Putting a bad education to good work…

Lakewood University in Thunder Bay, On. has launched a new and not-so surprisingly popular not recruitment campaign. As some may or not know (and a few who refuse to believe) Bush graduated from Yale university, one of the US’s premier Ivy league institutions, in 1968. And we are not talking about Jebb or Daddy Bush, but the slow one G.W. Although most people will pass this off as either the power of money or that alcoholism is not all bad.

Anyway, this premier star of the anti-intellectual league is being harnessed by Lakewood to promote their own academic offerings(http://www.yaleshmale.com). Although Lakewood Vice-Chancellor, Frederick Gilbert, said that “older generations…have looked at is as not appropriate”, online comments have been almost unanimously positive and the site has had thousands of hits. Will this “tongue-in-cheek” campaign work…who know, but it does show promise for GW who can now rest easy at night knowing that if he can’t get any job anywhere else, a career in advertising…er, advertising props seems to be a real possibility. Don’t say that an Ivy League education is not work anything in the real world.

Israel: A definition of delusional

I find it funny, that people will do the very thing that will make their lives harder in the future because they believe it might make things better now. Israel right now is doing more harm to its own long-term security than anything it has done since the colonization of the West Bank. Every day the killing continues Hezbollah gets stronger; the more Lebanese who die, the more rational their claims become; Everyday Israel claims it is just trying to stop the rocket attacks, the more isolated Israel will become.

A definition of delusional is when someone does the same thing twice but expects different results. Israel has invaded southern Lebanon at least 3 times with the intention of “cleaning” the area of “terrorists”. Each time its enemies have returned stronger, more deferent and better armed. Why should this time be different? Since the 1967 war, everyone has accepted that Israel exists and will exist even if their hopes differ; the reality of the situation told them otherwise. Propaganda is good to rally the troops but it did not change the strength of the Israeli army. Radicals and fundamentalists may deny Israel’s right to exist but they can not deny it exists.

I heard a disturbing thing the other day from an interview with Air America talk show host Al Franken. They were beginning to fear for the existence of Israel in fact. Israel, which has reluctantly made peace (or near-peace) with its neighbours and thus removed the only viable threat to Israel’s existence, has so damaged its relationships with those neighbours; its main benefactor, the US, has so enraged the region because of iraq; the naked anti-Arab sentiment running through both nations has had the effect of strengthen its enemies. Iran, prior to 2003, isolated has become the power in the Middle East, to the point where it can pose a credible challenge to Israel. It is the credibility of this challenge that is the true threat to the existence of Israel.

It has been pointed out that it is impossible to distinguish between combatant and civilians in the attack on southern Lebanon. Israel has also said it will not stop until it has eliminated ever combatant from the region (at that point they would allow peace-keepers on Lebanese soil). This means, and I think it was the intent, that Israel intends to kill everyone in southern Lebanon with the implicit understanding that if you are there you are guilty. This genocide is why Israel should really fear for its future. If that is the standard they are setting, they too may someday be judged. It is also in the works that if Hezbollah is receiving support from Syria and/or Iran than these too must die, it is the logical outcome of the Olmert Doctrine.

Lets us remember too that Syria is not a fundamentalist country, which in fact it is markedly anti-fundamentalist because that would threaten the current power structure. Their support for Hezbollah, what there is, is solely to keep Israel in check, something all Arab states will need to rework now. Syria still wished to reclaim its own occupied territory, the Golan Heights, which I lost in the 1967 war. So it uses, not a good thing showing Israel is not the only villain in the area, radicals in south Lebanon as a bargaining chip to restore its lands.

Iran on the other hand is a nut of a different shape; I believe it is really that radical or at least playing that role to improve its geo-political position as a counter to the Christian/corporate fundamentalism of the US. This is why things will be getting worse for Israel and the US not better as Israel’s rape of Southern Lebanon only straightens Iran’s position as the true defenders of the Middle East, something that makes its neighbours nervous about (the traditional rivalry of Sunni Vs Shiite)

It’s these threat that may cause more escalation as Israel, using the Olmert Doctrine first bombs Syria “supply routs” for Hezbollah, then an attack on Iran as the source of the missiles hitting northern Israel. This would signal the end of both the US presence or at least influence and the beginning of the end of Israel. This event would provide the spark that would ignite the Middle East in a fundamentalist inferno unchecked by the current US sponsored authoritarian governments. That would be bad for everyone.

The end of the familiy...Part II

As we mentioned in part I, there are four functions to the family. So far we have fulfilled 2 of the 4 functions, the first function is easiest to solve, with the advent of science and technology; it is possible for almost any women to become pregnant. In time, this function could be replaced by machines. But until then it will be necessary, at some point, to ensure a certain number of children are born women will be encouraged to perform their duty.

