The Equinox

THE ABSURD TIMES

From a meeting of the Pope and a prior President.

The Equinox
by
Babba Yaga

September 23 or 24 are great days.  Several important things happened.

1) The Vernal Equinox.  This means that day and night are the same length and that from now on the days will be getting shorter, and shorter.  Good.  The temperatures will begin to cool off as well and the damn grass will soon stop growing.

2) Yogi Berra died about this time at the age of 90, reminding us of his famous statement "Always go to people's funerals.  Otherwise, they won't go to yours."  My other favorite is "Nobody eats there any more -- it's too crowded." 

3) The Pope happened to land here, by plane, economy class and then rode in a FIAT Accompli, as I understand it.  I've said that he is the most transformative Pope since Alexander VI, but only one person knew what I meant (and that person studied to become a Priest for awhile).  That was the Borgia Pope.  One other, perhaps, the monster Constantine who edited the Bible is right up there too.

4) Scott Walker dropped out of the Republican Primaries.  He was voted down twice in 4 years by the people of Wisconsin and reinstated by the Koch brothers both times. 

5) I had previously mentioned that I would post the question and answer part of Chomsky's speech, but below is all I could find.

6) I am by no means an authority on the subject, but the Eid started on the 23rd and also the pilgrimage.   717 died in a stampede, attempting to "stone the devil".  You have to stone him 10 times in order for it to count.  Now, it does not seem reasonable that Mohammed envisioned such stampedes and that if he visualized millions trying to carry out that pilgrimage as it is today he would not have prescribed such madness.  Just a guess, mind you. 

7) For a change of pace, however, mobs in Iran are chanting "Death to Al Saud" as a result of the stampede.  Lets the U.S. off the hook for a few days, at least.

8) As a result of Boehner inviting the Pope, and the Pope speaking against the death penalty and selling arms for profit, he resigned for his position as Speaker of the House.  I saw that one coming.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015

Noam Chomsky on Trump: "We Should Recognize the Other Candidates are Not That Different"

Noam Chomsky weighed in on U.S. presidential politics in a speech Saturday at The New School in New York. In addressing a question about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Chomsky assessed the political landscape: "Today's Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans. The Republicans have just drifted off the spectrum. They're so committed to extreme wealth and power that they cannot get votes ... So what has happened is that they've mobilized sectors of the population that have been around for a long time. ... Trump may be comic relief, but it's not that different from the mainstream, which I think is more important."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: After his talk, Professor Chomsky read and answered questions from the audience. This is one of those questions.

NOAM CHOMSKY: "What do you think about the antics of Donald Trump, in tangent to your earlier idea about American exceptionalism?"

Well, actually, I think we should recognize that the other candidates are not that different. I mean, if you take a look at—just take a look at their views. You know, they tell you their views, and they're astonishing. So just to keep to Iran, a couple of weeks ago, the two front-runners—they're not the front-runners any longer—were Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. And they differed on Iran. Walker said we have to bomb Iran; when he gets elected, they're going to bomb Iran immediately, the day he's elected. Bush was a little—you know, he's more serious: He said he's going to wait 'til the first Cabinet meeting, and then they'll bomb Iran. I mean, this is just off the spectrum of not only international opinion, but even relative sanity.

This is—I think Ornstein and Mann are correct: It's a radical insurgency; it's not a political party. You can tell that even by the votes. I mean, any issue of any complexity is going to have some diversity of opinion. But when you get a unanimous vote to kill the Iranian deal or the Affordable Care Act or whatever the next thing may be, you know you're not dealing with a political party.

It's an interesting question why that's true. I think what's actually happened is that during the whole so-called neoliberal period, last generation, both political parties have drifted to the right. Today's Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans. The Republicans have just drifted off the spectrum. They're so committed to extreme wealth and power that they cannot get votes, can't get votes by presenting those positions. So what has happened is that they've mobilized sectors of the population that have been around for a long time. It is a pretty exceptional country in many ways. One is it's extremely religious. It's one of the most extreme fundamentalist countries in the world. And by now, I suspect the majority of the base of the Republican Party is evangelical Christians, extremists, not—they're a mixture, but these are the extremist ones, nativists who are afraid that, you know, "they are taking our white Anglo-Saxon country away from us," people who have to have guns when they go into Starbucks because, who knows, they might get killed by an Islamic terrorist and so on. I mean, all of that is part of the country, and it goes back to colonial days. There are real roots to it. But these have not been an organized political force in the past. They are now. That's the base of the Republican Party. And you see it in the primaries. So, yeah, Trump is maybe comic relief, but it's just a—it's not that different from the mainstream, which I think is more important.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, speaking at The New School this weekend here in New York City, "On Power and Ideology." Professor Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he's taught for more than half a century. A world-renowned linguist and political dissident, Chomsky has written more than a hundred books; his latest, Because We Say So.

