Charles Entrekin

Rhymes and Ruminations

Senate Torture Report and CIA Spin

by

In a recent discussion with my friend, Ron Roizen, we talked (like most of Americans have in recent days) about the release of the Senate CIA Torture Report  at “black sites” and particularly Guantanamo Bay. Ron had this to say, which he said I could share with readers of my blog:

“The CIA torture story is of course a national disgrace.  I feel ashamed of myself, personally, for doing nothing – no letter to the editor, no call to a congressman, no self-imposed fasting, even – while these abuses were going on.  I remember as a kid watching “Victory at Sea” and other WWII newsreel-type films, and always thinking, deep down somewhere in my young soul, how proud I was that we did not engage in atrocities the way our enemies did.  I was naïve of course, but that feeling stuck – and later on generated part of the shame and guilt I felt over Abu Ghraib and other news that leaked out about obscene conduct done in our name and ostensibly in our behalf.  Incidentally, it was particularly annoying to me that a Berkeley law professor, John Yoo, was one of the legal architects of “enhanced interrogation.”  Apparently, moreover, he’s still supportive of that dark enterprise (see here).  The only bright spot in all this is of course that a probing and candid report was done and that people from as far apart on the political spectrum as Feinstein and McCain are decrying the CIA’s actions.  Still, it astonishes and deeply unsettles me that my countrymen were capable of this disgraceful program of acts.”

I don’t need to add the moral outrage that Ron feels and expresses so eloquently. I think everyone agrees that the acts committed fit the definition of torture. I don’t think that is a debatable point. But I do have some points to add about what is also reprehensible–and that is the CIA’s attempt at spin.

As a nation, we have had a lot of changing attitudes about war. In WWII, the heroes came home to kiss the girls in Times Square. By Vietnam, gritty images appeared in Life Magazine of comrades shot in the head or girls running down roads, clothes burned away by napalm. These were the last drafted troops. Now, an Army of volunteers and contractors supports the nation and it is important to remember how drastically our propaganda has evolved, while policies stay the same.

After the Second World War, the American populace was understandably furious about the propaganda campaigns utilized by the Germans to influence the public support of their military ideologies. But then we adopted some of their techniques in our own foreign policy.

26 July 1947 National Security Act of 1947, signed by President Truman, creates the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The Act also forms the National Security Council, the Office of Secretary of Defense, and the US Air Force.
18 September 1947 CIA formally comes into existence, replacing CIG (Central Intelligence Group—January, 1946).
17 December 1947 National Security Council authorizes CIA to perform covert action.

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-museum/experience-the-collection/text-version/timeline.html

“What is Covert Action?

According to National Security Act Sec. 503 (e), covert action is, “An activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.” Proper covert actions are undertaken because policymakers—not the intelligence agencies—believe that secret means are the best way to achieve a desired end or a specific policy goal.

Covert action encompasses a broad spectrum of activities, but may include:

  • Propaganda: Intelligence agencies covertly disseminate specific information to advance foreign policy goals. United States law prohibits, however, the use of intelligence agencies to influence domestic media and opinion.
  • Political/Economic Action: Intelligence agencies covertly influence the political or economic workings of a foreign nation.
  • Paramilitary Operations: Intelligence agencies covertly train and equip personnel to attack an adversary or to conduct intelligence operations. These operations normally do not involve the use of uniformed military personnel as combatants.
  • Lethal Action: During times of war or armed conflict, the U.S. may need to use covert lethal force against enemies who pose a threat. The U.S. formally banned the use of political assassinations in 1976.

One distinction between covert action and other overt activities, such as traditional diplomatic or military operations, is that U.S. officials could plausibly deny involvement in the activity. This “plausible deniability,” however, is predicated upon the covert action remaining secret.

  • Example: American involvement in the 1961 Bay of Pigs operation could not be kept secret once the results became public, so President Kennedy publicly admitted responsibility afterwards at a White House press conference.”

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19149/covert_action.html

The leaders of the CIG and the CIA were military men—Lt. Colonels and the like. And then, according to Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers, then-President Eisenhower appointed a civilian, Allen Dulles (brother to Secretary of State Stephen Foster Dulles), as the head of the Agency. The CIA began to adopt the same propaganda techniques employed by the Third Reich to influence the American public’s view of foreign policy decisions that did not comport with domestic business concerns, in clear conflict of the National Security Act. Since the era of Eisenhower, the CIA has been engaging in propaganda campaigns like what we are experiencing with the push-back to the release of the Senate Torture Report. This is not an anomaly, but a systematic training. The good news is that Senate report has brought the issue to the public forefront and the people are beginning to speak up. However, I firmly believe that the public cannot understand the charter of the CIA without some of the background outlined in Kinzer’s illuminating case studies. The push-back from those in government to the Senate Report is just an illustration of how deeply that this philosophy is entrenched in the governmental policy and how the CIA has been using propaganda campaigns to further goals for decades.

It is important not to get lost in the minutiae of “What happened?” and “When did it happen?” to realize the political implications of the history of who we are as a country. If we do not allow room for moral outrage about behaviors that we find reprehensible, we will doom ourselves. We should not allow the sound bites of the propaganda machine to overwhelm us.

