My favorite philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas, has much to say about radical exteriority. Not exteriority as neutral which is firmly engrained in our contemporary ontology (i.e., a pre-cognitive understanding of being based on occidental history) but as a he or a she, the face of the other. To take a step back, growing up or maturing is all about recognizing we are not stuck in an infantile fixation where the only thing that comes to the fore is our emotional need but where an ‘other’, something not-me¹, matters. We should not immediately jump to the notion of God as that ‘other’. God and religion have proven time and again that they can be the most fixated in an infantile regression where all that matters is an inferior mirroring of God which in the end is only a superego (Freud) or fantasy (Lacan…shall we say phantasm?).

At this moment in history in the U.S. we are seeing more and more folks clamoring for war with ISIS, an increasing hatred of Islam and an impatience with President Obama’s strategy for getting rid of the terrorist threat. Republican candidates are talking openly about ‘World War III’ and a ‘clash of civilizations’.² Capitalism and technology fuels the developing crisis as anger sells. Psychologically, anger is always preferred over anxiety and fear as anger holds the illusion of control. Babies learn this early on and find throwing a fit seems to get better, more desirable results…and then they learn the word, “NO”. Control gives boundaries. Even if control is an illusion, it makes one feel better. Anger forces an object, a Great Satan, an assumed reason for anxiety. It is assumed that if the evil object goes away the anxiety will subside. If mommy does not get the bottle fast enough watch out.

Facts matter. Certainly facts can be fantasized and created to suit infantile needs for security. Facts can be neutral or appear to be from an all too human history of infantile ‘ontologizing’. However, beyond these relative moments of facts there is another dynamic at play, reality (Lacan³). Unless you are a narcissist, a sociopath (psychopath), megalomaniac/egomaniac or solipsist you will intuitively recognize that there is a not-me. Facts can be a presentation of the not-me. The not-me is the face of the other. Maturity recognizes exteriority. Here are the facts: gun violence by our own citizenry on average since 2005 are 1,250 times more like to kill you than a terrorist.⁴ A drunk good ‘ol boy with a gun is much more likely to kill you than a terrorist. A recent study concludes:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.⁵

You are more likely to kill yourself or a member of your family if you go out and buy a gun for the terrorist bogie-man. You are more likely to get killed by a drunk driver. To put it in perspective, you are much more likely to get killed by a bolt of lightning. The flu kills an average of 36,000 people a year as opposed to an average of 30,000 a year for domestic gun violence. These are facts not feelings. If you play feelings in the stock market or a poker game, statistically, you are going to lose. Sure, you could be the one that the murderous terrorist gets or the mythical NRA creature that shoots the “bad guy” but reacting from emotion will likely get you into much more problems…this is what ISIS wants. They know you are more like to do something stupid to yourself from anxiety and fear than they are likely to kill you. President Obama understands this and has fashioned a strategy to address the mature complexities of the issue. Yes, we will get the international thugs (less than 50,000 in Syria and Iraq) but we will not create more terrorists in so doing. G.W. Bush gave us the Wild West show in the ruins of the World Trade Center buildings and then went for the mass shoot out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, facts not feelings prove that the show down at the O.K. Coral created many more terrorists than it killed⁶.

The fact is that you cannot fight terrorists with a conventional war. Sure, you can kill a lot of people both terrorists, innocent civilians and our own young people but if you create more hatred, you create more terrorists. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, will soon be the largest religion in the world and the fastest growing religion in the world.⁷ If you want to make this about Islam and not a group of thugs, you are setting the stage for a religious, World War catastrophe. If you do and vote for what the Republican candidates are advocating, you are allowing your anxiety, blown way out of proportion, to start a real catastrophe that really may be the end of our country and perhaps civilization. Think about all the wars since World War II. While the 50’s anti-communist rhetoric got Eisenhower to start the Vietnam War and many after to expand it, we still have communism. Come to think of it we still have fascists growing in larger numbers in the world since World War II but we really had no choice facing the axis leaders of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Emperor Hirohito. Even if we kill all the thugs in Iraq and Afghanistan we will still have terrorists. We can go after organized crime all we want but it is here to stay. If we must face a nation or nations down for national survival, the framers of our Constitution gave us a mechanism for declaring war. They were fully aware of the infantile human tendency for knee-jerk reaction and unnecessary and frivolous wars. Over-reacting is just as dangerous, if not more so, than the original provocation. We need to be smart not emotional. If we as a country decide to ramp this up to the level of conventional warfare we will likely do more harm than good as recent history SHOULD have taught us. We will pay a bigger cost for that.

Facts can and should help us wean ourselves from infantile regression, lashing out from fear and anxiety. We need to address the issue in an adult way if we want to solve the problem. We will only perpetuate an endless cycle of immaturity and exacerbate our anxieties further by listening to the war hawks. They have vested interests other than reason and facts for whipping us up a frenzy. We, the common folk, have the option to recognize the other, the facts and make a mature decision based on knowledge. Our system of democracy depends on the ideal of Enlightenment. If we cave to our lesser instincts we become the victims of our fears. As FDR once stated, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. There can be an ‘other’ in facts and knowledge which call to us to not be purely reactive but reflective of a reality other than our desire, our fear, our phantasms. I do not think we dare think as Jesus would have us, to turn the other check. However worthy, that is a radical ideology which flies in the face of our physicality. However, Aristotle and physics does teach us to act in proportionality, ‘ratio’. If our economic system thrives on reality distortions it is because we created it and allow it but there is still a possibility for acting with reason and not creating an equal, or perhaps far worse, opposite reaction. Externality beckons to us with facts other than ourselves not relative to ourselves. When we respond responsibly we learn about the other and adapt. When the other is the face of the other, as for Levinas, we have an absolute externality which cannot be mediated but lost in the murderous violence of ontology, our world-situated eradication of the other. This is the quintessential terrorist.

