes. I do not believe that that is the case. Treaties to which the U.S. is signatory and obliged say otherwise. I know of no act of Congress rescinding U.S. obligations to the Principles of Nuremberg.

Congressional Repeal of Treaties.—It is in respect to his contention that, when it is asked to carry a treaty into effect, Congress has the constitutional right, and indeed the duty, to determine the matter according to its own ideas of what is expedient, that Madison has been most completely vindicated by developments. This is seen in the answer which the Court has returned to the question: What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress’ constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such case, as the Court has said: “Its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.”

Cornell University Law School, ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION, Article II, 303

In fact, the United State is credited with supporting, perhaps insisting upon the adoption of the Nuremberg Pinciples. The U.S. is obliged to Nuremberg and no clause exempts U.S. politicians of any office from prosecution should he/she violate those principles.

Nazi war criminals --likewise --thought they were 'immune' and said as much at Nuremberg where the principles were conceived and applied. High ranking Nazi war criminals were tried, sentenced and hanged.

That is the lesson of Nuremberg. Hitler himself would have been tried, found guilty and hanged had he not cheated the hang man. Immunity for Bush? If a real international tribunal were HONEST it could seek out bush, arrest him and try him.

"Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390"

Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
      (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in        violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
      (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

In addition, these principles have been spelled out over the years. For instance, since the rather “archaic” Nürnberg rules on participation in criminal conduct (Gerhard Werle, Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 5, 2007, p. 953), the principles on the various modes of international criminal liability have been considerably developed. The definitions of the crimes have also evolved since Nuremberg. For instance, crimes against humanity now explicitly include the element of a “widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population” (art. 7 ICC Statute). The ICC Statute also contains four new categories of punishable acts as crimes against humanity: torture (art. 7(1) (f)), sexual crimes (art. 7(1) (g), enforced disappearance of persons (art. 7(1) (i)) and the crime of apartheid (art. 7(1) (j)).

Finally, in 1948, the General Assembly approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which confirmed that genocide is a crime under international law. Genocide was also provided for in the statutes of the ICTY, ICTR and ICC (arts. 4 ICTY Statute, 2 ICTR Statute, and 6 ICC Statute). In light of the adoption of so many treaty or quasi-treaty provisions prohibiting and punishing genocide, and of the case law on the matter, it can now safely be held that genocide is a crime proscribed by customary international law.

--Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribuanal, General Assembly Resolution 95, New York, 11 December 1946

Interestingly, the three arguments for 'conservativism' ---tradition, religion, man's depravity --are all of an authoritarian nature. All result in decrees issued from on high --a throne, a board room, a war room. Take your pick. Depravity may exist but is most often found in the eye of the beholder. Religion is 'holy' for those already committed to it either by upbringing or social pressure. The 'war room' results from all of the above. Wars against the 'infidel' remain the norm. Bush, for example, demonized 'Islam' and apparently got away with it because fundamentalist Christians are as intolerant of Islam as fundamentalist Islam is intolerant of those who love Jesus.

---

Lies Bushco Told About 911

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

On the topic of 911, we --the people --have won NO battles. Even worse --chances that we will ever win a battle for truth over bullshit, justice over obstructions of justice shrink with each passing day.

That is true despite the fact that the Bush conspiracy theory of 911 --a conspiracy theory of some 19 Arab 'tursts' --is easily proven to be BS on its face. In short -NOTHING said by Bush about 911 was true. Here's a very, very short list of 911 anomolies anyone of which brings down the whole rotten edifice...

1. NO airliner crashed at the alleged site in PA. Flight 93, we were expected to believe, managed to bury itself upon impact. It's a convenient lie designed to cover up the fact that no airliner wreckage was ever visible at the alleged 'crash' site. The myths and lies can be put to rest with a simple excavation.
2. WTC 7 was 'pulled'. Silverstein himself said so and every demolition expert in the world knows that that is, indeed, the case. The building had been prepped.
3. The laws of the CONSERVATON OF MATTER and ENERGY were not repealed. See any phsycist at M.I.T. to confirm that; ERGO --no airliner struck the PENTAGON and no wreckage traceable to an airliner WAS EVER recovered.
4. KEROSENE --jet fuel is kerosene --will NEVER burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel. In addition, THERMITE was found and confirmed by experts and published in peer-reviewed papers.
5. The BBC interviewed several 'said' hijackers though they were said by Bush partisans to have died in the attacks. Dead men don't give interviews. Another fatal flaw in the official conspiracy theory.
6. American Airlines is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911.

My approach is the A. Conan Doyle approach...

When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth!