Thanksgiving Thoughts

by

I wrote the following words in a letter to my family and friends about this time last year:

“[Due to complications with my vision] I have stopped driving and I have stopped playing tennis. My mobility is limited and my activities are limited and, furthermore, all my activities are now somewhat circumscribed. What do I mean by that? Well, for example, it is harder for me to read the expression on people’s faces, which is a major clue in conversation, which leads to awkwardness and confusion on my part. And embarrassment. Then, all my insecurities rise to the surface and I am not as confident that I know how to proceed in any given circumstance.”

While they are still true, I have also been embracing a new way of perceiving the world. I recently made a trip to my oncologist and discovered that my cancer is in remission and I am essentially cancer-free. This information meant more to me than I imagined. I began to realize that the future had opened up again, that I had closed down my sense of future expectations. I wrote recently that once the foundational lies that support our personality are exposed, what one is left with is emptiness. Let me elaborate. I have come to an understanding that much of what I thought of as my “life story” was illusory.  A made-up story of who I am. I am not any one thing or any one story. I am not my past. I am not my future. I am alive in the present moment. So, if the story of one’s life is an illusion— in some cases, a delusion— what remains is a made-up story that can be looked at, appreciated, for what it is. Changed. Accepted or rejected. But the trick is to let it be what it is: the understanding of a  life story appreciated as a story worth telling.

Sam Harris, in his book Waking Up, talks about being able to both be a part of the story as well as the witness of the story. Being the witness of one’s own life. It’s a challenging concept, but I think of an earlier philosopher telling us that the unexamined life is not worth living and I think he had something in mind very similar to what Sam Harris is talking about. To see and accept what is about your life has been, for me, the first step in being able to reconcile my understanding that cancer and Parkinson’s and glaucoma are realities that I have learned to live with—my limitations, though not welcome and occasionally depressing, are not defining.

As for my current state of health, I like to tell this story of the monk, who was chased out of the forest by a tiger. He ran to a cliff and scurried over, down a vine to get away, only to discover another tiger at the foot of the cliff trying to get at him from below. Then, looking around, he noticed a rat, poking its head out of a crevasse, had begun to chew on his vine. Then, looking off to his right, he realized there were some wild strawberries within reach. And they were so delicious.  As for me, I am enjoying the strawberries, I have nothing to complain about. What is behind me and in front of me is just that: behind me or in front of me. They are not here.

kgo-instagram-new-bay-bridge-night-shot-ryrycalguy-090313-600

ESSE EST PERCIPI

To be is to be perceived.

 — Bishop George Berkeley

  1. REMOVING THE BANDAGES

A canopy of white guy-wires

sweeps skyward as we cross the new Bay Bridge

into San Francisco.

I cannot see the Ferry Plaza,

the Transamerica Pyramid,

gray Embarcadero monoliths

reflecting stark afternoon light.

I listen to the rhythmic thrum of tires.

Instead of the cityscape, my brain creates

leafless winter trees

rising over open meadows

floating past the car window

highway to Tuscaloosa,

Alabama winter-green grass going brown.

I know this image is all wrong.

But the grass sways with the motion of the car.

  1. RETURNING HOME

Winding up the two-lane road

past the California landscape:

manzanita, bay, live oak and evergreen.

I remember leafy shadows, evening light

but I see the tall red brick tenements

stretching up 14th Street, NYC,

Lower East Side, 1970,

as far as my eye can see.

Where do they come from?

The buildings waver, remain following me

around the curve, over the creek.

As we drive on, the mirage

disappears in oncoming headlights.

I am learning to make friends with what I see.

Not what’s there.

  1. LETTING GO

“Take a look at this photograph.”

The page of the album turns

in a crisp November light,

colors swirling: red-brown, rose, white, grey.

No form, no shape.

“Isn’t she beautiful?”

“What am looking at?” I ask.

“Nate and Kelsey, at the altar,”

and the grey becomes my son’s suit

the rose-red a bridesmaid’s dress

and the sun gleams clear

through the redwood canopy.

View More: http://rochellewilhelms.pass.us/entrekinwedding

Poems from CQ

by

Roots

Roots in Clay County, Alabama,

Sticking out of the ground

Like hard old men who’ve made up their minds,

Set their grip hard against everything

Young and swift –

When I walk out across this piece of earth

All covered over with honeysuckle and weeds

The ground seems to suck at my feet

As though it were alive

And needed me

Holding soil in place

Replacing stumps falling into rot.

157854

 

The Dead

Dispossessed they

no longer need

to defend themselves.

The bodies they owned are gone.

But remnants leak, linguistic

particulars reappear, and

voice, gesture take hold.