Anger is the desire to appease fear and anxiety. It is the desire for control and all too often settles for the illusion of knowledge, pretending to know the cause of our vexations even if the cause is imagined or way out of proportion. This kind of desire eradicates the possibility for knowledge based on something other than ourselves. Levinas thinks of this kind of desire as satisfying needs or wants. I have pointed to the possibility of facts that are external to our fears, anxiety and anger which give us pause from our infantile feelings of necessities and give us perspective, proportionality, circumspect to address real problems and allow maturity, knowledge and growth. Levinas would have us go further than our ‘plastic moulds we make of the face of the other’ to appease our wants and needs. He would have us think of Metaphysical Desire which has always faced us in the epiphany of the face of the other, a trace which murder and war cannot ever erase, essentially different from ‘totalizing’ desire.

I conclude with some rather lengthy and further provoking remarks from Drew Dalton, a scholar from Florida Southern College:

Metaphysical Desire, according to Levinas, is a desire unlike any of our other more quotidian desires. Desire has of course been traditionally defined as: (1) arising out of some determinate lack, (2) proceeding towards some determinate presence or object, and (3) concluding in the satisfaction or restoration of the subject in the absorption of that object. Take hunger for example. Hunger emerges out of a nutritive lack within us, corresponds to some determinate object, say a ham sandwich (which once consumed and absorbed by the body restores us to our normal functional state), and rewards us with pleasure or satisfaction. Note that in such a desire it is the object, as the end of the desire (both its goal and its cessation), which sets its limit, de-fining it as it were. So, a desire which seeks food as an object and is satisfied in that object we call hunger, a desire which seeks drink we call thirst, a desire for sexual gratification we call lust, etc. The object, as the end of desire (both conceived as telos and peras) is what has traditionally been seen as what establishes its parameters as a definite and singular phenomenon. Its object, conceived phenomenologically, appears to be what allows a desire to emerge as it does in a particular form.

Interpreted along these lines, it would seem that what would distinguish a particularly metaphysical desire would be the peculiar nature of its object, that it would lie outside of or beyond (meta) the realm of finite being (physis). And, indeed, many have interpreted Levinas account of metaphysical desire in this way, as what has traditionally been termed a kind of religious desire, a desire which finds its object in the divine. After all, Levinas says himself that metaphysical desire is distinct in as much as it “tends toward something else entirely, toward the absolutely other.”…

Levinas goes to great lengths to distinguish between what he calls desire and what he terms need or hunger which seems to function much more in line with the traditional account of the dialectical progress of desire….

Metaphysical desire, understood as the movement towards this absolute Other who appears with a face, though definitely a religious or spiritual phenomenon, nevertheless remains inexorably bound to the human. Thus, though perhaps a religious phenomenon, metaphysical desire is an experience which is, for Levinas, fundamentally articulated in the realm of the social. It is a phenomenon which speaks in the language of ethics. Or, as Levinas puts it, using a visual metaphor rather than an auditory one, “Ethics is the spiritual optics,” – ethics is the lens or window through which we might perceive the transcendent (God).

Put another way, the finite face of the Other shines with the infinite light of the divine. It is in the face of the concrete other (the human) that we see the absolutely Other (the divine). The movement of metaphysical desire is thus for Levinas simultaneously vertical and horizontal – or to put it strangely, it moves upwards by moving laterally, by reaching out towards the neighbor….

One possible result of such an eclipse of the nature of longing is that we may try to subsume metaphysical desire into the realm of the finite and read it as any other determinate need or hunger as has traditionally been done. That is, we may try to satisfy this phenomenon which is, as we’ve stated, situated beyond satisfaction and non-satisfaction, beyond placation by any determinate object, with an infinite number of finite objects. The problem being, of course, that no amount of finitude can fill out the infinite. The result of a confusion of this sort is, sadly, all too obvious and apparent: a kind of reckless, endless consumerism – in a word, greed. Indeed, this attempt to reduce the infinite to the finite, to, in a word, totalize it, is the source, argues Levinas, of all determinate evil in the world. And don’t we witness precisely a link here, an immediate connection between our seemingly limitlessness consumer desires and evil in the world. What Levinas asks of us is to probe the true nature of our desires and ask whether what we want when we want some-thing is actually no-thing at all, whether what we seek therein is not actually some peace with the suffering Other who calls out to us in our desires? He asks us to see whether when we think we desire some-thing, we’re not really longing for some-one, an ethical relation with the neighbor, orphan, widow or stranger in whom we can perceive the divine and through whom we’re invited, according to Levinas, into the realm of the Good. This is an essential question to ask, especially in the capitalist West, where all sorts of charlatans, salesmen, politicians and priests are quick to convince you that the restlessness you feel is indicative of some lack within us; and, what’s more, that they can satisfy this lack so long as you give them your dollar, vote or faith.⁸

_________________

¹ The not-me is highly suggestive of Hegel’s use of negation. I have written about this more extensively in previous posts but in a sense, the negation can give us a hint of something more than the negative of a term. Likewise, as I have maintained here facts have the possibility for something other than merely mirroring ourselves to ourselves in some kind of ‘relativizing’ haze. In dialectics, the negative of a thesis is the anti-thesis. Any thesis whatsoever will always find in itself its negation and thus open up the possibility of a transformation, a lifting up Hegel termed, Aufhebung. In this way the negative and the thesis return to themselves in their synthesis. For Levinas, exteriority in the face of the other can never return to itself. The other must always exceed and defy a term as terms apply to thought, concept and reason. The radical alterity of the other can never be brought in existence as Being or a being. The other cannot be captured but always transcends me, history and language even though the self, history and language have always been fatally and fatefully about thinking, knowing, understanding the other. Metaphysical Desire is not a need; it can never be fulfilled as other types of needs. Metaphysical Desire cannot be resolved in a term or its negation. Thus, the use of the trope not-me has a legitimate departure point in its inability to be able, its passivity beyond all passivity as Levinas informs us.

