Fellow breakfast culters...is nothing sacred?  At least as far as the words on this page a concerned the answer is NO!  Be brave -- sapere aude! -- write, delete, edit, modify, expand, transmogrify whatever you find here to your hearts content! 

This wiki (collaborative writing page) was set up to give us Breakfast Culters a chance to extend our conversations throughout the week (and to sustain us those of us who can't make it every week).  You will need to register to edit this page -- just login and give yourself a username and password and have at it.  Like breakfast, there is no particular format here...just a place to put down and nurture our collective thoughts about such fascinating topics as:

Fruit loops versus sourdough

For me, this remains one of the most compelling metaphors we have discussed -- somehow the sense that our experiences are becoming ever more artificial and contrived seems at once accurate and chilling.  How can we up the sourdough ratio...

Some issues:

1. Our society accepts sumulacra (like Fruit Loops) without question.  Where's the Fruit?  Do we care?

2. Are we really more "authentic" by eating Fruit? or sourdough?  Or has authenticity been wrung out of our society by commerce?

3. Sourdough is self-replicating, and therefore un-marketable (or at least not terribly profitable).  Fruit Loops are wholly manufactured and therefore completely commodified.  Is Sourdough's lack of profitability a threat to its further existence?

4. Sourdough is alive.  FruitLoops are so far from alive they're literally scary.  Obviously, they are soulless.  Does Sourdough have a soul?  Many souls?  or just soul?

The Doughnut Presidency

Who's in charge here?  Who's interests are being served by the Bush Administration? How did we get into this situation?  Why can't we pin anything on this guy?

By the way, it's easy to add links to our collective document: (just use the chain link from the menu bar above) 
Here is an interesting read from The Economist on the philosophical underpinnings of the New Right.

****
Having tried and failed at an "Imperial Presidency" with Richard Nixon, some kind of loose, informal consensus has formed within the Republican leadership (really, a subgroup, like neo-cons) that there was a more effective model to follow:  the Doughnut Presidency.  Fill the Presidential chair with a "hole" (Reagan, Dubya) and rule the country indirectly with your doughnut.  Let the empty suit in the Oval office draw the fire and ire from enemies, while those around him (the doughnut) run things their way, more or less unmolested. 

Big Advantage #1:  You're immortal:  Reagan, Meese, and Stockman are gone, but the philosophy lives on in their philosophical descendents.

Big Advantage #2:  No term limits:  the "Bush" presidency could go on forever under evolving management.  Only the Doughnut Hole in Chief needs to change every 4 years.

Big Advantage #3:  You get to rule, but take no heat:  People naturally concentrate their love and hate on single personalities.  Putting a Hole in there dissipates opposition energy without costing you anything.

Big Advantage #4:  You can blur the lines (and therefore responsibility) to cover any activity:  You're no longer just an oil executive, White House "councillor", cabinet member, "media talking head"... you can be all at once!  While your "oil executive" self gets rich, your cabinet member self can manipulate the system to your advantage, and your "talking head" self can cover the tracks.

Big Advantage #5:  Mix and match components: By being a Doughnut, you get all the strengths of a group of people instead of just one.  The group presidency is nothing new -- just new for Democrats.

By way of sharpening the point, think of Bill Clinton as the "anti-doughnut" (a "doughnut hole"?).  He got hit with a full frontal assault on his presidency from day one because he was both President AND target -- smart enough to be in complete command, not smart enough to duck the bullets.  Worse, a one-man movement that had to retire after 8 years.  

Were his opponents consciously following a strategy to prevent his effectively governing? Or were they just following their hate and stumble onto the strategy? In either case, the Right largely succeeded in preventing any major initiatives from taking place, and not because Bill Clinton lacked positive initiatives to propose.  They just had him rocked back on his heels during most of 8 years.

Now look at Dubya (or Reagan): you can swing and rail all you want against Dubya and his administration doesn't even flinch.  They even seem to like it.  Because that's exactly what he's there for, to absorb punches and drive his frustrated opponents nuts. 

This raises some interesting questions:

1. Does Dubya himself know he's a "hole"?  Interesting notion applicable also to Reagan.  Most likely any real awareness would be at best marginal in both cases -- it would seem that some minimal threshold of intellectual sophistication would be required to understand the "doughnut hole role" and that anyone who did understand it could not put themselves in that position. On the other hand, raw lust for even an illusory sense of power can be blinding.

2. Can the neo-cons use this ruse forever, or is there a strategic countermeasure that arises from knowing what they're doing?  

