Cogito et scio invicem . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

NEWS PAGE                                                                                                  

Content:                                                                             

  • Science Editorial
  • Science & Technology
  • World News 
  • Art
  • Government
  • Humor
  • Business
  • New to the Internet
  • Music
  • Web site design
  • Web site promotion
  • Research
  • Environment
  • Spiritual
  • Sports

 

 

Political Science Editorial

 Elect Senator John McCain to the Presidency of Our Country

          By Marilynn Stark

     In considering for whom to vote in the upcoming presidential election a sense of loss of perspective might come over any thinking individual who stands to consider also the profound moment we are witnessing.  The perspective one would hope to hold when choosing a candidate for nomination to the United States presidency should be issue-oriented at the best -- what would a candidate accomplish as leader according to his belief system?   However, the issues at hand today tap the question of war in the presidential election forum as we now countenance our nation's occupation of Iraq militarily.  Therefore, to see two candidates for the nomination of the prominent Democratic party tenaciously pursuing the ticket in the primaries so as to gain the Electoral College votes in this time when American soldiers are in harm's way in a foreign country itself creates a vital purpose to adhere to the primacy of issues.  

     However, instead of a direct tact which accompanies a traditional voice in this hallowed forum of presidential contenders on the Democratic side, the address of those two Democratic candidates becomes fundamentally somewhat pivotal instead as to how accepting the forum could be.  We witness now the rise of two striving candidates for their party's nomination both of whom are previously unattended in the forum as to typical representation.  One of the contenders, Senator Hillary Clinton, a lady, represents also a  history of civic strife in the extreme known as feminism; the other contender for the nomination is of Black descent.  Women everywhere are contemplating the prospects of a first lady president with their special eye for that feat of greater liberation of the forgiving gender; indeed, the feminine gender is the one whose place in the democratic society must evolve steadily over time through acts of political gains which forgive trespasses against her actual qualifications for work on an equal premise of capability and thus belonging in the wide, wide world -- out there beyond the home and the domestic train of child-bearing.  Black heritage in this country is profound as to its historical importance in expanding the power and place of our relatively young democratic state as these people have arisen out of a graveyard of freedoms through our Civil War.  For full honor to our principles of democracy, we had to abolish their slavery; and we owe this success of a greater, more sound democracy after the Civil War to the miraculous courage, tolerance and spirit of the Black American historically.  Only to see a Black senator from Harvard University contend for the nomination of the office of the presidency of this Republic plants a seed of trust that the nation is blessed now through tried socio-political developments into a more universally egalitarian mind towards a citizen as a citizen first and sacredly so regardless of racial background or belonging.  In a historical perspective, the legal moment gained on the behalf of the Black American through the Emancipation Proclamation and the victory of the Civil War was that of freedom; to then see over great time the Black people hone a more full spectrum of rights and privileges out of that legal rebirth has been a great and enduring lesson for us Americans.  The challenge faced by Blacks after their direct liberation through war in the equally if not more challenging life in society-at-large became the less concrete correspondence of the legal measure to the actual enactment of the legal concept of equality socially and socio-politically.  This was a steep resistance planted in destiny's path for our Black people; they had to rise from society's remains and then remnants of injustices and evils towards them.  They had to transcend the continuing memories of their collective plight and master stubborn, unfair policies and practices towards them at the level of the very fiber of some others of the wider people.  Their civic strife tells an awesome saga of a great race of people whose plight becomes a lesson for all and a test of our republic's ultimate democratic worth, no less than.