For the full transcript and video and audio of the speech, you can go to democracynow.org. We'll also post the full Q&A right there at democracynow.org with Professor Chomsky. What did you find most interesting about this speech? You can tweet us, @democracynow, or go to our Facebook page.

That does it for the show. If you'd like to get a copy of the show, you

New Leadership

THE ABSURD TIMES

The Search For Leadership

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustration: Here is a portrait of the sort of leader we need these days, Cesare Borgia. As an example of Papal Infallibility, he was the son of a Pope (Alexander VI) and therefore a Christian (nobody can get elected in this country unless he is a Christian). In fact, he was a Cardinal at the age of 18. It is hard to become a Cardinal, much less at 18. Now his brother was supposed to be favored, so his brother died and Cesare took over (brother Giovanni died, poor fellow, perhaps by stabbing himself in the back several times). Cesare was a Duke, Prince, count, Lord, Captain-General of Holy Church, and all around great guy. Cellini mentions him in his Autobiography, saying that he fought six tigers in the Colleseum. Cellini would exagerate -- probably only 3 tigers were involved. I have no idea how many he ate. You know how leaders today worry about being killed, having the secret service around? Well, when he and his friends walked down the streets, the people hid because if he got ahold of one a felt like it he would stick his arm down the guys throat and pull out his lungs or stick his fingers up his nose and rip it off his face.

He also had great taste. Brown eyes and red hair, one of his portraits became the image used to represent Christ by later artists. If not, he'd stick his arm down THEIR throats and rip out THEIR lungs. He had the brains to hire Leonardo DaVinci as military architect and engineer. Now that's better than Rumsfield or this other guy, the one from Texas A&M, no?

I thought of him because of the one posting I made awhle back and all the responses to it. I'm reprinting them here.

That will be followed by a follow up to the Kucinich Impeachment Articles with a commentary by Gore Vidal.

Finally, I'm starting to get tired of Obama renouncing things. First Farrakhan, then the Pastor, then another Pastor, then sucking up to Israel, what next? Well, his wife and kids seem to be a problem. His greatest advantage, right now, is that he is not McCain, and that applies to everyone except McCain. His second greatest advantage is that he is not a Republican (pardon the expression).

Anyway, Onward Christians!

I answered first by talking about my understanding of why the church wanted to preserve a geocentric version of the solar system and thus screwed Gallelio:

I finally understood "Papal Infalibility." See, back then, if the Pope wanted more of an army, or more power, he had to negotiate with the College of Cardinals. Well, what if a new Pope came along and tried to take away some of the concessions he made to them? Especially if he says it's God's will? Well, he can't because all Popes are infallible and can't be overruled (except when the College thinks it's not an imposition on them.) ?
On your specific incident, this is what I think: the geo-centric solar system was in no way an indication of man's importance or spiritual quality. Just the opposite, in fact. [Two timeless sources come to mind: the Elizabethan World Picture by E.M.W. Tillyard, and most of the non-fiction work by C. S. Lewis - who I had read for over a decade before I even heard of the Screwtape letters and such drivel.] Each planet, the moon was one, was embedded in a sphere. Each sphere represented a level of spirituality, higher as they were distant from the earth. Each was ruled by a different rank of angels, the moon mere angels, Mars, the Arch Angels, and so on. (I cant remember all that about the seraphs, cherubs, etc, but all had specific places in the hierarchy.) The lowest you could get, the most material, the dregs of the universe, was called "SUB-LUNERARY" - see John Donne talking about "dull, sublunerary, lovers..., for example. Galileo's sin, therefore, was making man too big for his britches. John Milton did visit with him during this period and sympathized with him greatly, then had Michael say to Adam "You have enough to worry about, don't even think about the heliocentric v. geocentric universe," although not quite in those words. ?