² Anti-Abortion, Anti-Immigrants, Republicans and Jesus

³ The notion of the real in Lacan is more nuanced than the allusion above lends itself to. Lacan famously characterized the real as “impossible” vis-à-vis reality. Early on Lacan wrote of the real more like Kant’s thing-in-itself. At this time Lacan portrayed the real as absolute fullness, a pure plenum devoid of the negativities of absences, antagonisms, gaps, lacks, splits, etc. The real in its dumb, idiotic presence is never more and never less than sheer, indifferent plenitude. Later Lacan would think of this in more Hegelian terms involving convergences of opposites as a register of volatile oscillations and unstable reversals between excesses and lacks, surpluses and deficits, flooding presences and draining absences. This is more like Hegel’s notion of pure being. It also has reflection in the Greek notion of apeiron often simply translated as infinite, unlimited or indefinite or perhaps better, the fertile void also reminiscent of sunyata in Buddhism. Many comparisons have been made with Lacan, the psychologist and Levinas the philosopher in the notion of the other. Superficially, they both have the appearance of some kind of radical exteriority which can never be brought into the light of reason, language or symbol for Lacan. For Lacan, language as symbol and fantasy are forever trying futilely to restore that connection to the real. For Levinas, the face of the other can never be brought into my understanding of the other. Understanding as such is only a violence in the form of the history of being (ontology) which can only murder the other in its reduction. However, for Levinas Ethics does give us some sort of proximity to the other. This is the major difference between Lacan and Levinas. The face of the other while infinitely exterior to me can be faced. The other is not a real which lends itself to dialectic as in Hegel. The other is a he or a she and need not echo the fallen history of metaphysics which only ‘ontologizes’ the other as capable of dialectic. For Levinas language and history are tokens of the failure to bridge the gap of the other. Thus Metaphysics while failing historically to come to grips with the face of the other has its legitimacy in its failure. Metaphysics Desires the other but as Sisyphus is eternally condemned to miss the other as the other can never be an object to a subject or an antithesis to a thesis. Hegel’s Aufhebung is impossible for the face of the other. See Jacques Lacan, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and also The Real

⁴ The Symbiotic Play of War Hawks and Terrorism

…30,000 domestic gun deaths per year / average of 24 terrorist per year in the U.S. since 2005 = 1,250 or 1,250 * 24 = 30,000
⁵ Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, American Journal of Epidemiology, Oxford University Press

⁶ The Economic Cost of Violence Containment

⁷ Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group

⁸ THE VACCINATION OF THE INFINITE: LEVINAS’ METAPHYSICAL DESIRE AND THE CALL OF THE OTHER

Please folks, DO NOT give them the war they want. Rather, let’s address the issue with reason to squelch the problem rather than create many more new problems.

On Baptist preacher and anti-abortion candidate Mike Huckabee…

“I’ve got a better idea,” Huckabee suggested. “Why doesn’t Saudi Arabia host them, and we will send some assistance through our charitable organizations for some hospitals and schools? We will design the curriculum for those schools. They won’t be madrassas to teach terrorism.”

The conservative Christian politician said the United States had no moral obligation to shelter Syrian refugees, but should instead be more concerned about preserving its sovereignty from Muslim immigrants.

“That’s not a lack of Christian charity,” Huckabee insisted. “It’s the essence of charity, to provide for needs, but not to put your own children at risk, if what you’re importing could be people who have a nefarious purpose for wanting to be here.”¹

On fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortion candidate Ted Cruz…

Cruz plans to introduce legislation in the Senate this week to cut off federal funding for refugee resettlement, allying himself with Ben Carson, perhaps Cruz’s closest competitor in the presidential race. And he also said he supports governors who are closing their borders to the refugees.

“I was one of the very first to stake out this position. Now we’re seeing more and more come over and agree with me,” Cruz told Bash.²

On fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortion candidate Rick Santorum…

“If we take refugees from that area of Syria, what we’re doing is actually helping ISIS with what they want to accomplish, which is to rid that area of moderate Muslims, Christians and ethnic minorities,” Santorum said. “ISIS says they are implanting people in these refugees who are, in fact, ISIS members and will come to countries and cause terrorist activities.”³

On fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortion candidate Ben Carson..

At campaign stops in Alabama, Carson said halting Syrian resettlement in the US doesn’t mean America lacks compassion.

“If there’s a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog,” Carson told reporters at one stop.

“It doesn’t mean you hate all dogs, but you’re putting your intellect into motion.”

Carson said that to “protect my children” he would “call the humane society and hopefully they can come take this dog away and create a safe environment once again”.

More anti-abortion folks that have the nerve to call themselves “pro-life”…

“We need to activate the Tennessee National Guard and stop them from coming in to the state by whatever means we can,” said House GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada, R-Franklin⁴

“After full consideration of this weekend’s attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. As your governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way,” Bentley said.