     How can a voter gain a clear perspective of the exact leading issues in this presidential campaign, then, when two such prominent Democratic Party leaders carry with their campaigns their own brands of goods which derive from a broad band of issues which concern deeper aspects of the evolving democratic nation that is America?  Think how remarkable these concepts relating to the vibrancy of our democratic health as a nation really are at this time when President George W. Bush holds an active philosophical interest by word and by deed as commander-in-chief of an active, warring army in the spread and preservation of democracy in the wider world?  What drives our current president's thinking is the dint of war in Iraq where our military action serves to justify not only democracy's altruistic underpinnings fundamentally but also the defense militarily of a nation of people who had met in their leader the rule of cruel tyranny, that of Saddam Hussein.  This knowledge of Saddam Hussein in recent history whereupon our feet are now in committed place, in his nation of Iraq, likewise places further the more abstract question of the role of leadership in a nation upon the conceptual table for any voter today who considers issues as relate to war and warring on the behalf of democracy at some cost materially; and further, at humanity's heart does it land when lives are being sacrificed in war in Iraq.  Who can come to this table and place tenets of clear reasoning so desperately needed at this time in order to help the voter consider such weighty issues when those issues are obfuscated by persons who tend by their very belongings categorically to cause the wider image of our democracy to impend instead upon the moment and the matters of their classifications; now we are fanning out the needs of the day into the desire to prove our status as a free nation by the kinds of people our own democratic nation would allow to consider to be president?  Is this contrived?  Who can arrive at the negotiating table whereupon the voter can find decisive reasons to choose a candidate or not and place directly on the plate which also sits on the same table an exact agenda which remains real to the urgent needs of leadership of our country?   Do we need to justify the greatness of our democracy by actually electing a president who represents a so-called minority in terms of classification of such an executive persona?  Is this classification of a properly unprecedented kind of president -- either Black or female -- indeed meet with certain standards of advanced status and excellence in all things democratic such that the incumbent war maker can be sized differently as to justification for defending democracy vicariously on another nation's soil?  Think of how difficult the negotiations at such a table for issue formation on the behalf of the voters in a presidential perspective of impending agenda once elected; the two messengers from a wholesome democratic pool of candidates for our highest office are entitled then to leave behind the weightier questions of timing in war and tout a certain peace for the United States, a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq even on an absolute, abstract premise complete with a prospective timetable?  Such a mandate to end the war unqualifiedly itself would be a feat of war.  It would be born of such complete thinking by a properly democratically endowed candidate as to the non-essential nature of the war in Iraq?  The nature of the war in Iraq holds for everyone a lesson since the lessons of the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War can only be applied to its counterpart in Iraq from the metaphysical considerations of war -- the peoples involved in those two nations are very different from one another.  The Vietnamese were countenanced as indomitable; the Iraqis are weakened by their divisiveness among themselves.  These factors as to the people involved are relevant since the Iraqis have to be molded, it would seem, into a state of order from the threat of undying anarchy and its concomitant violence.  But the well-endowed, free-spirited personae from the highly democratized nation of the United States are required to know nothing of war except that it must be over, and if it is not over, then it must be ended.  Does anyone among you who is in the process of deciding upon the candidate you would like to see elected in the upcoming election get the point?  War is not a linear matter; war is complex and filled with the requirements that the people who are party to warring be understood as fully as possible.  Why would one who represents a democratically chosen cross-section never before allowed to run for president be thereby qualified to disqualify the Republican Party's likely candidate for president?  What exactly is the subterfuge being used to deflect the voters from considering the dire matters of war we make as a nation; are we not a nation who has been struck by a terrorist event of unprecedented proportion historically who must meet the global test of self-defense thereafter?  Yes, we want to end the active fighting in Iraq, and that is how war redeems itself.  But then that is what must be discussed by consenting, point-of-fact candidates.  To skirt the issues of actually proving our own democracy by making a minority candidate president might be the rock bottom analysis of one who has less faith in the democratic vitality of our nation since the presidential forum is so stuffy and encloistered to the insiders of the governing system and because only the wealthy can run for president; there is no path to the presidency for one who naturally defends on a global platform a democratic philosophy dialectical to actual experience as one robbed of freedoms.  Therefore, to send history's messenger by classified group might work to assuage that fact somewhat.  However, still there remains for the voter the question of war -- of course that includes the end to the loss of lives as the war is ended in its own sense of timing through insights and strategies which lead to what is classically sought as victory and what is better known as resolution for both sides.