As far as life on other planets, the problem never crossed my mind, but then I haven't be obligated to a bible-thumper since I was 11. Just of statistical necessity, there is life elsewhere in the universe.

So, one of you took up the case of Gallelio and outer space:

Ahem, well, er, to attempt to answer your queries about Christianity in outer space, which is where
you assumed it came from and perhaps belonged, I will say the following, harumph.

1) I think the Vatican Observatory is a great idea, ok, maybe a stipend should go to Galilei Galileo's descendants
from the Vatican, the least they can do. Better late than never about the extra-t's, good for them for taking a stand I say.

2) Ray Bradbury wrote an interesting short story about 50 years ago called "The Man". It assumed that e.t.'s were humanoid,
some Earthling explorer kept trying to find Jesus as he traveled about the galaxy, dropping in at different planets for a little
redemptive work.

3) I don't think it's RC dogma that ALL animal life is in need of or indeed deserves eternal salvation, so maybe all e.t.'s don't
either, an open question no doubt.

4) 'Sacraments' are symbolic ('thrown-together') events of matter and spirit, much as we are. Since matter is universally distributed
I can see CO2 guzzling spiritualized e.t.'s ( no, not Elizabeth Taylor, that was Richard Burton's joke though, and a pretty good one, you have to admit)
being blessed, theoretically, why not. Water has no dogmatic significance in and of itself, it just happens to be the way WE operate.

So, who knows? It all opens up fascinating speculations, let's hope the RC's follow up with more stuff. Fr.Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would
have loved all this.

Finally, the first responded giving another version of Papal Infallibility:

Hmmm. Papal infallibility. According to Wikipedia, in Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares ex cathedra to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. For all such infallible teachings, the Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that the teaching will be received by all Catholics. The Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning "from the chair", refers to a teaching by the Pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.
That anyone believes this, to me, seems patently ludicrous, on its face, and then, especially, in that there have been so many "bad" Popes throughout the history of The Church. There have been numerous Popes who had mistresses. One Pope had three illegitimate children who lived in the Vatican with him. Some Popes were murderers. There have been times when there was more than one Pope at the same time. There are numerous examples of Popes with reputations for practically all vices. Following are some other examples of exemplary Popes: Pope Stephen VI, who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber; Pope Sergius III had his predecessors, Pope Benedict IV and Pope Leo V, strangled to death in prison (in Rome, he was supported by 3 major families, one being the Theophylacts. With one of their daughters, Marozia, he had a child, the latter Pope John XI. He is considered to be responsible for starting a period known as The Rule of the Harlots); Pope John XII, who was barely 18 years old, and showed no interest in anything spiritual. He was addicted to rude entertainment and was held back by nothing, doing as he wished regardless of his responsibilities; Pope John XII, who gave land to a mistress and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife; Pope Benedict VIII, who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy; Pope Benedict IX, who was banned from Rome for his unholy behaviour and was replaced by Pope Sylvester III, who he sold the Papacy to. One year later he returned to marry and once more sold the Papacy, now to his godfather, Pope Gregory VI (regretting the sale, he returned to try to depose Gregory VI, while at the same time, Sylvester III also re-emerged to make a claim); Pope Urban VI, who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured; Pope Leo X, a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors reserves on a single ceremony; Pope Clement VII, also a Medici, whose power-politiking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked. Of course, more recently, there is Pope Pius XII's pursuit of the Reichskonkordat with Hitler, and, the current Pope Benedict XVI's Nazi Youth past.
Papal infallibility is but one of the many preposterous beliefs foisted upon its believers by the Catholic church. Organized religion - how silly can it get?

Ah, we may not have the biggest circulation, but we do have the highest average IQ. So there, New York Times.

Taking Back The Republic

June 18, 2008 By *Gore Vidal*
Source: Truthdig

Gore Vidal's ZSpace Page </zspace/gorevidal>

* <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080612_taking_back_the_republic/>*

*O*n June 9, 2008, a counterrevolution began on the floor of the House
of Representatives against the gas and oil crooks who had seized control
of the federal government. This counterrevolution began in the exact
place which had slumbered during the all-out assault on our liberties
and the Constitution itself.