The dead are memes inside us,

pollen spreading before the wind

passing their invisible seed.

images

Nate and Kelsey’s Wedding

by

This past weekend, our beloved daughter returned from a three-month sojourn in Southeast Asia and the next day we traveled to Quincy, California, for an amazing family experience. My eldest son, Demian, had a milestone birthday on same day as the rehearsal dinner for youngest son, Nathan. There was a bonfire under the stars. Nathan and his beautiful new wife, Kelsey, were wed the next day in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. One couple, Max and Karin, wrote a song for them. Kelsey’s father performed the service, a non-religious, open ceremony, which included both families. The weather was filled with the feel of Indian summer and everyone felt the love in the air.  It was a whirlwind of wonder, a beautiful time I will always cherish. I was invited to give a toast.  I am so blessed by my family, that I can’t resist the impulse to share.

Nate and Kelsey Train Tracks

When people enter into marriage, they also enter into the family structure of their new spouse, and all the eccentricities that implies. Our family, in particular, is what we affectionately refer to as a “Berkeley blended family.” That’s a challenge that I need not go into now. You’d need a flow chart to see all the interconnections and relationships. But I think that that conscious commitment we make to each member of the family is what makes our bond strong and loving. I’d like to speak a moment generally about the nature of families. The strength of a good family depends upon honesty and integrity and loyalty. Honesty because, within the family structure (those with whom you have the closest relationships), honesty is critical. One needs to be able to trust in the support and feedback of family to live a meaningful existence. One needs to believe in the integrity of the family bonds, because the embrace of family is important in order to go forward with belief in oneself: to learn, and to grow, and to sometimes make mistakes. Because in a strong family, loyalty is unconditional. It is only with family that one can depend on the forgiveness for transgressions. We are not perfect. We need the support of our family when we make mistakes and have to be forgiven. We are a family of talkers and we talked about honor, integrity and loyalty when Nathan was little. We talked about the nature of honor. We don’t do it for others, honor is a gift we give ourselves. It defines us. Nathan’s character allows him to see the path ahead, make clear what otherwise would be confusing, face every challenge with a “can-do” attitude. We say Nate can get it done. Whether competing in the half-Iron Man triathlon (5 hours and 33 minutes) or winning first place in the state championship in gymnastics, or single-handedly launching a new product for a new company, Nate excels in whatever he tries to do. In that way, he and Kelsey are alike. They challenge and complete each other fearlessly. As Lao Tzu said, “Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.” I want to welcome Kelsey into this shared reality of our family. Besides being smart and beautiful, Kelsey fit in almost immediately. It was like she had always been a part of us. She was one more piece of our family puzzle. Once in place, the picture seemed clear—she was the right fit for Nate. And the right fit for the family, too. Weddings are like births. They are the new beginnings. Let’s all raise our glasses and toast to Nathan and Kelsey: love, strength, courage, family, and new beginnings.

From December 4, 2006 Why Habeas Corpus is important for Democracy

by

Why is Habeas Corpus Important for Democracy

Based on the recent attacks from ISIS and ISIL, I thought that this might bear re-reading.

http://nevadacitysisyphus.blogspot.com/

Having tried and failed to suspend habeas corpus for two American citizens, Jose Padilla and Esam Hamdi (Hamdi v. Rumsfield), the Congress passed, and George W. Bush, on Oct. 17, 2006, signed HR-6166, a bill that authorizes the government to try non-resident alien terror suspects by military tribunals and to suspend their rights of habeas corpus.

Should we care?

Habeas corpus, from the Latin, you have the body, goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, 1231, when kings could throw anybody in prison, keep them there indefinitely, and torture them at will without any court interference. All this changed with habeas corpus. Over the centuries it’s come to be a common understanding of civilized nations that a prisoner has a right to know why he’s been imprisoned, to face his accusers, to know what the charges are, and to have some form of due process.

So now our President has decided to set aside provisions of a law that has been considered accepted common law, and standard legal practice, by the civilized world for over 800 years. This president says he needs the new law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, so that he can protect us from the terrorists.

But is this really what’s going on?

Back in 68 BC, according to Robert Harris in a recent NY Times article (9/30/2006), Rome faced its own 9/11, an attack by a loose affiliation of pirates. And Rome, under the influence of a power-hungry leader, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, or Pompey the Great, panicked and agreed to a new law to protect the citizens of Rome. The Romans passed the Lex Gabinia and gave up their citizens’ rights in order to support Pompey, who said he needed this law to raise an army in order to protect Rome from this new kind of enemy. But the new law set into motion the destruction of the Roman constitution and brought into play the powerful moneyed interests of a new Military Industrial Complex. Then, less than two decades after the passage of the Lex Gabinia, the Roman republican system collapsed.

So should we, We the People of the United States of America, stand up in protest against this attack on the principles behind habeas corpus? Or should we not? The Bush Administration says “we are at war.” But if “we are at war,” then why are the folks we’re holding in secret prisons called “unlawful enemy combatants?” Isn’t that specifically to avoid having to abide by the rights spelled out in the Geneva Convention and habeas? And even if “we are at war,” shouldn’t we stand solidly behind the idea that even these “detainees” should have access to a fair hearing and a right to protest their innocence? Or are we arguing for the principle: “guilty until proven innocent?” Already we have set up secret prisons, we have tortured people or caused them to be tortured, and we have actually simply murdered some without any due process.

Why?