     That is the resting point of this analysis, this call to elect Senator John McCain to the office of the Presidency of the United States of America -- that war cannot be declared to be over and then made to be over on principle if it has been in a diffuse defense of the security of our own nation while at the same time fought in another land with its own respective problems and factions.  A nation whose capital was struck right at the Pentagon, whose prime business district lost its two most prominent edifices, one the image of the other, to terrorist attack must set up an indirect answer to an unannounced attack in an undeclared framework of ultimate hostility -- at least that is what the current administration has done.  Listen to Senator McCain speak of Al Qaeda's  diffuse involvement as a terrorist force in the world of which he is keenly aware and real to the facts of that involvement.  Senator Obama at once implies that Al Qaeda is not really there in Iraq; he maintains that he would certainly return to Iraq if Al Qaeda sets up a base there after he withdraws the troops as president.  McCain answered him according to the reality at hand.  This is an excerpt accordingly from an ABC news report; however, as a preview, Obama instead in further conversation  decries the fact that Al Qaeda had followed the United States to Iraq after the United States invaded Iraq.  (To take that apart is easy: battle lines form as enemies collect in the commiseration of war according to sidedness.  That is not technically President Bush's fault.)

"But I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws, after American troops are withdrawn, then he would send military troops back if Al Qaeda established a base in Iraq."

McCain, R-Ariz., paused for a beat before continuing on with a hint of sarcasm.

"I have some news," he said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq! It's called Al Qaeda in Iraq."

He continued, "If we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. They wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country. And I am not going to let that happen, my friends."

McCain to Obama: 'Al Qaeda Is In Iraq'  February 27, 2008 2:09 PM

     This discussion of a war strategy based upon the will to leave behind the fighting in Iraq on the behalf of a democratic future for Iraq is truly demanding; only a quixotic reasoning can support a promise to at once retain honor in war and dodge the duties by leaving once a nation is committed to the defense of another nation.  The actual sense of war is to fight it until the resolution of peace occurs; that is the true redemption of war, and when it ripens into its origins of peace, its true purpose will have been accomplished.  If the corruption of a nation who sponsors and fights for another nation blocks such a resolution in war since the source of the war is ignoble at the same time that it looks justified, then that war will bring about a poor issue formation in its supportive aegis and forums of authorization.  That kind of war can cause another war to replace the poorly wrought argument and settle what had been raised; in a chainlike reactive sequence such wars were fought in Vietnam.  Although Senator McCain did not himself author the battles of Vietnam according to such an inferior perspective, he certainly did learn of war and from war.  Moreover, he learned what it is like to fight the enemy in war at a close level where the terms are not of equal force -- as a prisoner of war to the Vietnamese our great John McCain was cornered into seeing sides of war which some soldiers never truly see.  He saw the sides of the faces of the enemy close-up and under the direct force of their hostile minds.  McCain had to withstand the results of a losing situation in war from within its grueling clutches.  This forced him not to contemplate the might of our military size as a nation and to implement those tools of war which might still be in his soldier's hands; rather, he had to understand from a mostly passive viewpoint how to remain alive and ready to fight on the truest battleground there is: the mind is the battlefield.  McCain took thereby the deepest lessons of war into his direct experience.  He is the embodied outcome of the lessons of war which had enlightened him.  Therefore, if we go to the table and clarify issues for the voters which could define a most relevant campaign agenda for all three campaigners whose issues must be attached to their promises, as well, where do we land in our most important consideration at hand?  What is that most important consideration?  It is the security of our nation, its borders -- not only the mathematics of its economy matters.  Therefore, to whom would you refer for a matter which concerns the commitment of the United States to defend the destiny of Iraq?  Would you go directly to ruination of the question of democratic health of another nation when your own nation will not have its borders likely to be secured due to a weak leader?  Fine, your nation's history as an evolving experiment in democracy can be substituted by a sleight of hand in the name of a pacifist stand by one who is classified to so portray a thriving opportunity to hold the presidential office due to our own nation's state so exemplar.  However, the matters of governing include war.  The way to peace and to keeping peace, indeed, to cultivating peace, are not uni-dimensional.  If there is no victory in battle, there is also no eternity in peace, either.  One who acts and thinks from a belief in the supportive aspects of peace which are acts of love can uphold an awesome level of passive resistance to the infractions of others which  can ultimately sum up to war; however, once a commitment to active war is made, it is imperative to frame that commitment in such a way that the war is not declared over before it has met its course.  To surrender prematurely -- think of it; is such a surrender the same as not rendering a commitment in the first place?  No.  Therefore, how can a commander-in-chief draw up the plan of action to retreat from a war since it should not have been fought in the first place?  This was the most famous analysis of the Vietnam War, granted; war is wrong in many essential ways of thinking since the sheer destruction of war is a madness.  When we try to fight others' wars this is a second-order involvement.  When we defend abstract principles in order to fight others' wars we gain their own war as ours and of course as allies.  To assert peace without clearly standing up for what we had once asserted as righteousness in the defense of our ally becomes a selfish act of non-righteous begging of the question of the nature of war where instead the purpose of the war should abide throughout until peace returns due to its power to resolve, not to abandon principles.  That is indeed the challenge a prisoner therefore faces who countenances the abandonment of principles in the very face of the enemy close-up.  No longer able to fight the enemy directly from within the auspices of a sanctioned army or a sanctioned rite of war, the prisoner of war must now face the abandonment of principles of conduct which are the counterpart of the level of destruction to which war reaches its ugly hand: total.  Wherefrom the mind to attack, the prison keeper, the one who holds a  warrior captive, will say; admit only that you and yours are wrong, that we are somehow right whereas you are in disarray.  This, the tenor of the conversation a prisoner of war must face, will surface also into the political forums of a nation involved in the war of another nation as a supportive ally where its support begins to weaken.  The one-time ally now turns and seeks peace unqualifiedly; now the one for whom the war had been waged becomes abandoned to the enemy force by its former ally.  Will it fall to the vacancy of respect and alliance once known and relied upon?  A prisoner will also doubt the loyalty of ties with his own army -- his captor will preach abandonment and make him cry for his former mind of glory in the concept of supremacy in battle.

