Well, You Can Always Think About Sex Instead

Tags

critical thinking, democracy, economic systems, opinions, political systems, reading

See? I’m learning. Wanna get somebody’s attention? Mention sex in the title. Works every time. Just what does that crazy lady have to say about sex? Let’s see.

Nothing.

This is not about sex.

It’s about dumbing down the conversation in the hopes that a certain bunch of yahoos might actually recognize that that thing attached to their shoulders actually can be used for deciding more than whether to have the spaghetti Lean Cuisine for dinner or the Salisbury steak.

Okay, so I said that wrong, and all the knuckledraggers I got to read at the mention of sex, now vaguely think they’ve been insulted and have clicked this off.

No matter, what follows is way over their comprehension level anyway. Only the bright bulbs will continue.

There’s a conversation that seem to be in the offing here, yet it’s not a good idea to say it too loud. The conversation revolves around the question: Is democracy the best choice in a modern world?

It’s a hard question, since there is pretty good evidence that we don’t have anything remotely like democracy, have never had anything remotely like it, and probably won’t have anything like it, so how to compare? Let’s not forget that at the beginning of this great adventure, the real argument was between state’s rights and the central government, and that in most places religion was state ordained, and the people who voted were property holders. Women? They voted only by the power of persuasion.

Basically power in a democracy is wielded by the “eligible” voter (who is eligible becomes rather significant wouldn’t you say?), either directly or through elected representatives who enact laws that are applicable to everyone in a just, fair, and equal way. Greece started the whole thing in Athens, but of course women and slaves were not part of that “eligibility” requirement there either.

So how democratic one is starts with who gets to be part of “the people”. Thus my statement that we have never remotely been  a democracy from the start.

People of course, (mostly the one’s who have already dropped out of this conversation) get democracy all confused with socialism, and all confused on top of that with communism, and theocratic states, and oligarchies, and monarchies, to name the most prominent of the “forms of government”. But not all these are actually forms of government. Socialism and communism are more properly economic systems, akin to capitalism or free market economies.

That’s the problem in a nutshell. We claim that communism is “bad”, but communism as practiced by Lenin and Stalin the late ungreat Soviet Union had little to do with Marx and Engel’s ideal which was a marriage of a communist economic system married to a democratic political system. Similarly, American Democracy joins capitalism with a representative “democracy”. For a good while France and England and others married a theocratic/monarchical political system to a feudal system of economics.

Today, in the US we have an acknowledged mess. Our economic system seems to have led us to a new animal called a corptocracy for want of a better word. An increasingly smaller and smaller number of corporations “owned” by a very few men and even fewer women, control larger and larger portions of the national and increasingly international economies. They “buy” politicians and direct them as to what legislation they wish, and how to vote. They often, through groups like ALEC, even write the legislation themselves. By controlling economies they effectively control politics, and thus are the heads of the political system.

Although the trappings of “democracy” remain, through elections, more and more those votes don’t really count. The corporate interests choose the candidates, and fund their campaigns. As studies show, they have the greatest of influence on the introduction and passage of laws.

Perhaps it is time to at least begin the conversation as to whether or not capitalism or free markets are at all compatible with democracy as we might wish it to be? This is the question asked in This is Not What Democracy Looks Like: The Long Slow Death of Jefferson’s Dream.

The problem with posing the problem, is that it presupposes that the average American can (1) recognize the importance of the question, and (2) critically discern the arguments to be made and choose one that is both logical and right.

And there is much that suggests that this is not possible. In an seemingly endless list of studies done at different universities by respected scholars, the answer remains the same:  If your belief is a necessary part of the your world view, then NO evidence no matter how stellar, no matter how obvious, no matter how unchallenged by any contrary fact, is going to change your mind. You will continue to believe as you always have, because it’s necessary to your psychological well-being. Actual facts to the contrary become merely “conspiratorial” insertions. You don’t have to prove them to be a lie, (because of course you could not), but you can dismiss them out of hand.

This is sad news indeed. It means that much of what I do, is wasted. The people I can convince are already convinced more than likely. Those I need to convince will never be, no matter what proofs I bring to the table.

