Fitz--The Next Role of Government

To explore the concept raised by Stuart, Global Federalist Papers, let me begin with an excerpt from George Orwell’s 1984:

“…there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low…the aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim—for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives—is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins again. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there had been no progress of a material kind…the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.”

I apologize for the long quotation, but I feel it captures much of the continual and recurring conflicts that we see in global affairs throughout history. Many have remarked on the inherent conflict caused by class distinctions and this is nothing new, however, is there no solution to this inherent conflict?

The dark future depicted by Orwell describes one method for eliminating this conflict, a totalitarian regime that ensures that the High stay in power permanently. Karl Marx advocated that this conflict could be resolved through elimination of class distinctions through revolution and the modes of production being handed to and owned equally by the proletariat.

Both solutions are unworkable. No one wants to live under the dominion of the High as depicted in 1984. And it has been found that communism is far too utopian and ignores much about human nature to be a workable society.

However, this does not necessarily mean that we cannot ameliorate such conflicts. The High and the Middle do not necessarily have to work solely in their own interest, but can also work to uplift the Low. Any student of political philosophy can readily see the preoccupation with the role of government being the protection of property. Political philosophers from Hobbes to Locke to Marx are preoccupied with either the protection of property (Locke) or in creating equality of ownership of property (Marx).

This preoccupation with property being at the heart of much political theory and philosophy has contributed greatly to how we have constructed our own government. Locke is often considered the “grandfather” of the American republic, and so he should be, his ideas about the natural rights of “Life, Liberty, and Property” are directly reflected in our Declaration of Independence (with a slight variation of property to “pursuit of happiness”).

Political philosophers quickly recognized human beings as being materialistic and so often defined society or the “social contract” as being something born out of a desire for mutual protection and protection of life, liberty, and property. A mutual compact to protect individuals from each other. For Thomas Hobbes, this meant a giving your consent to be ruled by an absolute monarch or dictator. However, Locke conceived that individuals also needed to be protected from such rulers as they could threaten your life, liberty, and property at any time. Our own governmental system is one that is designed to secure natural rights, as conceived by Locke, for all its citizens. For Locke, the only purpose of government is to protect these rights, nothing else.

Additionally, the founders of the American republic wanted a stronger central government partially out of fear that the masses might redistribute wealth following Shay’s Rebellion. It was also a system designed by elites to be an elite centered system. The founders had a distrust of the masses and wanted to guard against an impassioned mob from making rash policy.

The creation of the American system of government was quite unique and was the first time such a government had ever been attempted. And it is a good system, one designed to ensure the natural rights of individuals, to ensure their protection, even against the government. The power of government is limited.

It might then be easy to think that the evolution of political thought had reached its peak or the evolution of what government’s role is in society had ceased. However, I do not believe this to be the case and how democracy is practiced has changed over the last couple centuries both here and in our European counterparts.

What the North American and European democracies have attempted to achieve since their inception is political equality. Of course, political equality has at times not been granted to certain groups, woman and minorities have often struggled to gain political equality, but there has been a steady and constant expansion of what political equality means and who deserves these liberties.

While political equality has often been something our systems have striven for, there has been debate on what exactly equality means. Do we mean equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunities? Does this extend beyond politics? Should we strive for equality of means as well?

I am of the belief that we should. No matter what your views are on free market or a system that advocates equality of opportunity, the simple fact remains that in such a system people have different starting positions. Those of the High or Middle have opportunities and means that the Low does not possess. And often times the system is set up in such a way as to ensure that more power and wealth accrue for those in the higher classes.

No where is this more pronounced that in the global system. I have written about it many times and about possible solutions. But what it takes is recognition and the belief that human beings are entitled not only to political equality, but are also entitled to the basics of human security. This means freedom from oppression (their political equality suppressed), but also freedom from poverty, hunger, violence, disease, and poor living conditions.

Any global entity that is created to govern must also seek to correct these gross inequalities that exist. It must recognize the dignity of every human being that is deserving of a true equality of means and opportunity to seek their potential.

