1. While reading and thinking about imaginary kings (the title of a book by Hekster and Fowler about royal images in the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome), I had these few reactions to the recent droolings by our US political apparitchiks. My first movement was of great anger at an impotent and supercilious White House or Obama. I take the recent discussions, decisions, and their effects on Wall Street to be a further phase or pause in the inexorable weakening of the nation-state. The arrangement voted on by the house and the senate this past week decides or pretends to decide that
1. we allow ourselves to create enough money for a while so we don’t have the debt ceiling framed as a defining topic before the 2012 presidential elections; a side aspect is that the country can continue to borrow at low interest rates. These have been kept artificially low until now, but the enabling forces seem to be dispersing. Among these enabling aspects, I see the deeply unjust and unbalanced notion of the dollar as single reserve currency, our military support of it by dint of huge investments and presence that no one dares confront, the logic of foreign investing looking for “safe” placements, etc…
2. there will be cuts in budget expenses, meaning entitlements and military outlays, including a 4% cut in medicare and ca. 300 billion in military expenses, but no cut in Social Security (or in federal pensions). These cuts promise to be impossible to enact in practice. For instance, I can’t believe that doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies, which are supposed to bear the brunt of this 4% cut, are going to sit quiet. They and others (insurance companies) seem to have gotten their way in 2009 in the debate on reforming our health agencies. As for the 300b reduction in the military, what part of the pork barrel would that be?
3. there will be no change in tax structure, i.e. no touching the enormous tax decreases temporarily enacted by Bush II. No “revenue enhancement.” That is a massive capitulation on the part of the government (or is it? good friends might persuade themselves that some retreats are good policy). This is not a victory of rational thinking, but chaos.
4. since the problem is not taken care of for the long term (in which we are all dead), yet another congress super commission is being created. Its task is to meet urgently and discuss how and where to find at least 1,200 billion dollars more “savings”, up to 1,500b, with its homework due by November of this year. By further “entitlement” cuts and “revenue enhancement”? If no agreement is found by this December, there will be “automatic” cuts of at least 1,200 billion in federal expenses.

2. So Obama and the whole executive caved in, following a long-established Democratic pattern. There was the national health fiasco, but this was only one of many decisions going the way of financial institutions’ interests. As it turns out, not their best interests, qua institutions. All of these concessions make me question why I should vote for Obama in 2012. How different has he been from Republicans and most Democrats on the following three issues: 1) decreased or regressive taxation since at least the seventies, 2) need to rethink defense and war (with extremely costly wars in the past decade generating negative foreign policy results—no more walking softly and carrying a big stick, doesn’t work anymore), and 3) massive bailouts of dysfunctional banking and insurance system since 2008? Where has he been on these issues which are also main causes for the ballooning deficit. I say “also” because the increased cost of social expenditures does have to be considered, though only as part of the larger political structure, certainly not alone and even worse as the main problem, as the whole political class does now. For what purpose should one re-elect this President? To focus on more cuts to so-called “entitlements?” With much credit to his name as a bona fide “Democrat” who is young, intelligent, compassionate, emblematic of this complex, multi-ethnic nation, wouldn’t he be in a singularly powerful position to deliver such cuts? Do I believe that for a period of a year and a half or so after November 2012, he would and could somewhat correct the course? To see what he hasn’t done so far (or very late and half-heartedly regarding our military adventures in Irak and Afghanistan), and now to see him accepting to have a budget commission augurs badly of the future. The possibilities were there, as can be seen in the right calls the White House finally began to make in regard to the “Arab spring”. But now? And yet, I see Obama like another self too: vulnerable, searching, bewildered, perhaps frightened, surely mindful of the immense power of his office. No matter, here are a few more questions:
1. What is the main reason that Republicans and especially its numerous extreme right-wingers want to balance the budget? It seems obvious that it is to shrink certain functions of government instead of seeking an equilibrium in which the government would have more latitude in its capacity to help and sustain hard-pressed people. They want to avoid all discussion of what might be the proper level of public funds commitment in a modern economy. If the state is unable to invest into social structures and support, while private capital is waiting on the sidelines, where are we going?
2. Government shrinking is also destabilizing. It was done by Bush II in the grand desultory manner, both in tax issues and foreign policy. This destabilizing and weakening is bound to increase the government’s already patent inability to control the negative effects of financial speculation. The absence of regulation and control in turn will lead to more financial weakening of the state and the increase of its borrowing costs. This weakening increases risks which trigger higher costs, further impacting manœuverability, and especially the ability to rescue the financial structures at the next “event,” since this intervention has already been factored in (or at least I think so).
3. Effects on foreign policy? I would think a retreat in major theaters is in order, including Afghanistan and Iraq (and already happening). Without obvious gains by the major other players: China, India, Brazil, or Europe. Footnote: Iran should gain from the retreat, but the US are lucky that the “Arab spring” is happening just now and complicates Teheran’s moves. The retreat would include the impossibility to maintain means of military influence at their present level (Navy, space research). More importantly, even if other powers don’t move for a while, it has serious negative effects. It becomes especially impossible, or seriously difficult, to bring world actors together and cooperate on anything. In this regard, the feeling the US are diminished or at risk financially and militarily is waiting to play itself out. The interest of major emergent economies and states, as is that of the US, is to protect themselves and not cooperate on financial or military issues (not to mention climate, land and sea resources, energy, etc.). I take it that the main reason is that the level of their debt in regard to GDP is much lower than that of the US (about to rise to something between 75 and 100% of GDP) or Europe (higher ratios). The other reason being their own sizable chunks of US/Europe debt.
4. If we are contemplating an “inexorable” weakening of nation-states, including the US, so what? Isn’t that what liberation movements of all kinds have meant since the 20th c.? Freedom from our common enemy, the nation-state? Without it, will we see new forms of social regrouping around “national issues?” For instance, what happens if the cost of borrowing sees a dramatic, uncontrollable increase?