It seems the new studies need to focus on how one convinces a stone that is about to get crushed by the boulder, that it should roll on down out of the way.

Which all leads to another piece of sad news I’ve come across lately.

I’m reading a book entitled “How to Read a Book“. Now before you laugh and say, oh, for starters, take the cover and bend it to the left, and then look for words, continue to move pages to the left until you find some, then read them. Before you do that, listen a bit.

This book was written by a college professor in the early 1940’s and he updated it in the early mid-70’s, and he now dead. I heard about it in another very modern book I read, whose author suggested that it had impacted him like no other he has read since. It changed how he read. On that note, I purchased it.

So far it’s proving to be both provocative and enlightening. It’s could well be titled today, “How to Read a Book Critically” for that’s what it mostly is designed to do. The author, Mortimer Adler announces that there are four levels of reading. The first, is what passes for competence upon finishing high school. It is akin to being able to read the words and get a basic understanding from the sentences in fairly simple things, like a job application, or reading traffic signs.

Yes folks, that is the level of reading you acquired in high school. You were not taught to read anything beyond the level of basic comprehension. You were not taught to understand the deeper meaning of an author’s arguments, see their flaws or their merits. You were not taught anything about judging the value of what you have read. You read simply for information and not for understanding.

And the sad thing, is that the levels 2 and 3 and 4 are not mastered simply by attending college. Adler posits that some graduate students are still struggling after two years with mastering level four reading, the ability to properly analyze and compare works on the same topic with each other.

Critical thinking is still by and large not taught anywhere.

But you can learn.

If you buy the book and read it.

And it is hopeless to conclude that much will ever change in America until enough of our people can read and think critically. Certainly they cannot now, for if they could, there would not be a Tea Party, there would be no creationists, and there would be no climate deniers. Such people as these would remain hidden in their closets with their goofy ideas. They would certainly not have media access to spew their garbled thoughts across America.

So, you might as well think about sex instead.

 

 

The Social Compact Revisited

Tags

democracy, federalism, founding fathers, rights and duties of citizens, social compact

It occurs to me that I may have too much time on my hands, or on the other hand, this is what retirement should be all about–unfettered hours to wonder about “things”.

Preferring the latter conclusion, I wonder forward.

Once upon a time in a land far from here, or not, men (let’s be honest that women were seldom asked their opinion and mores the pity for that undoubtedly) gathered to discuss an important topic. Was it fruitful to continue in an “every man for themselves” mode or was their value in grouping together in mutual associations. Such associations of course presupposed that some individual freedom would be lost for the common good of all.

Thus the concept of government was conceived.

At first the common good was no doubt safety from marauding bands of bad guys from other tribes, but it soon led to giving up all kinds of individual rights for all kinds of common ends. If Babor’s extra production of wheat was needed to feed more than just his family, than Manduk’s herds of sheep need be fenced from trampling those fields.

Things went along in that fashion with different systems being tried out, eventually that led to strong men and rule by might rather than agreement. Rebellions and re-formations resulted in a myriad of different systems by which human beings organized themselves into larger and larger entities.

Lo and behold, a bunch of folks made their way to a “new world” which was quite old to the people who already lived there, but new enough to them. After pushing indigenous folks out of the way, they then threw off the yoke of king and Parliament, and found themselves with a country to set up.

Our illustrious fore-fathers, mindful of the social compact ideas of Locke and Rousseau and Montesquieu, set down in Philadelphia and over some months of wrangling and persuasion, arrived at what we call a Constitution, a document that sets out with some generality the rights and duties of citizen and government.

Ask about anyone and they would say, that this phenomenal document has served us well since 1789 or so. That seems to be based on the fact that we are still here as a country. Any cursory look at the document itself suggests that a good deal of the language is antiquated and now unclear. Do we really think in terms of militias any more? What is cruel and unusual?

The world has changed a lot since those days. We are increasingly a global society. We are a people who has grown in size from something in the area of 3 millions to over 300 millions. Our land has tripled or quadrupled since 1789. Our demographics are vastly different. Our ability to travel has increased exponentially. Our ability to get news on almost any subject has as well. Our technologies threaten to out pace our understanding of them or how they will impact on our daily lives.