Perhaps it is because this “war on terror” has been defined as a case of “us” versus “them,” and “good” versus “evil,” and because it’s easy for us to look the other way because these suspects are not us, not American citizens. But is this justification enough to make the presumption that all suspected “enemy combatants” are guilty until proven innocent, that they must be locked away in secret prisons, or that they should be tortured until they confess?

By locking up all information under the cloak of “top secret,” George W. Bush has asked Americans to trust him, to believe that he will protect us from the terrorist Islamic Jihadists. But should we trust him? Based on all the news reports I have read, I have to say that we are in danger of another terrorist attack, but it is my belief that we are a resilient people, that we will not be ruled by fear, and that we can deal with these “pirates” without giving up on the concepts that have made this country great. The suspension of habeas corpus for non-resident aliens is a grave concern. It is a loud warning that something is going seriously wrong. It is the same large concern that was expressed by Benjamin Franklin when, after the Constitutional Convention he was asked what type of government we had built, a Republic or a Monarchy, and he replied, “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

The question is: Can we keep it?

Just Hanging Around

by

In the early 2000s, when blogging started becoming all the rage, I began a blog post called Nevada City Sisyphus on BlogSpot. If anybody read it, no one ever mentioned it in electronic response. Around that time, I also discovered Red Room, a community of writers started by the independent Small Press Distribution in Berkeley. Beyond being a BlogSpot, Red Room was a real community of writers. Exciting new technology and new times! The blogosphere continues to grow but, unfortunately, Red Room did not. They were recently acquired by Wattpad, a platform for writers, but far less intuitive. Granted, posts are a little far between, but I prefer the easier interaction. To ease the world of blogging, I have archived my posts from both Nevada City Sisyphus (BlogSpot) and my  Red Room posts into Wordpress for now. I hope you enjoy them and feel free to comment. I’ll keep posting my political and philosophical thoughts as the mood strikes me. Maybe even share a poem or two. And, who knows? Couldn’t hurt to check Wattpad out in a while, too.

From October 28, 2013 The Question About the Beats

by

At a recent book launch/reading in Yreka, CA for the new release of the Berkeley Poets Cooperative: A History of the Times from Hip Pocket Press, the question about the Beat poets was asked, to which I gave a weak answer. I would like to readdress that question.

The question was, “How did the Berkeley Poets Cooperative relate to City Lights, Ferlinghetti and the Beat poetry movement?”

To which I gave a non-committal response, something like, “We didn’t have anything to do with the Beat movement that was happening in San Francisco. We were in Berkeley.” 

It was not only an inadequate response, it was also an inaccurate one.

I have been carrying that question with me ever since, in the hopes of a chance for a more accurate response.

According to the Poetry Foundation, a definition of Beat poetry alludes to its San Francisco roots:

“A national group of poets who emerged from San Francisco’s literary counterculture in the 1950s. Its ranks included Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Gregory Corso, and Gary Snyder. Poet and essayist Kenneth Rexroth influenced the development of the “Beat” aesthetic, which rejected academic formalism and the materialism and conformity of the American middle class. Beat poetry is largely free verse, often surrealistic, and influenced by the cadences of jazz, as well by Zen and Native American spirituality…”  to which I would add that Beat poetry is a cultural style and an aesthetic of individualism.

The Berkeley Poets Cooperative did not represent any particular style or aesthetic, we embraced all of them. In fact, the BPC was the antithesis of enforcing a style or aesthetic. The BPC argued that it was the work itself that mattered, not the style or the aesthetic. We believed that every poem or artistic endeavor was worth the effort that was required to understand it. It was a kind of art-for-art’s-sake philosophy, with an emphasis on honesty and the integrity of the work itself. The BPC accepted the aesthetic of the Beats, just as we embraced the aesthetics of the Feminist poetry movement, the Language poets and the Concrete poets and the other modern styles that were emerging. The Co-op did have some run-ins with Beat poets that are worth an anecdote or two.

If I remember correctly, we were occasionally visited by Beat poets with names like Peter Pussydog and Jack Micheline. Some Beat poets dressed entirely in leather chaps and boots (expressing their individuality?) and we had one occasion when two Beat poets (who did not care for each other) showed up and broke into an argument with one another over the aesthetic stance of one of their poems. Hot words led to loud words and suddenly one of them leapt to his feet and pulled a knife, while the other jumped to his feet and challenged him to strike. Then the rest of us in the Co-op were on our feet, standing between them and restraining the poets. Finally, we asked them both to leave. It was that kind of a “scene” sometimes, reminiscent of the tumultuous relationship that led to the shooting of Rimbaud by Verlaine in Brussels in 1873. The good news in this BPC story, for me, is the full flowering of the passion of the poets. Perhaps, this time they went too far but, in the 1970s, it seemed like that was not out of the question. The passion was good. The anger was misplaced.

Then, as someone quipped, “What we need now is a change of pace,” we all passed a bottle of wine around and settled into reading a sonnet dedicated to Emily Dickinson.

How did the BPC relate to the Beat movement? The Beats offered an exciting, exuberant perspective, but it was just one of the many aesthetics and styles that flowered and flourished in the Bay Area during those creative decades.

