Reason supports political life, which consists of the pursuit of human ends and the partial fulfillment of competing human desires. Political life is compromise, relativism. It is a matter of public debate and majority rule. It is of this world.

It appears that biology supports political life. When Aristotle observed that ‘man is a political animal,’ he meant ‘a critter capable of making laws, and one that relies on social living.’

“More” actually derives from a Latin noun for ’shared’ or some related meaning. We live today in a world of rapidly colliding cultures, economies, traditions, and assumptions about how society should be structured.

It’s looking like people are ‘moral’ because its safer to be part of a nurturing, equitable community. No man is an island because it’s simply not possible to hunt a wooly mammoth (or the 20th c equivilent) all by one’s lonesome.

Traditionally, we lived among people to whom we were closely related biologically. That’s far less true today.

I’ve seen it take a toll (and have felt it to some degree in my own life). Look back 3 or 4 generations, and people mostly lived in rural communities that were agriculturally based and in synch with seasonal rhythms.

In the tumult of our times, people do odd things to try and become part of a ‘group’ that they believe values them and will keep them safe. That includes joining extremist groups like neocons and AQ.

When the world feels safer for more people, IMHO we’ll have fewer extremists. Meanwhile, we need a shitload of FBI talent to clear enough space for the world to feel safer and saner again. Much rides on whether people like you, me, my grocer, my mechanic, and my insurance agent believe that justice is still possible. If it is, then the fevered heat of the world may calm down a few degrees — socially, anyway.

But a key part of attaining ‘justice’ is cleaning up fraudulent, perverted, predatory economic instruments, entities, and economic predators.

Onward…

Anyone account for that money, supposedly spent to ‘develop democracy’ around the Near East?

… crickets…

I’m not Strauss expert. But what I did was extract the main “principles” or assumptions that neocons drew from Stauss’s theories.

I did two posts related to this. The one I put up today and the the one prior to that, linked in today’s post (above @60).

I hope this comment and my posts can be of help in answering that question. I feel on very firm ground in terms of the “principles” I extracted as they “work” dynamically and can be used as “building blocks” to see how straussian thinking and manipulation played out under bushco. It’s like having a set of building blocks you can manipulate. And suddenly you see these blocks can be rearranged to arrive at any of their policies.

Religion was a tool for the straussians. They were not believers. Strauss definitely was not.

Strauss hated liberalism. He taught his disciples to hate it too. He was basically an advocate of authoritarianism – but hid that in the US, except in the inner circles.

No Liberal Rationalist–and no real Christian, in this armchair theologian’s opinion–would ever claim that reason can support BOTH moral and political life.

Reason supports political life, which consists of the pursuit of human ends and the partial fulfillment of competing human desires. Political life is compromise, relativism. It is a matter of public debate and majority rule. It is of this world. It is something Christian’s “render unto Caesar”.

As Christian’s use it and as the civil law recognizes it, “morality” is, by definition, uncompromising and absolute. It is private. It is the personal revelation of God. It is not of this world. It is something believers “render unto God.” It is not reasonable at all.

The quotation thus misses a crucial distinction: politics is rational, but religion/morality is not and does not profess to be. Religion and religiously grounded morality is, rather, an expression of personal desire for and love of God. Politics–what St. Augustine called the City of Man–is not about the love of God. For non-believers, it is about their own aims. For believers, it is about their neighbors aims, which have to matter since we all live in one world.

The separation of Church and State is thus an idea that Christianity did much to introduce into our thinking. It is a crucial defense for sincere religious belief as much as a defense of secular life and rights. The Roman state made belief in its state religion a legal requirement, because it demanded that the State, its Leader, and its political and economic status quo be worhipped unquestioningly. It demanded that Caesar be accorded the authority of God.

The above quotation, like much from the Irreligious Right today, is thus Anti-Christian. It’s real gods are Mammon and Caesar, Wealth and Power. That is idolatry, not faith.

There’s no specific date given for the so-called repatriation of al-Libi to Libya, only a range of time between Nov. 2005 and Sep. 2006, when al-Libi is transferred to Mauritania and then to Libya. During the same time, a number of detainees are transferred to Gitmo instead and al-Libi drops out, resurfacing in Libya.

And there’s Mauritania — exactly how much money did it take to set up a black site there? Does the cost include the replacement of the government with a pro-U.S. faction?

And Poland — don’t want to forget Poland. How much does it cost to keep the removal of the detainees on the down low, above and beyond the cost of a missile defense program likely negotiated to put a black site there in the first place?

And then finally the detainees who’ve been ghosted since Sep. 2006 — where are they and what’s that cost?

Yeah, I suspect there was a lot on the plate during discussions with Republicans in Appropriations in early autumn 2006, let alone since 2002.

Oh, and I might point out that the earliest indications that U.S. attorneys might be terminated happened in Oct. 2006, if memory serves.

Just watched “Born Yesterday”, in which this quote figures importantly. And now we find out that Leo Strauss wanted to have his cake (intellectual freedom) and eat it, too (design a society based upon the Rulers and the Ruled, without innate rights, without the principles of the Founding Fathers).

Thanks for nothing, Prof. Strauss. Now get lost, and take your spawn with you.

According to Strauss, the fundamental issue that divides ancient and modern thinkers is the relative importance of reason and revelation in human life. Modern philosophers such as HOBBES (§§6- 7) and LOCKE (§ 10), exalt reason and believe that a political order can be founded on purely rational and secular principles. But Strauss believed that this modern liberal project was doomed to failure. He thought that reason cannot provide the requisite support for moral and political life; what is needed is belief in a transcendent God who punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous.

Crikey. Is even the “religious right” part of the Straussian design? (my bold)

Military attorney: Waterboarding is ‘tip of the iceberg’

BY DAVID EDWARDS AND MURIEL KANE 

Published: May 20, 2009 
Updated 2 hours ago

“A military attorney who represented a now-freed Guantanamo detainee told CNN on Wednesday that waterboarding is only “the tip of the iceberg”

“Air Force Lieutenant Yvonne Bradley was the lawyer for Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian national who was arrested by the Pakistani government in April 2002 on suspicion of being a member of al Qaeda.”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/20…..rboarding/

Must read reporting/analysis by Marcy Wheeler on Pelosi/CIA latest: http://bit.ly/17JkmN

EW is starting to get the respect she’s richly earned.