The Bush 'theory' is the only 'conspiracy' theory of 911 that meets the definition of the term --conspiracy --most precisely.

Bush's critics, however, rarely advance a theory at all. They are most often labeled 'conspiracy theorists' for merely shooting holes in the Bush conspiracy theory. But for reasons unknown to me, millions have a mental blind spot that prevents or short-circuits rational dialogue about 911.

Also see: AA Exposes Bush's 'Big Lie': Flight 11 DID NOT FLY on 911!

Undeniable new 9-11 WTC DRONE PLANE PROOF (NOT UA 175)

---

Mitt Romney's Not So Subtle Attack on the Rights of All Americans to Vote

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Today --the rights of all people of any color to vote are still under threat by ILK like Mitt Romney who has taken up the GOP 'code word' for BIGOTRY ---VOTER FRAUD. There are very few if ANY instances of voter fraud but the CROOKED EFFORTS of the GOP to keep anyone not of the 'white' race, indeed, anyone not a GOPPER from voting. I call GOP efforts to stop ballot recounts in Florida 'voter fraud'.

I call the disingenusous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, halting the recounts, by the name 'voter fraud'. Though it was phony votes that were the fraud --NOT real voters of any sort or ethnic origin whose votes were targeted by the GOP and the 'high' court. I would not be surprised to learn that the meme 'voter fraud' was cooked up by an Orwellian political consulting firm and its paid 'focus group' who 'tested' it.

Some real history about how it was a Demoratic President who worked to ensure the rights of ALL voters to vote. It was --not surprisingly --a staunch Republican senator from South Carolina, a confirmed segregationist who filibustered and blocked passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that had been written by then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson. There were some alterations to the bill. That was to be expected. Nevertheless, the bill passed and would be signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower. It made the history that Mitt Romney hopes to re-write or erase.

The bill established the Civil Rights Commission and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Both agencies would ensure that the voting rights and civil rights of African Americans and all Americans wiould be enforced.

Having already made history, in April of 1960, LBJ was 'playing catch up' to an aggressive Kennedy machine. Later, journalist Howard B. Woods, editor of a black newspaper called the St. Louis Argus would recall those times in Passage of Power, a biographical series on the life and times of Johnson:

The Senator, tie-less and in shirtsleeves, was eating cookies and drinking a tall, and stiff, Scotch, but when Woods ask him about the civil rights bill "which seems to please no one," saying, "Senator, the bill, as it was finally passed, was admittedly watered down," Johnson forgot about the cookies and the Scotch, and leaned forward across the table, looking Woods "straight in the eye" in a way the editor found quite memorable.

"When we say every man has a right to vote, that is not watered down," Lyndon Johnson said." The important thing in this country is whether or not a man can participate in the management of his government. When this is possible, he can decide that I'm no good." George Reedy slipped into the seat next to Woods, but Johnson didn't need Reedy now. "Civil rights are a matter of human dignity," he said.

"It's outrageous that all people do not have the dignity to which they are entitled. But we can't legislate human dignity -- we can legislative to give a man a vote and a voice in in his own government. Then with his vote and his voice he is equipped with a very potent weapon to guarantee his own dignity." [Emphasis added.]

-Howard B. Woods, Passage of Power

---

---

How Steinbeck 'Predicted' a Decline and Fall of America

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There are MANY differences between the GOP and Democrats! Enough to write books about! Why, then, has the meme taken hold that there are no differences between the parties?

That's found in 'Right Wing Campaigning 101', better known as a GOP 'Campaign Manual'. There exist such manuals, produced for candidates by their highly paid consultants. At one time, I had several of these large tomes. Lesson no 1 states (in effect): in appropriate situations, it is to your candidate's advantage to BLUR the distinction between the candidates. Generally, the GOP is a minority party. It is often to their advantage to convince the public that Dems are just GOP-lite! It "ain't" necessarily so! For a start: EVERY Democratic President since WWII has enjoyed greater GDP and JOB CREATION rates than has any GOP President.

No one was surprised recently when some 227,000 NEW Jobs were reported. Those were among many more that had disappeared under Bush Jr. That the Shrub lost and/or destroyed jobs put Obama in the position of having to regain lost ground and add to the baseline! The cycle is repeated whenever a Democrat assumes the White House; he must create jobs and quickly. When a Republican assumes the White House, he or she will promptly destroy them. If there were NO differences between the parties then HOW is that pattern explained?

Clue: STOP buying the bullshit! Check the official numbers.

The great motion picture --The Grapes of Wrath --was all about the disastrous, often heart-breaking loss of jobs that began with the incompetent if not evil policies of a GOP administration, that of Herbert Hoover and the GOP administrations which preceded him --Harding and Coolidge. The GOP OWNS its creation: the GREAT DEPRESSION.