Article II. The function of government is to secure the dignity of for all under its rule. International government must strive to ensure that all those under its rule are guaranteed freedom from pervasive threats to their freedoms, their safety, and their lives. This means every human being is entitled to adequate health care, shelter, food, and freedom from violence. This means that every human being is entitled to real equality of opportunity and the minimum of an adequate standard of living.

Of course, the ideals presented by sustainable development and human security (see other post by me) would help to articulate this idea better. Clearly, at the global level, gross inequalities exist and must be addressed before any international government can come to power that all individuals can support.

Stuart-- The pursuit of knowledge/lies.

“Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.” –From the books of Bokonon.

For most of my life I have been engaged in either the pursuit of knowledge or discovering what is false. As a scientist you recognize that truths may be inter-subjective or quisi-objective but you still have faith that there is something that is true. In Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut puts forth the idea that the only important things in life are lies, lies that are essential to believe because it is only through those lies that we can lead happy lives. Truly knowing how things work, how life operates, destroys those lies and makes life seem like “something the cat drug in.”

This has put me to thinking what are the lies that we believe and that if truths were discovered, would effectively end our happiness. I know that Trent (and Vonnegut) argue religion is one such lie, but I myself am not prepared to address that. I will however address the idea of the American Dream being an important lie and one that has immeasurable benefit to those that believe and pursue it.

As the story goes, with enough ingenuity and work anyone in the US can become successful with no limits. Anecdotal stories abound of self-made businessmen and women. White picket fence, two dogs, platinum card and whatever else someone wants they can achieve if they just work hard enough. Truth mongers argue that this is not the reality due to systems of oppression, prejudice and closed opportunities. If one believes the lie, one will endeavor to work as hard as one can and to engage in as many pursuits as necessary to achieve the dream. If one believes the truth, it seems best to simply give up from the beginning or at least to proceed with increased cynicism and anger.

There are many other lies that make life enjoyable for many people out there. One wonders that if someone engaged in the pursuit of truth is not doomed to a life of disappointment, since upon discovering truth that person is worse off than before any journey was taken.

Fitz--A Possible Utopian Society of the Future (re-post)

After warning against the dangers of blindly following technology in my 2084 post, I am going to argue that the advance of civilization can produce a society that allows for the ultimate fulfillment of human potential and happiness. The ancient Greeks called it Eudaimonic. A Eudaimonic society encourages each citizen to achieve happiness through the striving to fulfill completely his or her potential.

The best way to achieve this is by freeing humankind from the necessity of making a living. Humankind (in the industrialized world) is forced into a system where they spend the first 20 years of their life in a holding pattern, waiting to enter society as a producing and consuming member. Current capitalist society which promotes and socializes humans to strive for individual excellence, is built on the premise that by working hard, you will be rewarded with a wealth of material possessions (which one is socialized to desire).

Now imagine if humankind could be free of the necessity to make a living. What would one do with oneself? The Greeks (who had shit figured out a long-time ago), strived for excellence of mind, body, and community (the city-state). Of course having a large amount of slave labor freed them from the necessities of making a living. And it is in Greek society that we see the intellectual birth of Western philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, etc...

So am I advocating a return to slave labor society, of course not. But like Marx, who observed perhaps several generations too soon, industrialized modern society has a great potential for production. So vast, it could eventually provide all the necessities of humankind.

Now imagine if all the necessities of life were provided for, not by slave labor, but by mechanized labor (cybernectic, AI, whatever). This would once again free human beings, as with the Greeks before, to pursue a life which best brings out their fullest potential, thus achieving happiness, not through the acquisition of material possessions, but through self-fulfillment.

Of course this would take a radical break from the traditional values of current society. It is still individualistic in that you strive for your own personal best, but emphasis is placed on what you contribute to the community--for the Greeks--the city-state. During the height of Greek civilization you see the greatest writers, poets, and intellectuals which served as the foundation for Western civilization. With the resources we have now, what could we achieve?

However, this may not be as radical as it seems when you consider that a communitarian lifestyle has been the norm of most of human existence. I am talking about the couple of million years of human existence. The focus on the individualism and the drive for wealth produced by capitialist society is relatively new.

So, there is my utopia. Of course I can imagine a far different course for the current run of technology--one that produces terrifying means to subjugate and control human beings--far worse than what George Orwell thought. See the post entitled 2084.

