Good Morning. Caucus99. Let' take it one day at a time. All will be good. That's the way I survive. I am offering you a Smörgåsbord this morning. Hmm... salmon ...scambled eggs ... caviar...

I. So, what happened June 11, 2004 over at the gos? Eleven years ago. I am trying to do a little self-investigation about my time at gos in the past, as I realize that I can't remember much of what I thought at that time. I was working in a part-time position as a little accountant at a German conservative Think Tankin DC to make a meager living, let's say - I was silently surviving. It all blurs in my mind.

It was the first year I started to read dailykos and today, I wonder how I got so dependent on reading that site. I joined dailykos on March 6, 2004 (and don't remember anymore how I got there other than it was through a comment on kuro5hin). So I looked for my first comments during that time.

I found a diary by kos, he wrote on April 3, 2004 about McCain:The McCain Question. He was wondering, if McCain might switch the party to the Democrats and what it would mean if McCain would become VP of John Kerry. Oh wow. Strange. I think I was not able to follow his line of thought. I just mention that diary because it's the diary to which I made my first comment

McCain and Kerry - not the right chemistry (none)
Kerry and Chuck Hagel, may be.
by mimi on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 01:23:17 AM EST

I think I would still think the same way, though I have to say that today I see John Kerry much differently than back then and kind of understand why one could imagine John Kerry to be a hawk living up to McCain hawkishness levels.
A week later I made a comment related to "hawkishness of Sen. Biden", which a gilas girl discussed in her short diary Biden on Face the Nation

...talking about Empires etc. (none)
if Senator Biden is an "Empire hawk" what about McCain?
Americans are all "Empire challenged". They are basically victims of their own propaganda. I don't blame them. If Americans are good at something than it is in emotionally and psychologically manipulating their citizens with their own masterly skills of soft political propaganda everywhere, be it in school education, churches and media. It's the only Western Democracy where the very idea of democracy and freedom is abused for political purposes and power politics.
by mimi on Sun Apr 11, 2004 at 12:50:50 PM EDT

I still have that same opinion, so this is a rare occasion that I am not ashamed of my comments.

II. Here is a diary Meteor Blades wrote on June 11, 2004. It's an Open Thread and had a funny poll.

I think we should ...

1. Take Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill and put Ronald Reagan on instead
2. Leave our currency the way it is
3. Replace the politicos with musicians
4. Replace them with artists
5. Replace them with robber barons
6. Replace them with scientists (which means Franklin gets to stay)
7. Replace them with humanitarians
8. Replace them with the most successful winners of Jeopardy!
9. Replace them with movie stars
10. Replace them with classic automobiles
11. Replace money with barter
12. Other

The results were pretty boring. Of course I would replace Hamilton with a musician. So, which musician should it be? Here are all the real musical inclined and knowledgeable people. Which musician would you put on the ten dollar bill?

III. Now what happened today in history? Strange stuff. May be I am not looking at the right places.

1903: The unpopular King Alexander of Serbia and his wife are murdered in a palace coup. Peter Karageorgevic is later elected to replace him.

I would have to read what the consequences of this murder were. If I were a historian, life would be so much more meaningful to me....

1967: The UN brokers a ceasefire between Israel and the defeated Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, ending the Six-Day War with Israel occupying the Sinai, West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

not one day too early

1992: US President George H W Bush is forced to flee from gunfire and tear gas disrupting his visit to Panama.

oh, oh

1993: North Korea pulls Asia back from the brink of a possible nuclear arms race by reversing its decision to withdraw from a treaty preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

that was good, I guess ?

2001: In northern Colombia, thousands turn out to protest a US-backed programme to eradicate coca crops by plane. They want the government to manually eradicate the plant used to make cocaine instead of spraying the countryside.

manually to eradicate the plant... would have given a lot of people a job, I guess and it would have saved the environment, too good to be true.

Ok, it's getting worse and more boring, so I save you from more of this.

IV. Last, but not least, here is a bit of what I read the last days. It's from Chris Hedges' newest book "Wages of Rebellion - The Moral Imperative of Revolt". I quote a bit from chapter III "The invisible Revolution", because so many things he said struck me as truthful.

He talks about what Avner Offer, an economic historian, who wrote the book: "The Challenge of Affluence, Self Control in the United States and Britain since 1950" defines as "a 'just-world' theory.

"A just-world theory posits that the world is just. People get what they deserve. If you believe that the world is fair, you explain or rationalize away injustice, usually by blaming the victim.

He goes on to say:

Major ways of thinking about the world constitute just-world theories. The Catholic Church is a just-world theory. The Inquisition burned heretics, they only got what they deserved. Bolshevism was a just-world theory. If Kulaks were starved and exiled, they got what they deserved. Fascism was a just-world theory. If Jews died in the concentration camps, they got what they deserved. The point is not that the good people get the good things, but the bad people get the bad things. Neoclassical economics, our principal source of policy norms, is a just-world theory.

He quotes Milton Friedman:

The ethical principle that would directly justify the distribution of income in a free marked society is "To each according to what he and the instruments he owns produces". Everyone gets what he or she deserves, either for his or her efforts of for his or her property. No one asks how he or she got this property. And if they don't have it, they probably don't deserve it. The point about just-world theory is not that it dispenses justice, but it provides a warrant for inflicting pain."

So, I guess it's the "pain inflicting unjust-world theory". Sigh. He continues:

There are two core doctrines in economics. One is individual self-interest. The other is the invisible hand, the idea that the pursuit of individual self-interest aggregates or builds up for the good of the society as a whole. This is a logical proposition that has never been proven. ...That is not a norm that is part of economics itself. In fact, economics tells us the opposite. Economics tells us that everything anyone says should be motivated by strategic self-interests. And when economists us the word "strategic" they mean cheating.

And cheating they did.

Offer said there was a "silent revolution" in the 1970ies. That this was the time "economists discovered the world 'opportunism' - a polite term for cheating. Before (the 1970ies), economics had been a just-world defense of the status quo. But when the status quo became a welfare state, suddenly economics became all about cheating. Game theory was about cheating. Public choice theory was about cheating. Asymmetric information was about cheating. The invisible hand doctrine tells us that there is only one outcome, and that outcome is the best. ...But when you enter the world of cheating, there is no longer just one outcome. ... The outcome depends on how successful the cheating is. ...

Feel cheated now?

I am tired of going on. Read the book, there is so much in it, it's worth it. Actually I wanted to quote some other paragraphs, but got stuck with these ones. I am not sure, probably I end up quoting the whole book. May be next Thursday I go on with that.

Just to end with a more hopeful thought. Hedges quotes Adam Smith:

What drives us is not - in the end - individual selfishness but reciprocal obligation. We care about other people's good opinions. This generates a reciprocal cycle. Reciprocity is not altruistic. That part of the economic core doctrine is preserved. But if we depend on other people for our self-worth, then we are not truly self-sufficient. We depend on the sympathy of others for our own well-being. Therefore, obligation to others means that we do not always seek to maximize economic advantage. Intrinsic motivations, such as obligation, compassion, and public spirit, crowd out financial ones.

I have found a lot of compassion, obligation and public spirit here. And I thank you for letting me be part of it and witness it.

Have a good day, all.