Many present and past graduate students of the History of Consciousness program met over the weekend last week. They celebrated Donna Haraway’s retirement, the end of the year, and the unusual intellectual and political enterprise that goes under this beautiful name, history of consciousness.

I am thinking about History of Consciousness with Taubes, i.e. at the borders, or from the borders (*From cult to culture. Fragments toward a critique of historical reason,* Stanford, 2010). Dissolving borders. HoC was long a non-program (NOBrown: “There is no history of consciousness” in a letter to CF, if I remember correctly). Last week, we were asked, or we asked each other, a couple of seemingly simple questions: what brought you to HoC? i.e. a question on the existential ground of the individual which became a question on the Zeitgeist. What brought me? Circumstances? But the Hegelian Geist, I recognize, was hiding behind a going to Israel, meeting someone, following that person to the US, thankfully to a place with an ocean west of oneself rather than east, then come to UCSC. From my perspective just a place like any other, where you put your sack down. Not this anecdotally countercultural place that some thought it was. There was also a longer history: a sense of place (Brittany, the mad Celtic fringe) and time (the Augustinian map), language(s), of being beyond the old state-church conundrum, finding a *beruf*, call and service, early questions on the role of institutions, including the state and the church etc… Eventually my reactions to what was going on in Rennes university in 1969-71 and the political orientation of students there, leading to a secularized form of “churchyness” by going to Israel to learn Hebrew, after having been “dislocated” by two years in 1966-68 in East Jerusalem where I discovered the Palestinian question, political analysis, and reporting, through the likes of Eric Rouleau. HoC was no surprise, a natural lightness of being.

Second question: has HoC had an effect on your life (work) since? Historicizing question. HoC would have to exist as a weighty, institutional object to weigh on things and have an effect or effects, the stuff glory or re-puta-tion is made of. One hundred fifty graduates or so, some school presidents, writers, film makers, books, i.e. something inscribable and worthy of memorials. Of a theology too. Influences…. We are talking of a spiritual event à la Hegel or Taubes, a wind or breath, which you don’t know whence it comes and where it goes… I don’t want to name it. Memories? In my case, one is of Bateson drawing a squiggly line on the blackboard and asking us to describe it in a short writing exercise, or throwing a paper-wrapped crab on the table and asking us to reflect on life: how did we know that it had been alive?

No name. Hist Con artist as that crab today. Is there, was there a HoC? No, according to NOB, yes according to students, especially the more recent ones, involved in something like sociology of knowledge.

Last thing: part of the impulse for this memorializing was to react against any perception that the early period of the program (pre-1978?) had been something without being or spirit. It did have life, and then even more with HWhite, JClifford, DHaraway, FJameson for some time, TdeLauretis, ADavis, etc. Before 1978, it had been a student-directed collective at times, there were many conversations among students and faculty, some extraordinary seminars, and of course no expectation to have a career in academia or at least it was not the first line of thought.

Tonight and still going on, end-of-the-year and retirement party in honor of Donna Haraway. Here are a few pictures of this event, taken about an hour ago for the last ones. Speakers: Jim Clifford, maître de cérémonie; Susan Harding; Helen Moglen; and many others. Food prepared by Joe of ex-India Joze, all in leather and knives…

Moving, transfixing interpretation last night by Paul Whitworth of Beckett’s *Krapp’s last tape*. A vision of interminable efforts at dragging one’s shadow on stone, paper, tape or film, memorializing, in the end keeping only to moments of love on swaying punts which have been sacrificed and turned into capital on the altars of … what Moloch? the authorial self-aggrandizing, that of a whole Europe or West too, still imperial and dangerous, perhaps sinister, even in its cooking down or bibliophilic selecting of pithy accounts, with flashes of poetic takes on a life, year after year, slowly reduced to near non-sense? The burning chrysolite eyes have been thrown to the shadows and become a licking of bananas and downing of scotch. They are still burning, a flickering, shaking, fragile burning of a burning.

