Supralocality w/links

On Daddy’s being unencumbered by the psychological machinations that hinder the biological imperative: A meditation to be continued at a later date on an ontology informed by universal grammar to include, i.a. that “not playing god” has more to do with evolution than god and how these relate to human growth hormones and genetically modified sustenance.

__

Rob’s Radical Salami: If Trump makes it to the White House the establishment is going to eat him alive. Trump sounds tough but he’s a babe in the woods compared to what he’ll be going up against as president.

Lenda is surrounded by- & chows on human Islamophobes: Then I spell it out, explaining how these cases of US violence meet his definition, at which point the definition predictably starts to change, i.e., he starts moving the yardstick.

Justin intros a publishing imprint for web comics.

And, finally, including the nugget from Charles Olsen that “we are all late… in a slow time, that we grow up many… And the single is not easily known…”, there is so much more value in a Sunday paper from BLCKDGRD.

__

Anyway, that was mine. See ya.

Gute Reise zum Jahresendung

Kate & I closed out the longest night with retro-harkening.

https://www.mixcloud.com/widget/iframe/?embed_type=widget_standard&embed_uuid=aa9b6146-af6f-479b-9232-b259575739d2&feed=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mixcloud.com%2FKateDonovanAndDavidly%2Fk-d-2015%2F&hide_cover=1&hide_tracklist=1&replace=0

Collateral

Don’t wanna let them in on our strategy, but could use tactical assistance. Well, financial, anyway. Buddy’s got a glut of goods that’d fill the bill. Problem is they can’t afford what they think they don’t need. So we promise to give ’em a healthy cut of the contracts. Tell them we’re letting them in on our strategy.

They still couldn’t cover the stuff, not holding enough of our currency, but they’re damn good dam builders with a close relationship to the pastry chefs. What can I say? We’re pigs. As long as we keep eating donuts, they can afford our product.

Karlshorster in die Haupt : Berlin-Lichtenberg – 17 December 2015

Colonel Sanders: Guardian of the Debate

No sooner than I’d thought that if the GOP were in the WH (ie. heading the Dept. of State), Libya’d be Democratic Candidate Campaign Strategy Number One (complete w/ un-ironic !Benghazi! sloganeering), comes this interview with Bernie Sanders in which he places at least some of the blame for regime change policy and how it bolsters terrorism at his primary opponent’s feet.

Now Sanders voted against authorization in Iraq, or so he says (which says more about me that I hadn’t already known it), so what inspired my aforementioned thought — that Dem-loyalist wont of late to harp on the Bush-Cheney-Iraq axis as blame for the creation of ISIS while ignoring the continuity in policy since then — doesn’t necessarily apply to him on this issue specifically. But the part in the interview where he says he’d be tougher on allies like Saudi Arabia might make one wonder what that means, especially when he says that “guns should not get into the hands of people who everybody agrees should not have them”.

Does it mean he will no longer be legally laundering weapons and money via the Saudis, as the US has done since long before I grew the hair I’ve since lost? Or does it mean he’ll continue to do that, but demand they promise not to allow them to “fall into the ‘wrong’ hands”?

And what is Sanders’ position on the Saudi’s current spree-for-all in Yemen? What is his position on the US policy of firing from the sky by way of biometric profiling? When is the last time he ever voted against a military appropriations bill? And when he says “I think the United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia, have the power to make sure that there are Muslim boots on the ground,” which would include “giving them air support” does this really imply a new kind of support, or is he just pandering Clinton style to the white whine set?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Muslim boots all over the ground with coalition air support reflected the situation as it stands, which includes the semi-annual demand that the Saudis and Qatar “invest more”.

The debate is tomorrow night — I’ll try (not) to pay attention. But if any Sanders’ supporters care to weigh-in with answers to these questions — not necessarily to me, but to be prepared to answer anyone who has them — you may or may not be doing him more a service than simply casting a vote.

On the "So what’s your solution?" argument:

If you’re going to criticize the critique, you need to take it on directly, not, as is too often the case, deflect the substance of the criticism with the question begging (circular) status-quo (more-of-the-same) argument that what is being done is an honestly proposed solution to a problem that is as it is stated to be.

Taking on the critique directly means dealing with the claim that the stated origin of the problem is a lie. If your answer to that is “No, it is not a lie,” then “So, what’s your solution?” is a virtual non-sequitur. If it’s rhetorical, it’s an examination of a position you reject. As such, any subsequent assertion along the lines that holding that position, I am not living in your reality is one that I fully accept.

If, on the other hand, you are prepared to accept that the stated origin of problem is a lie, then the solution must involve in some fashion a rejection of the strategy to unify people & their representatives in a state of warfare against an enemy that is being created and recreated with every munitions delivery via trade or deployment; you have to reject both the quasi-terrorized demand that something more be done and the composed face that assures us that the problem is being addressed reasonably.

The solution is obvious: Stop creating war for the creation of more war. This is not a circular proposition, but a demonstrable reality to anyone who honestly observes the pattern of conflict & resolution: Setting them up & knocking them down.

You have to admit that you have a problem before you start proposing solutions. It’s evident that the “So what’s your solution?” argument does not indicate a willingness to admit the problem, but its intellectual inconsistency does hint at a sneaking suspicion that the problem as stated is buried in deception and displays a readiness to entertain a solution to this real problem buried in denial.

For the willing: No, we cannot turn back time, but we can stop fueling the fire. To continue a military strategy against this monster of a lie that was created by way of the same is folly. Of course, at least some of the actors on both putative sides of this folly are aware of this and will continue to profit from it; my “solution” entails transmitting awareness of this fact; it does not claim to be a solution to the rich and varied violence that humans unleash upon each other.

Non-acceptance of the stated problem and refusal of explicit or implicit support of the solution to the same is a first step. Obviously the masses are not going to defeat the military industrial complex in a conventional sense. But the more people are willing to call it by its real name, the sooner their familiars will be less inclined to lend their life’s blood to its projects.

As to the metonymical land stalking monster, no proverbial head can be removed the way pundits and pols presently claim, but its motivation and means of existence can dissipate over time if enough people resist signing on to mythological wars that feed the frenzy that grows the monster.