Part 2

So having outlined in a previous post what my concept of future society is, based on the Greek concept of Eudiamonic, I have been challenged to demonstrate how this would be desirable.

That human beings are unhappy with their current state of affairs should be relatively apparent. I am not trying to make a broad generalization that all human beings are unhappy, depressed, and agitated. However, there are signs that the current state of society is under stress.

Movies as a form of media may be the most telling.

Recently there has been a growing family of movies, across genres, that have a same underlying theme: A rejection of modernity, materialism, and consumerism. Fight Club is of course an easy example. The Matrix also falls into this category. The Matrix movies represent a complete rejection of the materialistic world--often the characters reject the virtual consumer capitalistic world of the matrix and join the egalitarian community of revolutionaries dedicated to destroying the matrix and humankinds slavery to the culture of the matrix (along with plenty of christian, buddhist, and hindu philosophy thrown in there as well for an interesting mix).

We also see movies where the protagonists somehow "bribe" their bosses into giving them an annual salary to do nothing. Fight Club has Ed Norton's character bribing his boss to give him an annual salary as an "outside consultant" and travel vouchers in exchange for his silence about his company's shady doings. In American Beauty, Kevin Spacey's character bribes his boss as well into an annual salary, so he can spend his time at home or working at McDonald's (reliving the carefree days of his youth) dreaming of having sex with a teenage girl.

Comedies like Office Space and Old School show characters in angst over their current working conditions and living and who concoct ways to escape from this reality. In Office Space, after analyzing their shitty office life, our three office rebels develop a program to secretly rob the company of thousands of dollars based on the "Superman III" scheme. The characters of Old School reject the current state of their lives and try to relive the good old days of college to create a fraternity for 30 somethings. Of course there are also countless books, The Paradox of Progress being the most recent. You need only look at the proliferation of "self-help" books as another indication of our growing sense of unhappiness with our lives (yes, I know--some are so enamored, so hopelessly connected to the system...)

What does all this add up to? A growing sense that our current society does not provide the means to make human beings feel happy and fulfilled. These movies may represent a wider feeling of the need to escape the boring. mundanity of a capitalist society that forces human beings into one kind of life--work, make money, buy a house and lots of other consumer goods. In these movies, we see a rejection of this. Attempts being made to alter their reality in a way that sets them free.

When human beings no longer have to worry about how they are going to make ends meet, or buy that new car, or make the next mortgage payment--what then?

I would argue that these movies show what human beings would do with such freedom. Office Space, Old School, and American Beauty represent a class of individuals who would do nothing. They would be decadent and pursue only physical pleasures. They would not really contribute anything to society, advance humanity's knowledge, build or create anything (except perhaps more ways to have fun).

However, you have those individuals in Fight Club and the Matrix, who use their new freedom to try and fight for something. These examples are somewhat flawed in that they use their freedom to fight the still present social order (they are revolutionaries). However, I believe that similar individuals, visionaries, would also emerge. While many would no doubt follow decadent pursuits (and if this fulfills them, then that is the point), you would also have individuals who would not be satisfied with worldly pursuits. They would seek knowledge, adventure, arts, crafts, music, etc... These pioneers would be the ones to advance humanity and enrich it further. Free from the confines of making a wage, they would be utterly free to pursue those things that make them happy and at the same time advance humanity as a whole. It does take a bit of reeducation, one must strive for individual excellence, but have a love and a desire to improve one's community.

But as I said before, the Ancient Greeks had this shit figured out a long time ago.

Venezuela's Chavez pushes for Socialism

CARACAS (Reuters) - President Hugo Chavez's nationalization push this week shows that despite his sometimes apocalyptic rhetoric, he calculates how far he can go in seeking to turn Venezuela into his vision of a socialist state.

Chavez on Monday announced takeovers of the telecommunications and power sectors. Investors, concerned the leftist ex-soldier was creating a centralized Cuba-style economy, rushed to sell Venezuelan holdings.

While he threatened an even more sweeping offensive against private property, the details of the plan that emerged during the week revealed the plan was typical of his bold brinkmanship and more limited in scope than initially feared.