I wish to draw the attention of the blog world to Rep. Dennis Kucinich's
articles of impeachment presented to the House in order that two
faithless public servants be removed from office for crimes against the
American people. As I listened to Rep. Kucinich invoke the great engine
of impeachment—he listed some 35 crimes by these two faithless
officials—we heard, like great bells tolling, the voice of the
Constitution itself speak out ringingly against those who had tried to
destroy it.

Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st
century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the
republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a
president bent on great crime. And as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I
realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network,
would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of
Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for
crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles
requesting impeachment.

But then I have known for a long time that the media of the U.S. and too
many of its elected officials give not a flying fuck for the welfare of
this republic, and so I turned, as I often do, to the foreign press for
a clear report of what has been going on in Congress. We all know how
the self-described "war hero," Mr. John McCain, likes to snigger at
France, while the notion that he is a hero of any kind is what we should
be sniggering at. It is Le Monde, a French newspaper, that told a story
the next day hardly touched by The New York Times or The Washington Post
or The Wall Street Journal or, in fact, any other major American media
outlet.

As for TV? Well, there wasn't much—you see, we dare not be divisive
because it upsets our masters who know that this is a perfect country,
and the fact that so many in it don't like it means that they have been
terribly spoiled by the greatest health service on Earth, the greatest
justice system, the greatest number of occupied prisons—two and a half
million Americans are prisoners—what a great tribute to our penal passions!

Naturally, I do not want to sound hard, but let me point out that even a
banana Republican would be distressed to discover how much of our
nation's treasury has been siphoned off by our vice president in the
interest of his Cosa Nostra company, Halliburton, the lawless gang of
mercenaries set loose by this administration in the Middle East.

But there it was on the first page of Le Monde. The House of
Representatives, which was intended to be the democratic chamber, at
last was alert to its function, and the bravest of its members set in
motion the articles of impeachment of the most dangerous president in
our history. Rep Kucinich listed some 30-odd articles describing
impeachable offenses committed by the president and vice president,
neither of whom had ever been the clear choice of our sleeping polity
for any office.

Some months ago, Kucinich had made the case against Dick Cheney. Now he
had the principal malefactor in his view under the title "Articles of
Impeachment for President George W. Bush"! "Resolved, that President
George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that
the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States
Senate." The purpose of the resolve is that he be duly tried by the
Senate, and if found guilty, be removed from office. At this point, Rep.
Kucinich presented his 35 articles detailing various high crimes and
misdemeanors for which removal from office was demanded by the framers
of the Constitution.

*Update:* On Wednesday, the House voted by 251 to 166 to send Rep.
Kucinich's articles of impeachment to a committee which probably won't
get to the matter before Bush leaves office, a strategy that is "often
used to kill legislation," as the Associated Press noted later that day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this feature, you must be logged in as a sustainer, please. To
become a sustainer go here
<https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>!

E-mail: Password:

Comments

**
By Wright, Neil </zspace/neil>

/

Thank you Alla for that note on Kucinich's vote, revealing the absolute
cynicism of the U.S. Congress. It is sick that Vidal shares some of
that cynicism, holding (or at least wanting us to hold) some hope for
the American Republic and the plutocrats that rule it. Power corrupts,
I don't care if you are a charming little vegan.

/

Reply to this Comment <javascript: void(0);>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I like Gore Vidal, but the truth I like even better*
By , Alla </zspace/allanikonov>

/

His "hero" Kucinich HIMSELF voted to bury his impeachment. The only
people who voted to open debate about it were Republicans, because they
wanted to call the bluff. Dems (even the best of them, like Kucinich,
and he IS the best) are the same rotten lackeys of USA imperialsm as
Bush and Cheney.