“I will not place Alabamians at even the slightest, possible risk of an attack on our people,” Bentley continued. “Please continue to join me in praying for those who have suffered loss and for those who will never allow freedom to fade at the hands of terrorists.” [Governor of Alabama]⁵

Twenty-five Republican governors vowed to block the entry of Syrian refugees into their states⁶

5 million Syrian children, inside and outside the country, are in need of humanitarian aid, and millions have borne witness to unrelenting violence from the brutal conflict that began more than four years ago. 2.6 million children are no longer in school and 2 million are living as refugees in neighboring countries or on the run in search of safety, helping to fuel a global migrant crisis. Syria is now the world’s biggest producer of both internally displaced people and refugees.⁷

 

These folks constantly wave the Bible, tells us they love Jesus and call themselves ‘pro-life’ based on their Christian faith. What does the book they bellow about tell us about refugees? Check out the quotes listed below from the Bible. These folks are not only totally disgusting HYPOCRITES, they are exactly the religious folks that Jesus drove out of the temple with whips and that, in political maneuvering with the Romans, eventually crucified him. They have the nerve to indict Islam based on terrorism when they blatantly and overtly make Jesus the face of xenophobia.

Jesus tells us in Mathew 6, 23

But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. Therefore, if the light within you has turned into darkness, how great is that darkness!”

These folks are darkness personified.

Only a pure sophist and narcissist would try to make these folks into anything other than what they are…despicable, dangerous and insane.

Leviticus 19:33-34

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Matthew 25:35

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

Exodus 22:21

“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Malachi 3:5    

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

Deuteronomy 27:19

“‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

Hebrews 13:2

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Zechariah 7:9-10

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”

Ezekiel 47:22

You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.

Jeremiah 7:5-7

“For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.

Leviticus 25:35    

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

Proverbs 31:8-9

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Deuteronomy 10:18

He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.

Matthew 5:46-47

For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Exodus 23:9

“You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10:18-19

He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:10

And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 23:22

“And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.”

Deuteronomy 10:19

Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Numbers 15:15

For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord.

James 2:1-4

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?⁸

_________________

¹ Mike Huckabee thinks Syrian refugees aren’t fleeing ‘tyranny’ — they’re just looking for ‘cable TV’

² Ted Cruz: Muslim refugees from Syria should go to other Islamic countries

³ Santorum talks Syrian refugees at Coralville stop

⁴ Tennessee GOP leader: Round up Syrian refugees, remove from state

⁵ Governor Of Alabama Says His State Will Refuse Syrian Refugees

⁶ G.O.P. Governors Vow to Close Doors to Syrian Refugees

⁷ Syria — one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a child — and another bitter winter is on its way

⁸ Immigration

The Republican Presidential candidates so opportunistically decry the Presidents ‘lack of strategy and leadership’. Like a shark feeding frenzy, they smell blood in the water and the black bile of vim and vitriol spew from their drooling jaws. The sheer impact from their gut felt righteous indignation is, for them, proof of their veracity in the cause of ‘shock and awe’ against the evil of terrorism. Yet, when it comes to deaths by gun violence in our own country, the great rhetorical monoliths of truth, justice and the American way shrink to an anemic puff of hot air.

¹

Aristotle, the basis of democracy, would have rational, enlightened voters contemplate upon proportion, magnitude, and ‘ratio’, the basis of the word ‘rationale’. Emotion has the tendency to distort and dramatize. It tends to bring out the strongest and darkest emotions of human experience: hatred, anger, arrogance. While I will admit emotions can be fun and make for great movies, we must, at the end of the day allow rationality to incline our ears to a more sublime and adaptive voice.

In all human endeavors psychology has taught us that in order to understand behavioral motivations we need to look at the emotive payoffs which drive them. A terrorist is an enigma to those of us who have meaning in our lives. We have loved family members, basic security and enjoyment of life. For us, the antithesis of our basic meaning is the irrational and self-destructive terrorist. We set up the stage of the terrorist as the evil genius, the diabolical embodiment of Satan. We justify our own hatred and darkness based on the greater, perceived evil. Our meaning is enhanced by reacting violently to the Great Satan.

Likewise, the terrorist is motivated by violence to the Great Satan. Our Satan’s differ diametrically but each of us has the tendency to feed our meaning with the carcass of the other.

Here is what Republicans, which give themselves completely over to their base instincts, do not understand: A terrorist knows they are not going to win a conventional war against us. However, with the advent of the internet and the virtual, almost innumerable, clamoring for publicity and voice, the promise of meaning is fueled by the instantaneous and highly dramatic act of pure ego, even as the final and resolute ingesting and absolute enveloping of the id. The id in Freud has no other than itself². It incites phantasmal passions infinitely from the imaginary order of Lacan.³

Here is where the fait fatal of Republican rhetoric plays into the symbiotic relationship with the terrorist. The behavioral motivation of the terrorist is publicity. The Republican rhetorical response to terrorism is war, the pinnacle of publicity, as we saw with G.W. Bush. The devout Republican believes the ‘war’ can be won. The devout terrorist has already won, as war is the publicity they crave. Realistically, it is impossible to win the ‘war’ against terrorism. ‘Winning the war against terrorism’ is effectively an admonition that the war has already been lost. Terrorism is not a state you can win a war against, it is a psychology. Terrorism and war are devoted bedfellows. Neither can annihilate the other. They are determined to dance from instinctual necessity into perpetuity. The neocons of the Republic Party are the terrorists dream. The neocons are the primary recruitment mechanism for the terrorists.⁴ However, caught in the cross-fire of their narcissistic hate affair are the innocents the Republicans claim to champion.