Daring to tell the truth about the Great Depression and the GOP which created it earned John Steinbeck numerous death threats, an FBI investigation, and --to be expected of the nation's moronic/crooked right wing --charges of 'Communist sympathy', charges never proven. They were not proven because they were not true! What if they had been? Are we not guaranteed freedom speech? Are we not free to vote as our consciences dictate? Are we --in fact --NOT free?

The actions of the GOP/right wing define them thus: 1) they are liars who know their 'economic policies' are disingenuously conceived and promoted;the GOP knows its 'theories' are hooey but does not care; 2) the GOP are ruthless and will rig elections in order to seize power.

In the meantime, we have no choice but to exercise free speech until it is denied us by a tyrant. We narrowly survived one recently --George W. Bush who might have parlayed a success in Iraq into a 'triumph' perhaps with laurel wreaths and a parade of slaves from conquered nations.

That the GOP is utterly incompetent may very well be our only salvation --so far! It may be dumb luck that things worked out in our favor. In the aftermath of Bush Jr, we should be thankful that we are still --on paper at least --guaranteed freedom of speech and, by extension, the freedom of conscience that inspires it.

Not surprisingly, it was an Oklahoma Congressman who labeled John Steinbeck's novel --The Grapes of Wrath' --a "dirty, lying, filthy manuscript”. Nevertheless, it remains one of America's great novels, one of America's great motion pictures starring Henry Fonda. Predictably, the GOP despises it because it dares to tell the truth and depict it realistically.

Tragically, a 'sub-stratum', i.e, the right wing inclined, has refused to evolve, progress, grow or, in any way, transcend a disastrous mental constipation that has --it seems --forever retarded our nation's best but utterly lost dreams and better aspirations. One fears that America will be remembered as Rome is remembered, that is, as a repressive, failed, cruel empire remembered most often for its cruelty, its obsession with spectacle, it's neglect of anyone not of 'noble' lineage.

Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace!

--Tacitus: Calgacus' Speech to His Troops (A.D. 85)

Dust Bowl --a 1950s Documentary

---

---

Right Wing Attacks on the Separation of Church and State

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

When he was still indulging visions of the White House, the right wing's snot-nosed ideologue --Rick Santorum --was stirring up fears and spreading distortions about the First Amendment. Wing nuts have done this before. Fear mongering, they believe, rallies an increasingly radical religious fringe. The word for it is demagoguery. Rick Santorum, for example, has said that the separation of church and state is NOT absolute. I beg to differ and so would have Thomas Jefferson who described a WALL OF SEPERATION between Chruch and State. And I will venture that Jefferson was in a better position to know what he was talking about and that Jeffeson was infinitely more intelligent than Rick Santorum.

The following is the text of the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th JeffersonJan. 1. 1802.

ADDENDUM: Rick Santorum is of an authoritarian mentality that asserts a 'right' to believe claptrap i.e, 'intelligent design' and at the same time DENY you the right to believe the truth about modern theories of evolution even as they themselves lie about them or raise strawman fallacies. At the same time, they label both facts and theories --'Darwinian' --as if 'Darwinian' were a bad word. It's NOT!

Tragically --the right wing has a mental 'blind spot'. The 'right' is INCAPABLE of applying to themselves objective rules of logic and evidence. While most intelligent people today are comfortable with the fact that the 'laws of physics' apply everywhere in the universe and are discovered, described ONLY by observation and empirical methods, the 'right wing' inclined live in a pluralistic universe and never consider for a moment that their thought processes are, in fact, reversed.

Intelligent 'folk' will follow a premise logically to a conclusion. The right wing --rather --ASSUMES the truth of an ideology, a prejudice, a mentally impaired rationalization --and accept ONLY those conclusions which conform to the prejudice. The 'open mind' is anathema to them if not completely unheard of in their circles. By any definition, the American right wing is a 'kooky cult'!

---

---

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever filed against him. No 'probable cause' has been demanded of his captors by any judge. He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' simply decrees one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. In this case there is no 'probable cause' whatsoever that Assange committed any crime. No formal charges have been filed against him! Officially, he has not even been accused of a specific crime. He is a political prisoner. He is a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

TYRANNY

The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376 AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.

--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims

This is an outrage! Everyone should be outraged! If Julian Assange can be imprisoned though NO CHARGES have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.

Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.

--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law. It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him HEARD together with the probable cause that he violated ANY LAWS WHATSOEVER. If the 'authorities' don't even have enough 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!

---

---