     Will America abandon Iraq?  Should America ever have entered Iraq militarily?  Let us parse such questions of the occupation of Iraq not with the total appeal of peace and no more lost lives as a presidential platform to win the favor of the people and the votes of the voters; rather, let us examine who among the candidates understands from real experience the actual nature of war and how to parse the questions pertaining to its leverage not from its popularity and not from its promise as a piece of presidential candidacy clay but from its truths.  That is in terms of leaders one Senator McCain.  McCain speaks truths constantly from a fusion of introspective focus and outward perception of the dire reality of the dreaded enemy in war.  This means that for a voter to sit at a table and negotiate for a proper perspective of how to proceed in choosing a candidate for the office of the United States presidency one must pinpoint a leading issue pertinent to the number one duty of a commander-in-chief of a nation caught in a war: ours.  This in turn means that if the leading issue in the presidential campaign has been located now as war due to the historical effects of the attack known as 9/11, then the nominee who becomes president must be studied in war.  It is that simple; if you need proof of the depth of knowledge and insight of Senator McCain on the matters of war, then you can have the opportunity to hear him daily speak one truth after another on all matters, and those besides war are included.  War has the power to enlighten so vastly the mind of an individual that such enlightenment courses forever more the full gamut of life and lends light; self-realization abounds for others to see.  That is the very first thing I noticed about John McCain many years ago when I first heard him speak in an interview on television. 

     To conclude this recommendation which supports the election of our illustrious war hero John McCain to the office of the presidency of the United States of America with one further note: leadership is something to believe in itself.  An enlightened leader is a rare and precious gift.  The proof of that unfolds as the leader leads.  Although people can be fooled by some who pretend to level and to wisdom, when once a leader has been burned in the fire of experience of war itself, the knowledge thereby gained makes no pretension necessary.