The answer to this senseless debacle is not more war. More war is like throwing more fuel on the fire. If Republicans really want to win the war they will have to call off the fight at the O.K. Coral with its Wild West romanticizing and listen to what President Obama is telling them. ‘We’, meaning the most immediately effected first, need to quietly, without the hubris of “shock and awe”, eliminate these publicity craving terrorists. The middle east is, and should be, the on the fore front of a world wide effort to starve these ravenous appetites for publicity. Islam should assert itself against the blasphemous and heretical attempts to justify the murder of innocent people. Likewise, let us not forget that Pope Pius XI made a contract, the Concordant, with Hitler in order to protect Catholics as he justified it. When a major religion becomes the mouth piece for hatred and war, it blasphemes and thus, apostates, itself. When religion is silent in the face of evil it becomes the face of evil.

‘Nation building’, the once politically disposed phrase by the Republicans, is now effectively the defacto politically correct way for Republicans to justify to themselves what is, for all intents and purposes, endless occupation. Our longest wars under G.W. Bush would have no end with the current crop of Republican candidates. Even Rand Paul would ‘evolve’ on the issue of military engagement as evidenced by his more recent statements, “If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”⁵ What the American public need to understand is that gut level reaction is exactly what fuels the fire of terrorism and political rhetoric on the right. No solutions or victories can come out of the wars of G.W. Bush and this is not President Obama’s fault. It was the fault of an ill-conceived strategy. We have more terrorists, more debt, more of our own killed and injured and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because we let unabated emotion take over for intelligence and cunning.⁶ As far as I am concerned when I hear war hawks advocating reckless and endless wars they may as well be saying, “Let’s go kill our kids and put trillions more on the national debt to satiate our ignorant rage.” In the end, the solutions they propose are no different than the ones the terrorists propose; senseless violence without end which only exacerbates the problems, all the while feeding their own blood lust for vengeance.

If they really wanted to do something to make a difference for approximately 30,000 deaths as opposed to dozens of deaths a year on average since 2005, they should apply their righteous indignation to the NRA but when did facts ever make a difference to them?

_________________

¹ Fact-checking a comparison of gun deaths and terrorism deaths

² “The ethical rapport with the face is asymmetrical in that it subordinates my existence to the other. This principle recurs in Darwinian biology as the “survival of the fittest” and in psychoanalysis as the natural instinct of the ‘id’ for gratification, possession, and power — the libido dominandi.” Face To Face With Levinas, page 24, isbn= 0791499367, Link

³ Felluga, Dino. “Modules on Lacan: On the Structure of the Psyche.” Introductory Guide to Critical Theory

⁴ “Since the U.S. occupation of Iraq began in 2003, foreign jihadists have flocked to Iraq, making it a new center of jihad – and in the process, they have transformed the nature of the anti-U.S. Iraqi resistance. Iraq’s insurgency is concentrated in the Sunni Arab parts of Iraq, though much of the rest of the country outside the Kurdish regions is convulsed in civil war or confronting the problems of a de facto failed state.

Only a portion of the insurgency consists of jihadists who took up arms in the name of God, but over the years their numbers have grown. A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate found that “The Iraq conflict has become the ’cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”[4] Foreign jihadists are capitalizing on, and exacerbating, the strife in Iraq. Between 1,000 and 2,000 foreign fighters are in Iraq, and they carried out most of the suicide bombings. Most are from Arab countries, with Saudi Arabia comprising the lion’s share of those killed. In recent months, however, the number of Iraqi jihadists has swelled. Indeed, this may be one of the most lasting effects of the U.S. invasion and occupation: the growth of a domestic jihadist movement in Iraq, where none existed before.” Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism, Brookings Institute

⁵ Republicans Evolving on ISIS: Rand Paul takes tougher stance on terrorism, FoxNews

⁶ Iraq War – Direct Government Cost

Brown University

Iraq War: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion

Harvard University – Total Economic Impact

The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan: How Wartime Spending Decisions Will Constrain Future National Security Budgets

“The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history – totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion. This includes long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and economic costs. The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid. Since 2001, the US has expanded the quality, quantity, availability and eligibility of benefits for military personnel and veterans. This has led to unprecedented growth in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense budgets. These benefits will increase further over the next 40 years. Additional funds are committed to replacing large quantities of basic equipment used in the wars and to support ongoing diplomatic presence and military assistance in the Iraq and Afghanistan region. The large sums borrowed to finance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will also impose substantial long-term debt servicing costs. As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives. The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.”

Washington Post

After 13 years, 2 wars and trillions in military spending, terrorist attacks are rising sharply

Institute For Economics and Peace

The Economic Cost of Violence Containment

Repeat

Started Two Mass Wars

    6 Trillion For Wars

    190,000 Killed

    70% Civilians

    4,488 US Military Killed

    3,400 US Contractors Killed

    Freedom Handout

    Nation Building

    Occupation

War Hawks

Economic Collapse

    Market Darwinians

    Financial Deregulation

    Bank Bailouts

    Trickle Down

    Help the Rich

    Regressive Taxation

Started The Great Depression

High Unemployment

Against Minimum Wage

Against National Health Care

Climate Change Denial

Gender Bias

    Anti-choice for Women

    Income Inequality Denial

Ethnic Bias

    Build Walls

    Deport All Immigrants

Gay Bias

Voter Suppression

Religious Education and Tax Breaks

Erode Separation of Church and State

Oppose Science

    Evolution

    Climate Change

 