From January 17, 2014 Kabir and Mindfulness

by

When discussing the tenets of Buddhism with a close friend, we talked about the world of illusions and the meaning of “enlightenment” and “awakening” and “mindfulness” and then I remembered this poem by Kabir and thought I should pass it on.

Ecstatic Poem #38 (Kabir)

Translation by Robert Bly

Friend, please tell me what I can do about this world I hold to,

and keep spinning out!

I gave up sewn clothes, and wore a robe,

but I noticed one day the cloth was well woven.

So I bought some burlap, but I still

throw it elegantly over my shoulder.

I pulled back my sexual longings,

and now I discover that I’m angry a lot.

I gave up rage, and now I notice

that I am greedy all day.

I worked hard at dissolving my greed,

and now I am proud of myself.

When the mind wants to break its link with the world

it still holds on to one thing.

Kabir says: Listen, my friend,

there are very few that find the path!

From November 13, 2013 My Reaction to Spying

by

I am a 72-year old, retired teacher and entrepreneur (founder of three successful computer companies); lifelong novelist and poet; and also a listener of Bill Moyers. I enjoyed the conversation with Heidi Boghosian and offer the following thoughts as a response.

“Having tried and failed to suspend habeas corpus for two American citizens, Jose Padilla and Esam Hamdi (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), the Congress passed, and George W. Bush on Oct. 17, 2006, signed HR-6166, a bill that authorizes the government to try non-resident alien terror suspects by military tribunals and to suspend their rights of habeas corpus… provisions of a law that has been considered accepted common law, and standard legal practice, by the civilized world for over 800 years.” That is from a blog entry I penned in 2006. http://redroom.com/member/charles-entrekin/blog/the-military-commissions-act-should-be-repealed

Seven years later, the United States government via the NSA conducts illegal search of American citizens. It is not hard to connect the dots between the suspension of habeas corpus and illegal searches and seizures that violate the rights of American citizens and citizens throughout the world. Now that we know that there has been torture, no prosecution of the torture, and no accountability in the government (the decision-makers), we are left with the sad conclusion that the intelligence community is out of control. With a do-nothing Congress and a deny-Obama-any-successes attitude amongst the Republicans, regardless of the cost, we are left, as a citizenry, with dismay and horror and confusion as to what can be done to correct our broken system. Edward Snowden, threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act in the USA and the Official Secrets Act in Britain, shows this to be a worldwide problem. The government’s accusation of espionage by whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden reminds me of some of the earlier strategies of the totalitarian governments that demand secrecy for themselves and prosecution for anyone who threatens their secrecy. The Occupy Movement, faced with infiltration by the NSA and storm trooper tactics by the police basically, it seems to me, have done the only thing possible—decentralized, no leaders—maintaining strength through anonymity, succeeding in bringing the discussion about the 1% versus the 99% into international consciousness.

It now remains up to the American people to defend and uphold the Constitution. After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government they had built, a Republic or a Monarchy, and he replied, “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.” If we want to keep it, it is time for the people to demand that their voices be heard. In October 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, protesting the inequality of the authority of the Catholic hierarchy, on the door of Wittenberg Castle. The felt inequities had reached a breaking point and a revolution needed only a spark to take hold and make its needs known. Just so in today’s internet world. Edward Snowden has shown us the way. Like Martin Luther, he has posted the malfeasance of the US government on the Internet sites of the world.

From May 27, 2014 Politics of Choice

by

I wrote the following as part of an email discourse with a long-time friend and business partner. Our ideals and politics are very different, which I suppose is why my response to our discussion has been very thought-provoking for me. I share my theory by reprinting this email here:

“It strikes me that there are only two steering wheels in approaching and understanding human behavior: fear and trust. Which steering wheel one chooses to drive with determines what directions one takes and which obstacles one will be encountering. As for me, I choose the steering wheel of trust, by which I mean I place my faith in the scientific method, people and rationality, and the basic need of humans to live in a community based on shared agreements of how to behave. This does not mean that I think that there are no crooks or that people will act out of self interest over the interest of their fellow man, because there is certainly a lot of evidence to the contrary. At the bedrock of my belief is an assumption that in every person there is a desire to successfully do the right thing, no matter how great the failures. And there are reasonable explanations for why these failures occur that are rooted in culture, upbringing, security (or lack thereof), and circumstance. For me, the steering wheel of trust is a more satisfying life choice. With the other option, the steering wheel of fear, it is the individual against everybody else. It is the zero-sum game, the winner-take-all philosophy, the cynical belief that there is such a thing as evil in the world and that people are basically the victims of evil and are to be feared and fought. That’s a world I don’t choose to live in. But I do see it is a powerful force that can have disastrous effects on politics and the health of our country. With this steering wheel, the devil is everywhere and his influence must be overcome through the prism of politics as a way to evaluate values and morality of actions. In the final analysis, politics are about which kind of government we will be building for generations to come. Our political arguments go to the heart of who we are and how we choose to be in the world. Our ideologies allow us to make easy choices without doing the hard work of understanding all the ramifications of our actions. There are certainly other issues which should stand outside of the structures we struggle to build with our politics: common values, family values, the pursuit of happiness, and the value of service.”