I believe that the USA-"republic" (which was NEVER so great anyway) is
going to the dustbin of history. My only fear is that all the humankind
might be destroyed in the process

*********************

Obama's Blind Spot on Israel

June 20, 2008 By *Nadia Hijab*
Source: The Nation online <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/hijab>

Nadia Hijab's ZSpace Page </zspace/nadiahijab>

/Why is Barack Obama courting right-wing groups like AIPAC and steering
clear of the American Jewish left and center? /

Senator Barack Obama has positioned himself as an independent thinker
unafraid to break the Washington mold. He says that, as President, he
would pursue "direct diplomacy" and talk to Iran and to Cuba. There was
no such challenge to Washington norms in Obama's recent speeches to the
pro-Israel lobby
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2BQyyDMXZ2INb%2BdkbDCzRq1WgIqioPoHG>
in Washington and to a synagogue
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=He1hBk8x%2FiDM6LWrcO2tiVWgIqioPoHG>
in Boca Raton, Florida. In both, he reduced the status of the
Palestinians from that of a people with rights to servants of Israel's
security.

Obama's campaign is out of step with changing realities in the country.
It is ignoring fast-growing American Jewish communities that are
redefining what it means to support Israel in the United States. The day
before Obama spoke in Florida, I spoke at a well-attended forum
organized by Brooklyn for Peace
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=l63jqiYQAMoFvZOnOA7JIFWgIqioPoHG>.
The main organizers and my two co-panelists were American Jews, and it
soon became clear that many in the audience were too.

There were no dissenting voices as our panel spoke of the desperate
conditions of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, the
Palestinian right of return, and equal rights for all citizens of
Israel. Indeed, many of the questions were from Jews who wanted to know
how to talk about the issues to other Jews--and, especially, to their
mothers.

This may sound like a fringe event, but it was not. One co-panelist was
a New York University department chair, and the other an active member
of Jewish Voice for Peace, a group that has grown from a small
California base to a nationwide organization. It has 20,000 people on
its e-mail list. Its blog, Muzzlewatch
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wbXnI7QVqCFZ2bL2ungHnlWgIqioPoHG>,
tracks those who seek to stifle criticism of Israel's occupation, and is
one of the most-frequented blogs in the country.

If we put the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs
Committee) at the right of the political spectrum, then these American
Jews are certainly on the left. Interestingly, because it is likely to
be more threatening to AIPAC, there's change in the center, too. Here a
large cluster of American Jewish groups is making the case that peace
with the Palestinians is essential to Israel's very survival. The center
includes Americans for Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek
v'Shalom, and the freshly minted J-Street
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ATjUFR5arhInQnay1k2v9VWgIqioPoHG>,
which is squaring up to be the "other" Israel lobby.

I would not define the contours of a just peace in the same way as the
American Jewish center does. We differ, for example, on the Palestinian
right of return and the notion that Israel can be Jewish and be democratic.

However, what is far more significant in American political terms is
that the American Jewish center defines peace very differently from the
way AIPAC does. AIPAC and its allied American Jewish and Christian
Zionist groups are currently the stronger force, but the center's
numbers are not negligible. J-Street, for example, teamed up with
MoveOn.org to get tens of thousands of signatures on a petition asking
presidential candidate John McCain to renounce pastor John Hagee after
the latter said, "God sent Hitler to cause the Holocaust so that Jews
would move to Israel." J-Street claimed victory when McCain renounced
Hagee.

Yet Obama steers clear of the American Jewish left and center. There are
frequent media reports about his campaign distancing itself from
advisors that might be seen as anything less than 100 percent pro-Israel.

The media also continues to give significant coverage to Obama's abrupt
break with Palestinian Americans that were former friends and fellow
human rights advocates. He has moved from acknowledging Palestinian
"suffering" in times past to a single-minded focus on Israel's security
without even a nod to the besieged Gazans, most of whom now live--as
former President Jimmy Carter recently noted--on one meal a day because
of Israel's siege.

Obama is out of step with his country here, too. This year, as never
before, Palestinian stories of loss and dispossession have been widely
featured alongside coverage of the 60th year of Israel's creation. There
has never been a better time for a politician to buck Washington trends
and listen to the Palestinian voice.

But the Obama campaign, having placed Palestinian Americans beyond the
pale, appears to be too apprehensive even to reach out to American Jews
that challenge AIPAC-style politics. Is the Senator who has brought hope
to so many by preaching "change we can believe in" positioning himself
behind the curve of change?

Nadia Hijab is a senior fellow at the Washington, DC, office of the
Institute for Palestine Studies <http://www.palestine-studies.org/>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this feature, you must be logged in as a sustainer, please. To
become a sustainer go here
<https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>!