Learn

Withdrawing From Two Mass Wars

    Other Effected Countries Lead

    International Support and Cooperation

    Against Military Occupation

    Peace Talks and Diplomacy

Economic Recovery

    Reduced Deficit From GW Bush

    Reduced Discretionary Spending

    Progressive Taxation

Low Unemployment

For Minimum Wage

Profit Sharing

For National Health Care

Climate Change Realists

Pro-Choice for Women

Income Equality for Women

Path to Citizenship

    2 Trillion Boost to Economy

Marriage Equality

Civil Rights and Voter Friendly

Strengthen Separation of Church and State

Proven Economic Record

Higher Education Free or Low Cost

Fund Science, Technology and Research

Iraq War – Direct Government Cost

Brown University

Iraq War: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion

Harvard University – Total Economic Impact

The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan: How Wartime Spending Decisions Will Constrain Future National Security Budgets

“The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history – totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion. This includes long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and economic costs. The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid. Since 2001, the US has expanded the quality, quantity, availability and eligibility of benefits for military personnel and veterans. This has led to unprecedented growth in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense budgets. These benefits will increase further over the next 40 years. Additional funds are committed to replacing large quantities of basic equipment used in the wars and to support ongoing diplomatic presence and military assistance in the Iraq and Afghanistan region. The large sums borrowed to finance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will also impose substantial long-term debt servicing costs. As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives. The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.”

Washington Post

After 13 years, 2 wars and trillions in military spending, terrorist attacks are rising sharply

Institute For Economics and Peace

The Economic Cost of Violence Containment

American Immigration Council

STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY: The Economic and Political Clout of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the United States

Latinos and Asians (both foreign-born and native-born) wield $2 trillion in consumer purchasing power, and the businesses they owned had sales of $857 billion and employed 4.7 million workers at last count.

The Big Picture: Facts Concerning History, Politics and the Economy

1917 to Present: Political Parties in Congress and Administration with Economic Data and Sources

Latest Observations on the Housing and Economic Crisis

American Enterprise Institute and Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

The Great Lie: The Great Depression and Recessions of the United States

History of Republican Economic Failures and Democratic Successes

Senator Cory Gardner Prefers War With Iran, his letter to me…

Fallacies from Anti-Abortionists

Fundamentalism in Market Economy: The Austrian School

Treasury Department

Today on CNN S.E. Cup, a right-wing commentator, defended Mike Huckabee’s comment that Obama is marching Israelis to “the door of the oven” by agreeing to the Iran nuclear deal. She stated that Huckabee was correct because the right’s already assumed failure of the nuclear deal would mean that Israeli Jews would be killed in mass. This is an example of the media and journalism school’s failure to make students take more logic classes. More importantly, this lack of logic and the dismal failure of the media to conduct a serious debate is why folks get so aggravated with politics. The aggravation comes from the lack of closure due to popular rhetoric’s failure to utilize the tools of logic.

In the case of S.E. Cup she should have been challenged by the CNN interviewer on her logic. Using S.E. Cup’s logic we could also say the Republicans are leading the Israeli Jews to the oven because when the right kills the nuclear deal and Iran develops a bomb in two months as experts, including Netanyahu have predicted, the right will have enabled Iran to drop the bomb on Israel. By her own logic, the right could be called be Nazi fascists for killing the nuclear deal. This flawed logic can be used for or against the Republicans. The flaw here is that assumptions are hypothetical. We could equally argue that unicorns are overpopulating and rednecks should have an open season on them. Just because the right believes some hypothetical outcome strongly does not make their logic correct. They may assess probabilities differently in which case their assessments need to come into detailed question with the facts not the hyperbole.

In my opinion, The bigger issue goes back to Kant: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”. If S.E. Cup’s maxim about the fascist left is true based on her assumption about the nuclear deal, integrity would dictate that it would also be true about the right if they kill the deal and Israel gets nuked. Folks today are all too willing to hurl their maxims on everyone else but too often can’t take it when their logic is turned back on themselves. Kant’s categorical imperative should be called integrity and that is all too often missing in rhetorical dialog.

I have many other current topics I would like to pursue these days but alas, my software work and taking care of my 92 year old dad at home leave me little time these days.

Alert! Alert! The legendary and widely heralded citizens militia has received orders to converge on Wacko, Texas. We all know their constitutional call:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

We have heard about these super heroes for years. The NRA has told us that good guys carrying guns is the only way to stop a bad guy carrying a gun. Well, now is the time, Texas is the perfect place, for these citizen soldiers to bear arms and come to the aid of Wacko, Texas. The evil biker gangs of the world are all racing towards Wacko. There are four guns, tanks and bazookas for every man, women and child in Texas. Elementary schools are mandated to certify Kindergartners to be registered gun dealers by the state of Texas.

Now, the citizens militia can prove its case. Now they can show the world that they are not a bunch of drunk, red-necks shooting every tree in the woods imagining them to be the notorious bad guy trying to rob their house or kill their children only to find the strong hand of the militia beating them to a pulp with lead. Come on militia, show us you metal now! Head to Wacko and kill the bad guys. Trees don’t shoot back but we know trees are only part of your paramilitary training. Now you can shoot at an enemy that shoots back. Now is the time to show us your metal, make your day, and finally show the world that the Founding Fathers were not protecting drunken red-necks on parade at the expense of anyone that might accidentally get shot by them but the Founding Fathers were creating the citizens militia to hate the government they had just created. Gee, those guys were almost as smart as the good ‘ol boys in the militia.