The best approach would be to split the neo-cons from the paleo-cons, those well meaning Main Street Republicans nostalgic for an America that never was (save for in some placid enclaves).  Paleo-cons are fundamentally good folks (if often more than a little parochial and naive) and they want to trust democracy -- they do business by handshake and don't like to be duped.  Let's make a concerted effort to shine light on the fact the neo-con doughnut ruse is ultimately an attempt to end democracy and install a global corporate plutocracy run by self-interested philosopher-kings.

3. Could/should the Forces of Light use the Doughnut strategy? What would a Democratic version of the same thing look like? 

No! the means of darkness cannot be justified by the end of light.

or:  Yes!  There's nothing wrong with having a "figurehead" president surrounded by smart, ethical, dedicated, capable functionaries.  To be a successful President, you don't have to know everything (Carter), and in fact it's often best if you don't!

Wresting (or slipping) control of public discourse from the new right

We keep coming back to the problem...what can we do about it...can wiki writing help resolve chaotic, progressive babble and help us produce a coherent message?  Siezing the "terms of discussion" is a matter of propagating political language that is more pithy, more pertinent, and more True than the opposition's.  In this we can cooperate.

Bill Zide's article at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052005K.shtml on May 19, 2005 was a start, but only a start.  Some of his entries are good, some just namecalling and must be replaced.  I suggest that we can come up with more useful "entries".  Use this as a guideline:  Think of phenomena that you and other smart people like you know about, but which tend to get skirted or ignored by the news media because 1) they'll have to work too hard to understand and accurately report it and 2) it might get them uninvited to Republican inaugural balls.

Here are a few to start it off:

The Doughnut Presidency: The neocon tactic of installing an unaware figurehead in the presidency to take the "hits" as their clique indirectly runs the show, loots the treasury, and otherwise has their way with the country. (discussed above)

(need phrase): Bush's uncanny ability to genuinely believe what he wants to believe, no matter how much contrary evidence there is or how creepy it sounds to sane people.  The participation of those around him in his self-delusion is somehow key. Ideally, this would encompass also the willingness of the much smarter people around him (even some with good intentions!) to support his delusion by pretending he's running the show when they know in their hearts it ain't true.

Cool-Aide-ism(?): A phrase that evokes that Davidian, "cult-like" quality of the Bush Administration, where even apparently intelligent people like Colin Powell and Condi Rice appear willing to sacrifice their careers and reputations by denying obvious truths (e.g. Bush's inferior intellect, the existence of WMDs in Iraq, the general visciousness of the Bush re-election campaign). 

Jihadist Guerrilla Politics: The use of all-out, guerrilla war tactics in public discussion and politics, which bespeaks a willingness to destroy the society and many innocent people to get power so you can change things your way.  make your 

Lie-based Initiatives:  A resonant and accurate way of describing policies that run the gamut from invading Iraq based on lies to eviscerating environmental law under the "Clear Skies Initiative".

Dictaphone Regulation: Handing over to industry lobbyists the power to dictate word-for-word the actual laws that regulate them.

C'mon folks, what else do we have?

The Nefariousness (or nobility?) of the Breakfast Cult

Uncertain of the origins of the "nefarious" monicker, a more nuanced meaning of the term would be helpful to deciding whether it is an appropriate descriptive for this otherwise thoughtful, wellfed, friendly and sometimes sleepy group.

As notoriety has been marketed successfully time and time again, perhaps a ploy to fill the table........

Knowing the wide range of knowledge that cultists bring to the table, there should be no need to look up further meanings of flagitious and opprobrious!

Given the synonyms listed earlier (nice use of a table BTW), let's opt out of nefarario

______________________________________________

If It Walks Like A Duck

oligarchy (ŏl'əgärkē) [Gr.,=rule by the few], rule by a few members of a community or group. When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant.

 See also Wikipedia definition

What would be the 'symptoms' of moving our nation's government toward oligarchy?  Assume, for a moment that there was such a movement:  How would we know that we were moving in this direction.  You can fill in the blanks.

1)  A democracy requires an educated and well informed public.  Are we 'dumbing' down our educational systems?  The privatization of education would make a 'good' education available to those who can afford it leaving the others to fare at the public trough.  Higher education has taken a turn toward technical training rather than a broad liberal arts education that emphasizes history, culture and philosophy.  Look only to the previous appointee to the Minnesota Department of Education who promoted Intellegent Design (aka. Creationism) to see a watering down of educational content. 

2)  Widening the gap between wealthy and poor.

3)  Taxation policies:  Shifting the taxes from corporations and wealthy to middle class.

4)  Where does imperialism such as our invation of Iraq fit into this scheme?