     ELECT SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Marilynn Stark  April 7, 2008      © 2008

          

 

 

     Science Editorial

Open Access Publishing for Science Research

                By Marilynn Stark

            Without  open access to scientific research results while at the same time given the available tools of the dissemination of knowledge and information afforded by the Internet, the scientific community would become reactionary to the progress of technology's capability to deliver the enlightening news of engaging research to as many as possible by such a negation of open access publishing.   It is important to keep a perspective as to the meaning and place of technology such as is being utilized now in the world of computers as a prime example. If one considers the raw evolution of science, and even though that evolution is itself driven and motivated by certain advancements of a technological nature, one must then naturally query as to what is the point of science? The entire purpose of science in the broadest sense is to uncover the nature of things through discriminating inquiry.  Such inquiry is different profoundly from creating things, things which are technological devices and systems. Which kind of knowledge do we ultimately revere especially when the knowledge concerns living things? Then if we indeed revere the enlightenment we seek as to the nature of things, why would we not use the most efficient and well-organized tool available through a technological system -- the computer networks and personal computers which can feed from those networks -- in the higher service of the pursuit of straight and elucidating scientific questions?  The resistance to this form of publishing scientific knowledge as a growing body can only defy proper reasoning according to strict value for the fundamental scientific endeavors we extol.  The paper journals are the very foundation of the establishment of the overall bodies of knowledge in the various branches of the sciences.  It is not that people will no longer respect them or go to them as much as it is the future which calls us.  The future calls us all through cyberspace wherein the virtual presentation of knowledge can be transposed and disseminated in a fair and fast manner, also.  Thereby, open access publishing via computers must only by its ready nature contribute to a greater and more astounding growth of science; and this growth input to the growing body of knowledge that is science further recognizes the real time pace potentially afforded the scientific community by the speed of publishing and the massive availability to all of what has been done and said in the research laboratories.while at the same time given the available tools of the dissemination of knowledge and information afforded by the Internet, the scientific community would become reactionary to the progress of technology's capability to deliver the enlightening news of engaging research to as many as possible by such a negation of open access publishing.   It is important to keep a perspective as to the meaning and place of technology such as is being utilized now in the world of computers as a prime example. If one considers the raw evolution of science, and even though that evolution is itself driven and motivated by certain advancements of a technological nature, one must then naturally query as to what is the point of science? The entire purpose of science in the broadest sense is to uncover the nature of things through discriminating inquiry.  Such inquiry is different profoundly from creating things, things which are technological devices and systems. Which kind of knowledge do we ultimately revere especially when the knowledge concerns living things? Then if we indeed revere the enlightenment we seek as to the nature of things, why would we not use the most efficient and well-organized tool available through a technological system -- the computer networks and personal computers which can feed from those networks -- in the higher service of the pursuit of straight and elucidating scientific questions?  The resistance to this form of publishing scientific knowledge as a growing body can only defy proper reasoning according to strict value for the fundamental scientific endeavors we extol.  The paper journals are the very foundation of the establishment of the overall bodies of knowledge in the various branches of the sciences.  It is not that people will no longer respect them or go to them as much as it is the future which calls us.  The future calls us all through cyberspace wherein the virtual presentation of knowledge can be transposed and disseminated in a fair and fast manner, also.  Thereby, open access publishing via computers must only by its ready nature contribute to a greater and more astounding growth of science; and this growth input to the growing body of knowledge that is science further recognizes the real time pace potentially afforded the scientific community by the speed of publishing and the massive availability to all of what has been done and said in the research laboratories.

      Otherwise, if a reactionary mode strict unto the tradition of discrete copyright laws for the publishing journal were to cause a dispirited backlash among scientific researchers and writers, efforts to correct a deficit in the higher purpose arising out of the virtue itself of truth found in the scientific enterprise would profligate energy and time; but worse than that waste of energy, there would be a conflict then again with the elevated ideals to be rightly cherished by those who believe that the vanguard of science is indeed the freedom to honor its own innate quality to change with research development.  Indeed, the history itself of the growth of science concerns this very vanguard that comprises not only the essence of enlightenment through scientific truth and discoveries but also the acceptance in the wider society of its discoveries.  This breach of the greatest availability of scientific developments as could be afforded through open access publishing would distort the meaning and stature of sheer technology as distinct from the probing power of science with its concerns for humanity's well-being which are written into the very spirit of experimental science and the concomitant growth in its body of knowledge.