 

Rand Paul, as his father, make an odd footnote in the history of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is fond of acquiring token representations of its ‘new face’ exemplified in their analysis of why they lost the last election to President Obama. They understand the need for good public relations. After all, they have been weaving the ‘we are the working class heroes’ tale for many years. They are really good at it. The Paul’s offer the Republican Party the opportunity to capture some of the conservative, libertarian leaning folks. So, let’s take a look at Rand Paul.

Rand and his father were both huge fans of Ayn Rand and of the Objectivist philosophy. As a philosophy Objectivism is not well respected among serious philosophers. Their philosophical exegesis of great philosophers tend to be shallow and more opportunistic than penetrating. Ayn Rand wrote fiction books which highlight elitist views with its necessary accompanying condition of the lowly, uneducated masses. Her books favor a social Darwinism where the strong, the bright and the wealthy are the masters and creators of human destiny and the huge rest of the masses are simply cattle for herding and feeding off of. The elitists are the survivors of the fittest. The masses are simply failed genetics which are condemned by their own tragic inadequacies.

The Paul’s were also fans of the Austrian School of Economics which I have written at length about on this site. The Austrian School is the economic equivalent of the Objectivist philosophy. They are pure and fundamental ‘free marketers’. They believe the problem with the market has always been the government. They think that left totally to its own the free market will solve all the problems we thought we needed governments for. Whenever the government intervenes in the market, the market fails to work to its fullest and results in all the booms and busts of market history. They think government intervention resulted in the Great Depression not free market, unregulated banking and stock market failures as most economists believe. The think monopolies are the result of government intervention and corporatism where corporations buy off the government for the dreaded market regulation. Market regulation is a free market enemy because it deforms the natural workings of the market and gives companies a protectionist strategy that the market left to its own would not provide.

The Austrian School is a reductionist philosophy which accounts for market dynamics as a kind of zero sum game albeit not about wealth creation but about market dynamics. The purist school of Austrian Economics start from the assumption that the market, free of government intervention, will always be the best and most efficient delivery of goods and services in the long run. Any government intervention will ‘gum up the works’ and proportionally destroy the markets effectively. In this sense, the zero sum dichotomy at work is the absolute poles of free, unregulated market and encumbered, regulated government intervention. There is absolutely no middle ground for the purists. There is no daylight between government regulation and market degradation. The more the government intervenes in the market the more the market fails. This is a zero sum game. Regulation can never be thought as aiding the market. So, for example, if planes crash because of poor maintenance, the FAA is not the answer. The market is the answer. Folks will not fly with airline companies whose planes crash. The market will reward the company whose planes do not crash and punish the company whose planes crash. Eventually, the market will fix its own problems left to its own workings (just hope you are not flying in the meantime). Intervention by a government agency like the FAA will degrade the ability of the market to police itself.

The zero sum game played by the Austrians is really a thin veneer for survival of the fittest. Those that survive and thrive in the unregulated market get to establish their dominance. Those that fail in the market fall into the trash heap of wannabes. Of course, the Austrians would never say this. Their line concerning the ‘less fortunate’ is that the market will decide their fate. They think whatever happens with human failures of the market will eventually be corrected by the market. Although the Austrians would rather leave the ultimate outcome of their ideal unaddressed, it could be a place at the table for everyone in the long run but more likely human tragedies and failures are swept under the old proverbial rug as Austrians cannot address the conditions for human tragedy except by the faith of the market. They could never acknowledge that the market, free of government intervention, could result in an elitist economy that is simply the latest face of tragic human history.

The Paul’s are students and advocates for these ideologies. The Republican Party fits very well with these concepts. The Party has convinced folks that their problem is not the market but the government. All the while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The faithful just turn this reality back on the government. They blame the government for these inequities. Regular folks are feed a steady diet of this dogma to the point where they cannot think that maybe the free, unregulated market could be part of the problem. This fictitious production does play into the power broker hands of the Republican Party. However, the Republican Party will never allow a Ron or Rand Paul be more than a token gesture.

The Pauls attract social libertarians even though they personally advocate for anti-abortion groups and favors laws to vastly restrict abortion. The Pauls are also against same sex marriage. Rand Paul is not in favor of government anti-discrimination laws. He thinks the market should decide. Business should not be hindered by anti-discrimination laws. He has also supported laws to protect ‘religious freedoms’. The Pauls tend to be non-interventionists when it comes to foreign affairs and aid but they still have strong affiliations to Israel. While the Pauls have some positions that seem to contradict civil libertarian ideologies, they have many positions which certainly give lip service to a libertarian ideology. However, what one must not forget is that they are not running independently. Their campaigns are bought and paid for by the Republican Party. Therefore, they have indebtedness to the Party that I suspect is probably partly responsible for some of their deviations from a strict libertarian ideology.

The Republican Party has too much interest in social conservatives to ever let the Pauls get too close to winning a presidential bid. The Party is all too happy to display adherence to diversity but when push comes to shove Rand Paul will never get the nomination just as his dad before him. Rand Paul will follow the Party line and would never run as an independent. His willingness to shift his positions to placate the Republican Party is troublesome. If he ever were president I think he would cave to party pressure and be more likely than he pretends now to engage in military campaigns and foreign aid. Admittedly, these are simply my concerns not anything factual. What I find more troublesome is his alliances with Ayn Rand and Austrian Economics.