All of these need to be taken into consideration when making decisions about the future we want to build.

RESPONSE May  27, 2014:

I admire your clarity and your positive stance. How to use this model when thinking about personal relationships?–Dr. Marilyn Kallet

RESPONSE May 27, 2014:

I appreciate your comment and I will think about the reponse. I am pleased to make your acquaintance. We share a number of the same poetic influences, as well as our southern heritage.–Charles Entrekin

RESPONSE May 28, 2014:

I thought about it some more, Marilyn. Relationships are a bit like politics. When you get into conversations with your friends, the matters of understanding one another are often guided by the same steering wheels of fear and trust. It’s easy to say one chooses the steering wheel of trust over fear because that is how we want to see ourselves. It is much harder to engage in trusting that your friends or neighbors are all striving to do the right thing. When conflicts emerge, fear surreptitiously enters the picture and suddenly, even though we thought we had chosen the steering wheel of trust, we are operating with the steering wheel of fear. I think it is more difficult than one might imagine to set aside one’s concealed fears (fear of conflict, fear of losing face, fear of alienating, fear of telling the truth to a friend who needs to hear it but doesn’t want to hear it). I talked to my wife and  daughter about these issues and they both agreed that the temptation to judge somebody harshly was an easy, slippery path to go down and it requires a positive force of will power to pull oneself back and say to yourself, “There is a reason why my friend (or neighbor) is behaving the way they are and I need to understand it.” I just wanted you to know that I followed up.–Charles Entrekin

RESPONSE May 27, 2014:

Thoughtful analysis of  a fascinating topic.  Fear is a desperate state that I cannot imagine anyone of sound mind proactively choosing as a guiding philosophy; more probably,  fear, like a satanic snake,  insinuates itself into the identity or self-image of those who see themselves adrift among uncertainties and forces beyond their understanding and/or control; hence they are susceptible or vulnerable to manipulation, deception, exploitation and other predatory behaviors of the more clever, powerful and successful around them (e.g., politicians,  crack-pot visionaries, cult leaders, etc) who promise them “salvation” from their fearful state.–Brendan Allen

RESPONSE May 28, 2014:

Yes, fear offers a scary ride, even though it is often controlled by unconscious or subconscious mindsets. –Charles Entrekin

RESPONSE May 30, 2014:

As you say Charles, very thought provoking! In general I like your optimistic slant, but alas I (being a recovering pessimist) feel compelled to take issue with a few things; no offense intended. BTW, my response is an aggregation of my recent readings in philosophy, neuroscience, and spirituality and therefore not currently well thought out…but thanks for the opportunity to start it!

First, casting human behavior in terms of fear and trust  seems like not that much different than the arguments about whether the world is “good” or “evil” with people believing in one or the other. (with your background you could better address this in the philosophical sense.) (In non-dual thinking, it is said that both (or neither) exists by itself, they are two sides of the same coin, one defining the other.) 
Also, the notion of a steering wheel raises the specter of free will; it sounds like you are assuming we have free will and therefore have some control of our destiny. I think it is considerably more complex than that and I tend to go in the direction (at least for now) of Sam Harris that there really is no free will in the sense of that we would like to believe. Neuroscience and psychological research tells us that there are many “drivers” of our intention (i.e., free will being an expression of intention), much of it biologically based as well as conditioning from experiences that are embedded mostly in our two memory systems, conscious and unconscious, and habit systems (dopamine (reinforcement) and opioid (reward) circuits in our brains), not to mention all the possibilities for mental and physical dysfunction.  The argument says that our reason is used largely post hoc, to explain events that have already occurred (and I might add, sometimes aimed at burnishing the ego). The other problem with the rational mind is it tends to make lots of mistakes due to  cognitive bias’. Furthermore, our “hardwired” conditioning (i..e, evolutionary sources) makes us negatively biased; we are compelled to pay attention to fear the most, otherwise we wouldn’t survive in a hostile world. Seems we can’t really avoid the fear part, but we are lucky when we are not driven by it. From where I set now, I am skeptical that we have much of a choice about how we  turn out, and why its extremely (impossible?) hard to change a person (unless he/she does the hard work you allude to). However, on the positive side, “good” habits are also reinforced and rewarded which explains how we get to being happy, empathetic and compassionate people. We learn how to engage pro-social actions, how to take care of ourselves when we need to, all of this aligned with learning how to make ourselves feel better/good (which sometimes even includes self deception and other egoistic indulgences as well as “seeking” behavior). Of course, we can go too far with making ourselves feel good and trigger the opioid circuits resulting in all kinds of addictions.  Most of us fall somewhere in this spectrum, but fortunately there are a lot of people that fall near the “positive” end…like you Charles! Without these folks, it would indeed be a dark and dismal world.

Certainly, there is some influence from our rational minds that embody our ideologies, beliefs and values (whatever they are?). But the main point is, intentions are like thoughts, they just pop up seemingly for no apparent reason but they seem to be mostly out of our control. (This does not include didactic or deductive/inductive reasoning, like we do with planning, calculating etc.)