It should be noted, in this world, procreation and raising (socializing) the child are separate tasks. A biological birther will only be needed for the gestations period, after birth, they will be required to return to their previous social collective. It should also be required, if population number require control, and they may not, to issue birth licences, at least until the animalistic urge to reproduce uncontrollably is evolved out of.

The creation of fair and equitable licences will be relatively easy, for those worried about Aryanism remember in modern genetics; diversity is the most important feature of creating or maintaining a viable population. Aryanism by definition is a dead end. The hard part will be the limiting of those with out licensing but this could be accomplished by reversible sterilization at birth. As part of the successful licensing, this sterilization would either be negated or artificial insemination would occur. Now three of the four functions are covered, but once they are born then what?

The final function of family performs that must be accounted for is the socialization, or raising, of children. This function would be dealt with in the same manner as the others. There would be communes or homes were people who wished to raise children would accept into their domain the child, these would be Storgeships.

These rearing homes might specialize in age groups are in cradle to grave (or maturity). It is a fact that the more people who care for a child the better are its chance of being better adapted and a valued participant in society. It would also benefit from the fact that only those wishing to raise children and only those qualified would have an active part.

This mode would not eliminate any other citizens from interacting with the child, but it would be the whole who would act as guide guardian and mentor to the youth. There would, however, be an advantage to ensure that a birth mother never knows who its bio-implant was. Historically kinships have created hierarchies and inequity as the mother inevitable favours her bio-kin (although in some cases this is the opposite if the child fails the mother’s expectations).

It would be good to use the animalistic instincts, so if they wish it bio-mothers would be allowed to participate in child socializations, but never knowing who there bio-kin is. This system would require external monitoring to prevent abuse, but because you would have several “parents” or mentors the chances of anyone or two having the opportunity to abuse the children would be greatly decreases. So to would the possibility of poor, destructive, anti-social or negative education and socialization would also be decreased because the group is more likely to arrive at a correct consensus than any individual discover it by chance.

The loss of the tradition family would make the next step in human evolution where we reduced the chains of individualism and learned that we are a communal one our species can achieve thing no other ever has, or ever will. United we are strong, isolated we die.

Solidarity and unity…VIVA THE REVOLUTION!!!

The end of the family...Part I

The other day I had a discussion with some classmates over what is a family and more specifically alternatives. It was brought up in our readings ("The Ultimate Revolution" by Shulamith Firestone in Ethical issues in interpersonal communicaiton ISBN0-15-508257-4) that a more positive and ultimately stable form of relationships would be to abolish the institution of marriage. This would be in the context of a open and free society so those who insisted on the continuance of such idea would be free to live as they thought fit.

The purpose of marriage in to define ones family, and there are truly four (albeit disputable) main purposed:

• The procreation of children
• The socialization of children into the larger society
• The mutual care and support of fellow members
• The regulation of sexual behaviours.

If we lived in a society that allowed for the fluid and free forming relations to form, were there was no contractual obligation to remain with the person beyond the mutual desirability, we would eliminate the major cause of domestic abuse. We could call these relationships Eroships. This could be between any number of individuals and exists only as long as there is mutual consent. Intimate relationships would have to exist with in the confines of these friendships, but because of the transient nature of them, lust should still flow freely but only as the will of the participants. This we no-longer need the family for perform duty 4, the regulation of sexual behaviour.

But our needs for companionship and aid exist beyond that of lust, there is also the support, moral, psychological and material, that we offer member of our family, what of these. Again, we look at free forming relationships. We find in the real work that people outside of kin relationships help others. In fact is could be argued that if we had no kin relationships we would treat everyone as though there were kin. By removing the implicit hierarchy found in kin relationships; we remover the hierarchy found in society. These relationships formed for mutual aide, irrespective of kinship, we could call Agapeships a communal living arrangement intended on the mutual care and companionship of fellow members.

Now most people would say that the able and healthy will abandon the needy. That those homes with the able will prosper inequitably and at the expense of the needy. This is true and would happen if it were not for the ingrained believe in the communal. The greater family we form or our Philiaships, our loyalty to the common good. It is the understanding that comes out of the evolution of the traditional hierarchal family unit that we all members of the same family, that we prosper only as much as the lest among us and suffer as little as the one who suffers the most. Martin Luther King put it:

”The…good… [make] concern for others the first law of…life…He is a part of me and I am a part of him. His Agony diminishes me, and his salvation enlarges me”

Societies are not judged by what they for the powerful, they are not judged by how pamper the rich; no they are judged by how they have treated the worst off, by the poorest, the weakest. It is the only measure that any moral person can see having value. So we need to educate our people that wealth is not found in things, but in people; in the whole. When this society is created caring, truly caring for ones fellow person will both a pre-requisite and a necessity at least by the majority and it is the majority that will benefit most from this mindset.