After losing a fifth of its value the day after the announcement, the Caracas stock exchange quickly recovered some ground. The local currency saw a similar swing and debt bonds traded as if the risk of investing in Venezuela increased only slightly.

It became increasingly clear Chavez's new push for what he calls "21st century socialism" will retain the
OPEC member's links to multinational capitalism, rather than burning bridges like Latin America's leftists of the past.

"While there is a certain degree of improvisation to the latest wave of actions, it's in keeping with many of the steps they have taken up until now," said Patrick Esteruelas, an analyst with Eurasia Group in New York.

Chavez's plan does not include nationalization of the property of huge oil companies like Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, an implicit recognition these companies provide key revenues for his free spending on the poor that secured his re-election last month.

Government officials have also said investors in companies facing nationalization will be compensated for assets, meaning the government is not expropriating property as in Cuba's 1959 revolution led by Chavez's mentor,
Fidel Castro.

Chavez's initial announcement described a broad takeover of the entire telecommunications sector, but the government later clarified that the move was limited to just the top company in the industry, CANTV.

The government has also said it does not have plans to take over mining companies, which were feared targets.

Chavez has spent nearly eight years carefully balancing his promises for leftist revolution with an oil-driven market economy that has given him the resources to finance a massive social development campaign for Venezuela's poor majority.

POWER GRAB

After his landslide re-election, Chavez went almost two weeks without making a public appearance -- unusual for the notoriously talkative president -- as he apparently considered a radical strategy for his new term.

Along with the nationalization push, Chavez is working to centralize power, seeking to legislate by decree, end the central bank's autonomy and refuse a renewed concession to an opposition-linked television station.

He has said these new decisions are to meet the demands of an electorate that wants socialism -- and wants him in office for decades.

"Country, socialism or death," he cried on taking the oath of office on Wednesday.

Walter Molano, head of research at BCP Securities, a Latin American broker-dealer based in Greenwich, Connecticut, said Chavez was less concerned with the ideology of socialism than with hard-nosed tactics to stay in power long-term.

"He understood very well that the consolidation of economic control under his mandate would provide him with the political longevity that he desperately desires," Molano wrote in a research note.

Stuart-- The Becoming

To the People of the World:

After an unequivocal failure due to the inefficiency and inability of the international order, you are called upon to deliberate on a new global institution for the preservation of global rights and survival. The topic speaks its own importance; there is nothing more important to man as a species than its own preservation and success. The safety and welfare of the international community as a whole benefits all members within that community. It has been recently stated that it is reserved to the people of a country to decide the important questions concerning security and freedom and to secure embark on those endeavors as islands unto themselves. Self-determined responsibility is important and there is truth in that belief, but we are not isolated from those around us and we must endeavor towards an improved situation as a community of interests.

To begin this voyage towards a new international order I put the question to all of you: what would the essential characters of a new international constitution look like that would aid in the creation of those institutions most important to establishing a new order?

I begin with this:
Article I. The function of government is to secure liberty for all under its rule. To this end there shall be established new branches of international government. To curb the dangerous zeal that might oppress minorities and that can come with firmness and efficiency of government there shall also be established a separate branch of government that will sit outside all others with the sole job of ensuring that no rights be infringed in the name of the majority.

Trent--Fascist America?

Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

Trent--Ring any bells? I would say so. What do you think?

Trent--Prayer is Superstition

Click continue reading to view the page with video.





Enjoy!

New Wave of Troops Set for Iraq
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer, 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON - The first of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops will move into Iraq by month's end under President Bush's new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged to hold a vote on the increase, which many Democrats oppose.

Details of a gradual military buildup emerged a day before Bush's planned speech to the nation, in which he also will propose a bit over $1 billion to shore up the country's battered economy and create jobs, said a second U.S. official.

Bush is expected to urge friendly Mideast countries to increase their aid to Iraq but will ignore the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study group that he include Syria and Iran in an effort to stanch Iraqi bloodshed nearly four years after the U.S. invasion, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not yet been announced.

Bush is expected to link the troop increase to promised steps by the Iraqi government to build up its own military, ease the country's murderous sectarian tensions, increase reconstruction and enact a plan to distribute oil revenues among the country's religious sects.