This POV is also embraced by Buddhism and Taoism in that we basically have no (or little) control, the universe does what it does and our task is to live in the flow of it. Most thoughts come from nothingness are not real except we try to make them real by identifying with them….which  of course is how we suffer.

Another point is “doing the right thing”…we all like to think we know the right thing, but one  persons right is another’s wrong; one example is Libertarians saying the “right thing” is to look only to your own self interest, that everybody depends on themselves only…I am sure you and I could agree that this does not constitute a “right thing” for a successful society of imperfect individuals; it seems like ideology run amok. If we were all perfect (or enlightened) we would not need police and only a very limited government.

So, all of these influences “determine” how each of us turn out and respond to the events in our lives; there are winners and there are losers it appears. This brings us to politics which I think is the  point of your letter.

Well, now that you have me reading The Brothers (plus some others I am reading along the same lines), and am no longer sanguine about how the world is shaped by democratic politics and a few smart guys (to glue it all together). Seems to me, our fortunes (literally and figuratively) are shaped by unintended consequence of the plutocratic oligarchy. We enjoy the lives we are living by hard work and dedication to ourselves and our families, but also with a dose of good luck. I hate to be pessimistic here, but it appears that we all got here on the backs of the oppressed all over the world (and our  own downtrodden) that the US (and Europe) has so far been able to manipulate. We have benefited from the greed and power that these folks have been able to marshal, at least thus far.We have done some amazing things along the way, but the fact remains it far from an ideal system and always will be given its populated by humans of different persuasions.

And we should not forget the role of religion. I recently read in Sam Harris’ book (The Moral Landscape) a fascinating bit of research. In a nutshell, the countries that have done the best in terms of overall happiness and all measures of well-being are the northern European ones, where inequality is least and religion is minimal, the true secular societies. The US is an anomaly among the developed nations in that we have a very high (90+% Christian) religiosity even though we have wealth. The upshot is, inequality and other forms of insecurity drive people to group together with those whom they share values (e.g., tribes) and adhere to notions of eternal afterlife and the hope of salvation but mostly provide security and a sense of belonging/affiliation (witness what is going on in the mid-east). This appears to be a fundamental human trait, our need to belong to society. Institutional religions certainly fill that need and are embedded in the political structure no matter how much lip service we give to separation of church and state. 

Well I guess that is enough maybe too much!–Tom Webster

RESPONSE July 3, 2014:

About good and evil: 

Ever since Nietzsche’s work, I feel that civilization has, at least, in part, moved beyond the concepts of good and evil. Personally, I have long concluded that there is no such thing as good and evil, except as it pertains to religious dogma. The terms “good” and ‘evil” are merely labels that help religious writers define their rules and regulations for prescribed behavior. For me, they are terms empty of content that merely express the prejudices of the speaker. As you seemed to point out, these perceptions depend on one’s personal perspective. Or, to use a contemporary cliché, “It’s all relative.” People like to label things after the fact and put it in a box that makes their story appear more acceptable or correct or righteous. The use of the term “steering wheel” is intended to suggest subjective perspective. “Fear” and “trust” are abstract concepts. They are a lens for determining how you see the world around you. The same events can be interpreted positively or negatively depending on which lens through which you see them. It is clear that politicians have learned that the easier way to convince people of the righteousness of their arguments is the steering wheel of fear. They should fear evil, they say.  They are the worst of the worst, they say. All these arguments are driven by the steering wheel of fear, to instill a belief that will get the desired action or reaction.  For example, Edward Snowden can either be looked at as a hero and a patriot or an evil person seeking power and fame. For me, I think of him as a hero. I trust what he says until or unless evidence to the contrary arises, I am to the side of transparency, not secrecy.

 About free will:

 Steering wheels don’t suggest free will to me. They suggest directional intentions, so that we get to make a map of where we want to go in our lives. It doesn’t mean that we will necessarily go there or even be successful in our attempts to go there, but our intention to go there.  My son Demian says that human beings can change but only by 3% over a lifetime. But it is my belief that we are changing all the time. We are constantly making choices and the results of our choices will create the persona we project. Ever since we were born, we were making choices and these will create a foundational personality of what we can do and what we can’t do. As Sartre says, “We are doomed to be free.”  Every action we take is a choice that has implications and repercussions, conscious and unconscious. In many ways, the personality we have or, to put it in  Buddhist perspective, the story we tell, about who we are is the personality or the ego construction we deserve, have chosen, created for ourselves. Our conception of ourselves is not who we are. Who we are is the sum of the choices we have made, whether we face up to them or not. It is often the case that we do not tell ourselves the truth about who we are, e.g. we do not admit to having made the choices we made. Like in Stephen Crane’s novel The Red Badge of Courage, we lie to ourselves about what we have done, convince ourselves that we are heroes, have acted with great courage, when in fact we were terrified and ran away. The reality is a part of us, but not acceptable to the vision of who we are so we do not own up to it. But whether we can see ourselves or not, we make choices and those choices have repercussions.  But I digress.

