It is elementary, that when you write about a term you should give its definition. In the case of corruption, we all know what is meant. This agreement does not help to get closer to a precise meaning that satisfies everybody at all times. Those that admit this and persist to give a definition are either fools or they write a weekly column. It is quite likely that the “or” can be omitted. 

Its omnipresence is what makes “corruption” as slippery as a freshly caught fish. We often become unaware participants because an innocent aspect is implied. This can make actions that open privileged opportunities not legally actionable and these are therefore not criminal. When I got my Swiss citizenship an official had to determine whether I am integrated. Due to assumptions he had reason to make in the light of my training, he skipped the obligatory questions about society and politics. Once he found out that I am a member of a local pistol club, being a participant himself, he visibly concluded that I “belong”. The case gets more complicated once other shared interests are exploited to pull the cart of a firm. For good reason, retired politicians are in demand as lobbyists. For the same reason, many countries limit their lobbying.

By design, the published image and lived reality are made to diverge.

Daily this writer consults more than ten papers and several magazines. Most represent “the mainstream”. That confirms that objectivity is a badge worn by mutual acclamation that makes the term into a camouflage for bias. What is bemoaned is not that most organs lean left. If that is admitted, then one can judge the product. Unfair is when the fare served belies the claimed neutrality. Many people believe that if it is printed it must be true. This trust can be undeserved and misleading.

Democracies live in a perennial pre-election season. So, glance at your average pre-election endorsements. Even if your paper might not approve of anybody to the right of Lenin, there will be a lot of pious objectivism at the end of which one of the leftist candidates gets the nod. 

Repeated presidential terms present opportunities but freezing society’s advance is not one of them.

Political speculations are burdened by a widespread but also vain attempt. It is to move to the wastebasket that news about Russia that does not fit contradictory, before-the-fact conceptions. The results suffer from two prejudices. One is that everything Russian –regardless of her system- is a threat. The other is that whatever comes from there is justified and positive. Such extremes are seldom right. The cited rule is, in this case and the moment, quite fitting. 

Richard Dawkins: a representative example of trying to found morality on biology

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attempts to describe the biological roots of morality. He begins by saying:

Natural selection favors genes that predispose individuals, in relationships of asymmetric need and opportunity, to give when they can, and to solicit giving when they can’t. It also favors tendencies to remember obligations, bear grudges, police exchange relationships and punish cheats who take, but don’t give when their turn comes. (Dawkins, p. 217)

One problem with these claims is that they beg the question. We do not know that morality is the result of genes and natural selection. He makes a factual claim without evidence. Dawkins is assuming the very thing he is supposed to be arguing for – the biological basis of morality.

Leftist elites dislike conservatives because they resent reality.

1. The GOP has achieved what Obama could not have accomplished. Kudos to Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. Most likely, the next President of the USA is again Barack Obama. The words “well-deserved” come to mind.

(1) Some measures that are sold as the practical application of the principle of tolerance. In the case of a few of these, that what is advocated is not tolerance but a symptom of an ailment whose origin is lacking self-confidence and collective guilt.

A repeat offender, who committed a brutal murder while in an early release program, came up with an interesting defense. He explained to have killed because he missed jail. As the trial moved toward the sentencing, the accused fought to avoid a life sentence. Can anyone detect the inconsistency that the court could not?

There is much talk these days regarding Chancellor Merkel’s management of the European crisis about the return of Bismarck’s Realpolitik. But there is no such talk, as far as I am aware, of the American copy of it. However the most conspicuous reminder on the social struggles of the late 19th century is President Barack Obama imitating Bismarck with his recent double blow of disenfranchising health care reform and precipitation of a “culture war” on religion, particularly Catholicism. It has got an immediate and unprecedented response by representatives from the Jewish-Christian community (WSJ, Feb. 10, 2012: “United We Stand for Religious Freedom”). 

The Soviets have abused the Russian language and culture by converting them into instruments of subjugation. The consequences still disadvantage the region.

An acquired language can be an instrument of integration, and access knowledge whereby it facilitates upward mobility. Millions that had entered the USA and Canada have learned English under these terms. That big story describes this writer’s personal story. In such instances, the new language liberated its users. In the case of contemporary immigrations, we encounter instances in which, by their free choice, groups enter countries whose culture, traditions and language –but not its welfare payments- they reject. Indigenous “goodpersons” tend to support such self-incapacitation. Preserving traditions and dignity is exploited to justify the resistance.

Trying to Find a Biological Basis for Morality

There are certain kinds of arguments philosophers call ‘self-defeating’ because if you turn out to be right you are wrong and obviously if you turn out to be wrong you’re wrong. Trying to find biological foundations for morality is one of these kinds of arguments. A very clear example of a self-defeating argument would be to argue that rational argument is impossible. If I am rationally convinced by your argument, then rational argument is possible, not impossible and the argument is disproven. If you cannot persuade me because rational argument is impossible, then likewise the argument fails. The problem of course is that you must rely on the very thing you are hoping to prove does not exist.

About the hidden forces that determine what you will have reason to think.

Before resigning, Sarah Palin admitted:  “I cannot take this anymore.” Since the title “Iron Lady” is already given away, the best way to refer to Ms Palin might be “Metal Maid”. The case makes one speculate about the instruments that can end the political life of a toughie. The concern is independent of whether one is a Palin fan or not. 

Palin’s case points to other victims. Behind this affair, there is a force that cannot be written off. Thus, the seemingly isolated issue is an occurence that is not limited a country or to parties. We have a case with a warning label “You are next”.