Even before he delivers his speech, Bush's plan has drawn sharp criticism from the leaders of the new, Democratic-controlled Congress. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hoped for a bipartisan measure that would declare, "We don't support this escalation of the war." If it passes, "the president's going to have to take note of that. I think that's the beginning of the end, as far as I'm concerned," he said.

Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Pelosi, said Tuesday night, "The House will vote on the president's proposal." She said she had no details.

The president met during the day with lawmakers, practiced his speech and briefed key foreign allies, including calls to the leaders of Britain, Australia and Denmark. Bush was expected to practice his speech a couple of more times before addressing the nation at 9 p.m. EST Wednesday from the White House Library.

Under Bush's plan, thousands of troops will be alerted that they may be needed in Iraq _ including units already there whose service would be extended, or others that could be sent earlier than initially scheduled, said one official.

Moving first into Iraq would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is now in Kuwait and poised to head quickly into the country, the defense official said. The brigade, numbering about 3,500 troops, is based at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Other units, including Marine brigades in western Iraq, could be asked to extend their deployment. And the military buildup is also likely to include moving the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis into the Persian Gulf region, as a show of force and a warning to Iran and Syria.

There are already about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

According to the defense official, Bush also will discuss the need to address how often the Pentagon can tap the National Guard and Reserves, although he may provide few details. And Bush will again endorse the need to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

The speech looms as a key one for Bush, who is beginning the final two years of his presidency waging a war that has scant public support and whose own popularity has plummeted as well.

The public has heard several previous campaigns by Bush to defend his Iraq policies and show that he is changing with changing circumstances. Since the war's start in March 2003, there have been at least seven public relations offensives by Bush on the war, with some of these speech series timed to milestone events and others to dips in polls.

In Iraq Tuesday, U.S. jets screamed low over the capital and helicopter gunships swooped in to pound a central Baghdad battleground as Iraqi and American troops waged a daylong fight that officials said killed 50 insurgents in a militant Sunni Arab stronghold.

Iraqi police, meanwhile, reported finding 52 bodies dumped in three cities, 41 of them in Baghdad, all apparent victims of sectarian reprisal killings.

Bush has met with more than 110 lawmakers in recent days to discuss his plan, and some offered details Tuesday.

"The president believes that the Iraqi forces aided by American forces will be able to clean out Baghdad and stabilize Baghdad and leave as he put it 'space' for a political reconciliation process to unify the country and stabilize Iraq," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., one of 12 Democratic lawmakers who met with Bush Tuesday.

Andrews said the meeting was "dominated by our skepticism of whether the Iraqi forces are willing to fight for their own government."

Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expected Bush to announce that up to 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq but not to say how long the extra forces will be there. He said he believed Bush will signal that the overall U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.

A key element of the plan will be the increased responsibilities taken on by the Iraqis. Bush is expected to link the troop increase to efforts by the Iraqi government to curb Shiite militias that have terrorized the Sunni minority, as well as moves to ease government restrictions on members of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Tuesday that he believes the Baghdad government suggested some of the conditions, such as their ongoing efforts to get more Iraqi forces trained and equipped for battle and committing more money for reconstruction.

Leading the opposition, Sen. Edward Kennedy, a longtime critic, introduced legislation that would deny the president the billions needed to send more troops unless Congress agreed first. It was unclear whether the bill would ever reach the full Senate, but it could serve as a rallying point for critics.

White House press secretary Tony Snow conceded that Bush has a challenge in convincing a war-weary public.

"The president will not shape policy according to public opinion, but he does understand that it's important to bring the public back to this war and restore public confidence and support for the mission," Snow said.

Trent--Seriously--57% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq--54% believe it was not worth it to go to Iraq--61% do not approve of troop escalation according to news polls and pollingreport.com. The Democratically controlled congress is in opposition--do we live in a democracy or not? The President of the United States should respect the democratic process, instead, he ignores it!

Fitz--On God (re-post)

Time to open a can of worms.