There have been some on-going discussions at UCSC regarding the limits of public debate at public universities when it comes to policies of the Israel government. I say “some”, because I hope there will be more, thoughtful and respectful. I should say in the same breath that I hope there would be more thoughtful and respectful discussions of the policies of many other governments, including of those entities whose evil ways we are so accustomed to naturalize that we don’t even begin to ask questions. In this case, one particular question is the nature of public support for discussions of such topics at UCSC. Should public money go evenly to all positions, no matter how rational or irrational, despicable or elevating, antisemitic or philosemitic, leftist or right-wing they are perceived to be by some, and no matter what “some” means, i.e. the number of people affected by, or interested in, one or the other sides of the matter? Or should public money go to none? This [article](http://www.forward.com/articles/137927/) in the *Forward* is useful because it presents the recent issue with some clarity, while giving perspective.

What can and should be the role of music and dance in modern productions of classic Greek drama? See for yourself this week (beginning 5/20) what it can be in [Orestes Terrorist](http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/announcements/Orestes_poster.pdf). A conference on [Music and Greek Drama](http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/announcements/Music_drama.pdf) follows, next week.

It is now possible to hear modern readings of ancient Babylonian, courtesy of the [School of Oriental and African Studies](http://www.soas.ac.uk/baplar/recordings/), University of London: Code of Hammurabi, Epic of Gilgamesh (Old Babylonian version and standard version), story of AtraHasis, etc.

Geronimo and Bin Laden. Before Geronimo became an expression of daring and courage for paratroopers and could be used for special operations by the military such as the targetting of Bin Laden, it was the name given to a Chiricahua Apache (1829–1909) who resisted the land encroachments by Mexico and United States. I’m reading the wiki. A Christian name indicating fear among the Mexicans he was attacking (“saint Jerome, have mercy” or the like?). Revenge attacks. He surrendered to US soldiers after an intense, costly search. Is that the difference? Geronimo was kept a prisoner until his death, supposedly became a Christian, was exhibited, and was buried in the prisoner of war cemetery of Fort Sill, Oklahoma. It became a movie in 1939. Paratroopers watched the movie and used the name as a cry meant to demonstrate courage, goes the story.

Bin Laden = Geronimo? Both reacting vengefully against the stealing and demeaning of their worlds? No, impossible equation for those who think of the US as the fount and acme of *world* civilization. Geronimo was carrying out a personal vendetta, a matter of honor. He was slightly crazed and perverse at the time, but we understand that and can steal his memory after we stole everything else, and reshape it as we see fit. While Bin Laden, that is another matter, he was not slightly crazed, he was completely demented to go after “civilization” itself (the US). It could not be revenge he was after, like the Apache chief, a thing we understand and can make our own after a fashion. What could he be avenging? Humiliation? Exploitation? Hadn’t the US / civilization been good to all of the oil-producing countries, and didn’t the Bin Ladens profit from it? Wasn’t the US helping with its calls for a more humane world? Yes the US had troops in the Persian Gulf and even in Saudi Arabia, but was it at fault for that? Surely not. It simply was going along, developing more sophisticated, leveraged means of payment for oil and other wealth, an ever more complex way of paying “the fair price” for essential resources.

Bin Laden’s body buried at sea, from a warship. With a US Muslim chaplain saying the requisite prayers? Filmed presumably. No burial place to come to, no relics, *damnatio memoriae* of a sort. Old way by states of disposing of dangerous symbols: the Roman Empire regarding Jesus, for instance. Not that Jesus’ and Bin Laden’s hopes and methods can be compared, since one called for forgiveness and the other for all out war, including committing atrocities against non-combattants. From the imperial or state’s point of view, however, the positions of such enemies don’t matter, they are dangerous by themselves and especially as potential symbols. So, execution is deemed necessary, demeaning if possible (but US as a modern state can’t do the crucifixion bit since Constantine) and absence of a tomb and relics. The last part is important: no relics! Another example: the Christian martyrs of Lyons in 177, from a crazed group of believers from Phrygia (foreigners), whose bodies were burnt after their killing and the resulting ashes thrown into the Rhone river. See Eusebius, *Church History* 5.1.62 (ET by Kirsopp Lake, LCL):

Further on they say: “Thus the bodies of the martyrs, after having been exposed and insulted in every way for six days, and afterwards burned and turned to ashes, were swept by the wicked into the river Rhone which flows near by, that not even a relic of them might still appear upon the earth.

It didn’t prevent the collection of relics, which washed up on an island, that story goes, and were commemorated by a later church/abbey foundation (St Martin d’Ainay in Lyons).

This [orchid](http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/images/bletilla_striata.jpg), thanks to a determined family member, has naturalized in our front yard on the Westside. It does quiet the mind or at least one mind which was fuming after hearing the way NPR news was “reporting” on the Guantanamo fiasco…