     Philosophically, then, how can we be expected to remain in harmony with the ideas which serve the preservation and betterment of mankind, if we take a back seat to the power of techno-structure and not offer that growing techno-structure careful and aware political measure which serves best the exact nature of scientific research -- that it must be passed on in order to foment progress?  We must use the tools of that techno-structure wisely and in the humble service of all as we strive to learn more of the nature of things.  It is ours indeed to apply that resultant knowledge in the best interests of all.  If there is a resistance to that exact ideation just cited, that the progress of science should lie within the precept of a moral imperative towards the good of all, then that resistance is partially due to the fear of progress.  We must confront our fear in a reasoned manner, and thus will we conquer it.  Machines are here to serve us, not to rule over us and belittle our fundamental principles of reverence for the pursuit of happiness through the pursuit of greater knowledge. 

Marilynn Stark           © 2006 - 200909/06/2009 01:50 PM 09/06/2009 01:50 PM          

Edited and revised April 6, 2008

 

 

 

     Science Editorial

Open Access Publishing for Science Research

                By Marilynn Stark

            

Without  open access to scientific research results, and given the available tools afforded by the Internet, the scientific community would become reactionary to the progress of technology's capability to deliver the enlightening news of engaging research to as many as possible. It is important to keep a perspective as to the meaning and place of technology, such as is being utilized now in the world of computers as a prime example. For if one considers the raw evolution of science, and even though that evolution is itself driven and motivated by certain advancements of a technological nature, one must query as to what is the point of science? The entire purpose of science in the broadest sense is to uncover the nature of things, which is different profoundly from creating things, things which are technological devices and systems. Which kind of knowledge do we ultimately revere, and especially when the knowledge concerns living things? Then if we indeed revere the enlightenment we seek as to the nature of things, why would we not use the most efficient and well-organized tool available through a technological system--the computer networks and personal computers which can feed from those networks--in the higher service of the pursuit of straight and elucidating scientific questions? For the resistance to this form of publishing scientific knowledge as a growing body can only defy proper reasoning according to strict value for the fundamental scientific endeavors we extol. The paper journals are the very foundation of the establishment of the overall bodies of knowledge in the various branches of the sciences. It is not that people will no longer respect them or go to them, as much as it is the future which calls us all through cyber-space, wherein virtual knowledge can be transposed and disseminated in a fair and fast manner, also, thereby contributing to a greater and more astounding growth of science, and which growth further recognizes the real-time pace potentially afforded the scientific community by the speed of publishing and the massive availability to all of what has been done and said in the research laboratories.

 Otherwise, a reactionary mode strict unto the tradition of discrete copyright laws for the publishing journal might cause a dispirited backlash among scientific researchers and writers. This would distort the meaning and stature of sheer technology as distinct from the probing power of science with its concerns for humanity's well-being, which are written into the very spirit of experimental science and the concomitant growth in its body of knowledge. Philosophically, then, how can we be expected to remain in harmony with the ideas which serve the preservation and betterment of mankind, if we take a back seat to the power of techno-structure, and not offer that growing techno-structure careful and aware political measure? We must use the tools of that techno-structure wisely and in the humble service of all, as we strive to learn more of the nature of things. It is ours indeed to apply that resultant knowledge in the best interests of all. If there is a resistance to that exact ideation just cited, then that resistance is partially due to the fear of progress. We must confront our fear in a reasoned manner, and thus will we conquer it. Machines are here to serve us, not to rule over us and belittle our fundamental principles of reverence for the pursuit of happiness through the pursuit of greater knowledge. 

Marilynn Stark

Most Recent Articles about World News Most Recent Articles about Business Most Recent Articles about Music Most Recent Articles about Sports Most Recent Articles about Humor Most Recent Articles about Government Most Recent Articles about Science & Technology Most Recent Articles about Website Design Most Recent Articles about Art and Culture Most Recent Articles about Website Promotion Most Recent Articles about Research Articles provided by Amazines.com

 

 

Send mail to mstark@starkscience.org with questions or comments about this web site.
© 2003 - 2016  Science for the Knowing
Last modified:09/06/2009 01:50:05 PM