So as a follow up to my “On Death” entry, I am going to try and re-conceptualize god based on what we scientifically know about the universe. What many people I think fail to realize is that god has been re-conceptualized many times throughout history. Polytheism gave way to monotheism for much of western civilization; Judaism gave way to Christianity, Christianity to Islam for many people. Many prophets in history come along and reinvent religion. They keep some of its old tenants but come up with a whole new belief system. However, rarely is it ever compatible with our growing knowledge of the world around us. Some try, but they are often ignored and religion and science seem to be constantly at odds with one another.

Many scientists throughout history don’t want it to be this way. In fact many argue that they are simply revealing god’s work. Galileo, Newton, and Einstein all come to mind as they sometimes would make references to a creator.

So why not reinvent god so as to be compatible with what we scientifically know about the world around us? Why not combine the two so we have logical symmetry concerning our pursuit of knowledge and the quest for the divine?

From what we know of the universe around us, what does that tell us about god? As I mentioned in the “On Death” entry below (yes, skip over the total geek out moment), our knowledge of the relationship between matter, energy, the observer, and the cosmos in general is going through some new and radical ideas. The idea of multiple universes and dimensions connected together with physical laws different for each is one example.

Now concerning the birth of our universe, the “Big Bang.” In the initial phases of that initial explosion of matter and energy, the physical laws that would come to govern our universe were in flux. The enormous energy and initial expansion of the universe was so great, that what we consider normal physical laws was in flux. Now trust me, I do not understand the physics or the complex mathematics of all this, so I am trusting the sources, but the general idea was that the physical laws we have come to know that govern our universe are part of a random collusion of forces after that initial explosion. Thus, with the idea of multiple universes, you have different physical laws; their initial formation will be inherently random.

Randomness seems inherent to the structure of the universe. Yes, we have set, observable physical laws now (or so we thought, even that is being challenged), but it was not always the case. Randomness is built into the formation of stars and solar systems, our genetic structure and the coupling of mother’s genes to father’s genes when conceiving new life, right down to the molecular level, where the movement of electrons in an atom is so infinitely random, it is impossible to predict.

So what would this suggest about god? That such a being is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni benevolent? I don’t think so. For one, there is a philosophical argument regarding the illogical of being both omnipotent and omniscient (I will go into that in a later entry perhaps)—but I think many of you know it. With randomness built into the very structure of the universe, making the foretelling of the future virtually impossible whether for celestial objects, genetic couplings, subatomic particles poker games, or the weather, I believe that this suggests that god is none of the three big Os mentioned above.

It was pure chance that created us, blind stupid luck to be in this universe with the right physical laws to have an expanding universe with an abundance of matter. Blind stupid luck to be in a solar system that formed with a planet set in that “life zone.” Blind luck that pairs of amino acids came together in the primordial soup of our young planet to form life. Luckier that that life survived, became more complex and eventually produced a species that is capable of intelligent thought and is self-aware.

So what does this say about god? Einstein in his search for “Theory of Everything” commented that god does not throw dice. Implying that he believed we were close to understanding the whole big mystery, that all of god’s tricks would be revealed.

God does throw dice is what the new theories are saying.

So what does that say about god? Powerful, yes. Intelligent, yes. But not omnipotent or omniscient. I would argue that god had no idea what was going to happen when things were set in motion (if we believe that a creator is necessary that is, as I mentioned in my “On Death” post, some scientists who study the origin of the universe believe that the idea of creator is almost unnecessary now, that the universe was just here).

God threw the dice to see what would happen. A highly creative and intelligent god who wanted to see what randomness could produce. I bet such a being marvels at its creation, not knowing what would spring up out of the dark regions of his creation, the grand experiment.

Perhaps we are teaching it about what it means to be moral. Randomness has no moral code. The lesser species that walk this earth go about daily living, hunting and killing for food, random chance determining which fox gets fed, which squirrel gets eaten—there is no moral code here. Perhaps it is learning from us, having never dreamed that something like us would emerge from its creation.

Then again it is highly intelligent and maybe once finding the joy of intelligent life being born out of its creation it touched and talked to us for a time, tried to teach us…then withdrew when it realized that it was interfering with the inherent randomness that it created.

There you have it, my conception of god based on what we know of the nature of the universe. I do stress that this is my conception; perhaps you would interpret the relationship differently. I am sure I will argue with some of you about the incompatibility between randomness and omnipotence and omniscience. I look forward to it.