I do think that Rand Paul would dismantle the government to the point of dangerous economic consequences. Ron Paul has written extensively about how he believes the Federal Reserve is corrupt and unconstitutional (See End The Fed). Of course, he would expect the free market to fill the gap and do a better job. Anyone that thinks this should check out this site before locking in a vote for Rand Paul. Check out the facts detailed on this site before blatantly deciding that the government is mostly dispensable. Most people are totally unaware of what the government does for them every day. Anyone who is willing to think about this rationally will inevitably have concerns about whether and how the free market could effectively address vital concerns that the government currently addresses. Rand Paul would, at the least, be a huge gamble that this unfettered, free market ideology would and could fill the gap right away.

Towards the end of the Great Depression the Fed was given much more power to stabilize the economy. Take a look at these graphs which show the effects of the Feds market intervention beginning in the 40s. While I did not graph the detrimental effects of GDP, unemployment and inflation before 1917 (that data is harder to find but is well known), it was even more erratic with many more severe depressions. These early years of our country would have been the ugly reality of what an Austrian Economy would look like with the gold standard and almost no regulation. However, instead of the most efficient utilization of goods and services we actually saw widespread poverty, early death and mass subsistence as a quality of life. Anyone that would vote for Rand Paul would have to think if they are really willing to take the chance of a Mad Max type existence. If the unfettered free market would have worked so greatly it would have worked in the first hundred years or so of our country. This Austrian style ideology became a free for all that resulted in a bought and paid for government in the Gilded Age at the expense of the majority of the country. Of course, the Austrians would blame the government for this but anyone with common sense will recognize that when big money is given carte blanche to do as it pleases, it will create a corrupt government if one does not exist. The Republican Party is smart enough to know that a Rand Paul type figure could never get elected president. They know that their benefactors do better when they keep a low profile as their prize victory, Citizens United, clearly demonstrates.

The following is the gist of what Senator Cory Gardner had to say responding to the email I sent him about the nuclear talks with Iran:

“This framework, based on details released thus far, appears to leave vast portions of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact despite their continued sponsoring of terror, and would expire in as few as ten years, allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons unrestricted. The American people, through their representatives in Congress, should be provided the opportunity to reject any deal that does not completely eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran. I am also concerned that the current deal ignores other state-sanctioned terror activity Iran is pursuing.” Senator Cory Gardner

To “completely eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran” is a fine and lofty goal but diplomacy is all about what is possible not what is ideal. What I pointed out to him in my initial email was that war is always an option regardless of any previous treaties. I cannot understand why, if there is a possibility for a treaty to monitor and restrict Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, why wouldn’t we try? Military experts have made it clear that even if we bomb Iran we will at most delay their nuclear development by a couple years. Isn’t ten years better than two years which is in effect the Cory Gardner default plan? Iran is within a year of developing a bomb if we pursue Senator Gardner’s ambitions. He and everyone that voted for him will be personally responsible for the inevitable outcome.

It is apparent that Israel will not hesitate to do whatever they think they need to do whenever they think the time is right. If they make a decision to attack unilaterally they know that we will have their back. Personally, I am tired of committing our soldiers and financial resources to conflicts that do not threaten our national security except in some politician’s war hawk brain. Our Founding Fathers including Washington and Jefferson were very adamant that we should only declare war in case of a vital threat to our national security. Since the War Powers Act that FDR signed after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the executive ability to effectively declare war without a Constitutional act of Congress has become easier and easier with every subsequent administration.

Perhaps American exceptionalism has contributed to our eagerness to involve ourselves in foreign military campaigns. As the world’s number one energy producer I find it hard to believe that the U.S. is merely motivated by commerce. In any case, anyone that is a strict Constitutionalist will have to recognize this fundamental deviance from the Constitution and the Founding Fathers intention. To oppose this possibility to avoid war with Iran is certainly tantamount to inviting war. Republicans have historically favored war on various non-Constitutional grounds. Did you know that Eisenhower, a Republican, started our involvement in Vietnam? Check it out. The opposition of the Republican dominated Congress to any attempt to avoid war should be punished by the voters. However, I tend to doubt if it will since Americans seem to turn a blind eye to these kind of international involvements. I hope war weariness will show itself in the actions of the American electorate. We have enough problems here in this country without spending more American resources on efforts that just create more problems for us and hatred of the U.S..

Please listen to the Republican presidential candidates. They really think that tough talk and actions will be better in the long run for the U.S.. Are we willing to once again tragically take that chance? Every historical despot has thought the same thing. History is replete with examples which proves it does not work. Rome overextended its military campaigns on this line of reasoning only to lose the empire. The German Nazis also spread themselves too thin on the Western and Eastern fronts. The U.S. will not make our country more secure by becoming more aggressive with every regional and international skirmish. We will only create more enemies, kill our young folks and rake up multi-trillion dollar debts as we did with Iran and Afghanistan. If we keep electing war hawks we will not get peace but more war. American voters should make it very hard for our politicians to get us into war. This should have been the lesson of Vietnam. I am not sure we are capable of learning these lessons. If we do not, we will not be remembered well by history. The U.S. should always err on the side of peace if we want to do something historically different.

War is always an option and Senator Gardner is not doing any of us a favor by disregarding any treaty in advance to restrict Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We may not be able to “completely eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran” for all time but any delay to war, even if ten years, should not be dismissed lightly and ideologically. Senators Gardner’s inability to think and act rationally due to political affiliations proves that he is none other than the typical partisan, Republican war hawk that G.W. Bush and the neocons were. They were wrong then and they are STILL wrong! Please write him and let him know but don’t get your hopes up.