About Choices:

It is clear that environment and genetics both play a huge role in determining our choices of who we can be. But even within those constraints, we are still doomed to make our choices about how to react to those constraints. And with each decision, a path is forked that determines what our next choices will be and we are on the path to becoming unique personalities. If this were not so, we would not be able to sit in a sanga meditation and watch our story unfold before us and recognize it as just a story. We would not be able to choose compassion as a path to pursue. And, like you, Tom, I choose compassion, but also the steering wheel of trust, because it gives me a release from my particular constraints and allows me a sense of well-being that I am not able to achieve any other way.

About Rightthinking and Wrongthinking: As Rumi says, “Out beyond the ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” In other words, for me, there is no “rightdoing” and “wrongdoing” outside of a religious/political perspective. There are only choices, decisions, and actions which are, in effect, who we are, they define us. They are our “story,” the real story, not the one we tell ourselves.

About politics, religion and sociology:

First of all, I like Sam Harris and I particularly enjoyed his Letters to a Christian Nation. But beyond reading books like Sam’s and Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers ,I don’t have much to say about these fields. I have no expertise in any of them. I read about them and draw opinions, but I haven’t studied them and am skeptical about what these theories have to say, especially those that draw on dogma as a starting place. But I do think that if we look could into the history/mind of an oligarch, we would find that he or she, too, made choices that determined his/ her story of himself/herself. I do think that you are right about inequality being a bad model for driving culture and I do feel that America’s promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a goal worthy of a government. So far, we have not lived up to that promise and it appears that we have been lied to about our role in the world culture.

I think your thoughts are exciting and I have taken great pleasure in this discussion and I look forward to your next installment in our conversation.–Charles Entrekin

  •        

     

    From December 4, 2006 Why Habeas Corpus is important for Democracy

    by

    Why is Habeas Corpus Important for Democracy

    http://nevadacitysisyphus.blogspot.com/

    Having tried and failed to suspend habeas corpus for two American citizens, Jose Padilla and Esam Hamdi (Hamdi v. Rumsfield), the Congress passed, and George W. Bush, on Oct. 17, 2006, signed HR-6166, a bill that authorizes the government to try non-resident alien terror suspects by military tribunals and to suspend their rights of habeas corpus.

    Should we care?

    Habeas corpus, from the Latin, you have the body, goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, 1231, when kings could throw anybody in prison, keep them there indefinitely, and torture them at will without any court interference. All this changed with habeas corpus. Over the centuries it’s come to be a common understanding of civilized nations that a prisoner has a right to know why he’s been imprisoned, to face his accusers, to know what the charges are, and to have some form of due process.

    So now our President has decided to set aside provisions of a law that has been considered accepted common law, and standard legal practice, by the civilized world for over 800 years. This president says he needs the new law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, so that he can protect us from the terrorists.

    But is this really what’s going on?

    Back in 68 BC, according to Robert Harris in a recent NY Times article (9/30/2006), Rome faced its own 9/11, an attack by a loose affiliation of pirates. And Rome, under the influence of a power-hungry leader, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, or Pompey the Great, panicked and agreed to a new law to protect the citizens of Rome. The Romans passed the Lex Gabinia and gave up their citizens’ rights in order to support Pompey, who said he needed this law to raise an army in order to protect Rome from this new kind of enemy. But the new law set into motion the destruction of the Roman constitution and brought into play the powerful moneyed interests of a new Military Industrial Complex. Then, less than two decades after the passage of the Lex Gabinia, the Roman republican system collapsed.

    So should we, We the People of the United States of America, stand up in protest against this attack on the principles behind habeas corpus? Or should we not? The Bush Administration says “we are at war.” But if “we are at war,” then why are the folks we’re holding in secret prisons called “unlawful enemy combatants?” Isn’t that specifically to avoid having to abide by the rights spelled out in the Geneva Convention and habeas? And even if “we are at war,” shouldn’t we stand solidly behind the idea that even these “detainees” should have access to a fair hearing and a right to protest their innocence? Or are we arguing for the principle: “guilty until proven innocent?” Already we have set up secret prisons, we have tortured people or caused them to be tortured, and we have actually simply murdered some without any due process.

    Why?

    Perhaps it is because this “war on terror” has been defined as a case of “us” versus “them,” and “good” versus “evil,” and because it’s easy for us to look the other way because these suspects are not us, not American citizens. But is this justification enough to make the presumption that all suspected “enemy combatants” are guilty until proven innocent, that they must be locked away in secret prisons, or that they should be tortured until they confess?

    By locking up all information under the cloak of “top secret,” George W. Bush has asked Americans to trust him, to believe that he will protect us from the terrorist Islamic Jihadists. But should we trust him? Based on all the news reports I have read, I have to say that we are in danger of another terrorist attack, but it is my belief that we are a resilient people, that we will not be ruled by fear, and that we can deal with these “pirates” without giving up on the concepts that have made this country great. The suspension of habeas corpus for non-resident aliens is a grave concern. It is a loud warning that something is going seriously wrong. It is the same large concern that was expressed by Benjamin Franklin when, after the Constitutional Convention he was asked what type of government we had built, a Republic or a Monarchy, and he replied, “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

    The question is: Can we keep it?

    Hello world!

    by

    Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

    Here are some suggestions for your first post.

    1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
    2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
    3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.