5)  Media ownership consolidtion into hands of few.  FCC involvement in spite of congress trying to stem the tide.

6)  Election manipulation and corruption

The basic idea is collaborative writing to put thoughts on the page and let them take on a life of their own.  It is hard to make mistakes in this environment and easy to fix them.  Write with creative abandon and let's see what takes shape.  Have at it...looking forward to exploring this process and to seeing you all soon.

I view myself as a subversive educator in one of the large NYC high schools.  I am trying to teach thinking (or horrid subversion) to a group of hardened, shutdown freshmen.  One stated he would vote for Bush because of his "No child left behind policy".  Then the student clarified, "That means I can pass without doing anything, right?!?"  I carefully explained that what it really meant was that our school did not have the materials it needed to function and that he would still have to pass the classwork and tests in order to pass.  That changed his vote! 

The daily resistance I meet in attempting to teach simple basic logic in a wasteland of fund of information is overwhelming.  Teaching strategies tell us to find something in the child's world to connect the daily lesson.  What does one do when the child sees the common world in discrete chunks, having no connection with the vital life of his world (the bus, the train, who's fighting whom, who won the last sports encounter, and who has the best pornography in school that day).  Even less is there a connection to the River Valley Civilizations.  I'm hoping for some spark when we get to the Roman Gladiators!!!

__________________________________

Thought for the day on web page of Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet:

It takes a lot of bravery even to consider that uncertainty is not a threat, that in fact it's creative and powerful. --Pema Chodron (Jack)

__________________________________

Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow

In this 1/30/2005 Minneapolis Star Tribune editioral, Moyers outlines the dangers imposed on our environment by religeous right fundamentalism.  (Jack)

__________________________________

THE PHRASELATOR
By Robert Mackey

New York Times Magazine
December 12, 2004

No Americans suffer more from their inability to understand, or make themselves understood by, non-English speakers than America’s soldiers in Iraq. That’s why this year the Pentagon equipped thousands of them with the Phraselator, a hand-held electronic gadget that allows the soldiers to deliver hundreds of useful phrases, prerecorded in Arabic, to the Iraqis they encounter.

The device, which looks like an oversize Palm Pilot with a speaker and a microphone on top, breaks into Arabic when it hears an equivalent phrase in English spoken by a user whose voice it recognizes. Like an electronic parrot, the Phraselator may not be much of a conversationalist and can lack charm -- sample phrases include “Not a step farther,” “Put your hands on the wall,” and “Everyone stop talking” -- but its boosters claim that because the phrases are prerecorded by native speakers and not computer-generated, the monologues have “a more natural feel.” The Phraselator is marketed as “a complete solution for cross-cultural awareness.”

Its creators at the Pentagon-financed company VoxTec admit that even the new model, the P2, has a drawback: it is still just a “one-way” translation device. In other words, it phraselates perfectly well from English into Arabic (or any of the 59 other “target languages” it has mastered so far), but the device is no better at understanding foreign languages than the Americans who are wielding it. So the Phraselator allows occupiers to issue commands, but it does not help them comprehend any of what the occupied may have to say in response.

Despite this limitation, VoxTec is planning to roll out a consumer version soon, so it won’t be long before American tourists will be able to make demands and deliver orders in foreign languages without having to learn a single word of them.

Unitarian Jihad

 JON CARROLL - Jon Carroll
Friday, April 8, 2005

The following is the first communique from a group calling itself Unitarian Jihad. It was sent to me at The Chronicle via an anonymous spam remailer. I have no idea whether other news organizations have received this communique, and, if so, why they have not chosen to print it. Perhaps they fear starting a panic. I feel strongly that the truth, no matter how alarming, trivial or disgusting, must always be told. I am pleased to report that the words below are at least not disgusting:

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions. Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!

People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes.

Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other. (Sister Hand Grenade of Love suggested that we institute a terror regime of mandatory hugging, but her motion was not formally introduced because of lack of a quorum.) We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public. Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.

We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.

Brother Gatling Gun of Patience notes that he's pretty sure the world is out to get him because everyone laughs when he says he is a Unitarian. There were murmurs of assent around the room, and someone suggested that we buy some Congress members and really stick it to the Baptists. But this was deemed against Revolutionary Principles, and Brother Gatling Gun of Patience was remanded to the Sunday Flowers and Banners committee.

People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again! There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.

Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic! Citizens declare themselves "relatively unafraid" of threats of undeclared rationality. People can still go to France, terrorist leader says.

Michael row the boat ashore, and then get some of the local kids to pull the boat onto the dock, and come visit with jcarroll@sfchronicle.com.