Government systems are always a compromise of sorts. When we talk about “free” governments, or “elected governments” we speak of the ever-present tension that exists between the individual and the common good. Our political parties seem to split along those lines and have now hardened into an extreme on one side, and a “common good” leaning at least on the other.

Is it not time to rethink who we are, what we want and what we are willing to give up to continue in this great experiment?

It seems we should be having this dialogue (whatever that means). Does this constitution any longer adequately deal with the problems that confront us? Are we beginning (or have we for some decades now?) tortured the language to achieve the outcomes we believe right. Of course the next Court then sees things very differently and they torture it in other ways to achieve quite different outcomes.

Here are some questions I have thought about:

1. Is our current federal government divided into an executive, congressional, and judicial branch with serious checks and balances, a useful system today, given the complexities of our global world? Would a parliamentary system work better, given our intense polarization?
2. Do we really want an unfettered right of individuals to own and carry firearms? Is the ability of people to “redress” government by arms a viable option in this day and age?
3. Given our capabilities in technology, what is the meaning of “search and seizure” for the individual today? Where do we draw the line in terms of our ability to spy on each other? Given the threats of terrorism, should we give police more or less ability to fetter out criminal behavior. Does the ability of some to hack into sensitive systems change our opinions? Does the ability of terrorist elements to get ahold of nuclear material change the equation?
4. If we respect the right of people to believe in God in the fashion they choose, does it make sense to grant tax benefits to religious organizations? What constitutes religious objections to a law? Does one have a concomitant right to be free from religion?
5. What are the duties of citizens? Should all be required to vote or pay a tax? Should we have a federal holiday on election day? How should we limit the influx of money from exceedingly wealthy individual toward either controlling who is the candidate or which party wins? Should we limit the time of electioneering? Should there be only federal registration of voters, and only federal requirements for eligibility?
6. Should everyone be called to some time of “public service”, either through the military or other “public corp” work? What constitutes a “conscientious objector”?
7. Does the government have the right to require education to a certain level, and are certain basics required? Are they reading, writing, and arithmetic, or might they be parenting, basic civics, conflict resolution, critical thinking skills? Should every person have the right to as much education as they desire, and free of charge?
8. Do people have a natural right to life? When? Can or should the state take it away under any circumstances? Which ones?
9. Do people have a natural right to food, IF the state at large can provide sufficient quantities?
10. Do people have a natural right to medical care regardless of their ability to pay if we have the technology to treat them? If not, then what limits attach?
11. Given the costs of incarceration, mental health treatment, and various other costs incurred, does the state have the right to set standards of who can be a parent? Is being able to be a parent the right of being human? Why? Does the state have the obligation to clean up the messes created by those who are not suited to parent properly? What standards would you suggest? Who would set them?
12. Should we allow “professional” politicians? Should citizens be required to “serve” in government for a specified time?
13. Do we wish to set limits on the growth of private business? How big is too big? Should corporations be people? Should they be allowed to control multiple divergent areas and thus virtually control a market?
14. Do individual states serve a purpose in the world today? If so, what? What things should be left to local “governments”?
15. What constitutes free speech? What constitutes speech?
16. Given the technology that is close to approaching an ability to monitor the brain and determine “truthful” statements, do we still wish to maintain a right to remain silent? What constitutes “being a witness against oneself”? Are bodily fluids private? Are brains waves private?
17. Are our bodies ours to do with as we wish? Does the state have a right to deny the use of drugs or other substances? Abortion? euthanasia? How can it, if it can, regulate such things? How does this impact personal privacy?
18. Should there be limits on individual wealth? What kind of tax system do we envision that is fair to all?

It seems to me that these are just a very small number of questions we might ask. Many would argue that some of these are so well established that they should bear no discussion. Is  this true or right? What things would you want to add? What opinions do you have on one or more of the above?

Is it time to rethink this social compact?

What Do We Owe and Why

Tags

conservative, democracy, liberal, political ideology, political theory

Howard L. Rosenthal, David J. Rothman, Editors

Conservatives and Liberals alike would agree that every citizen should be afforded the right to pursue their own dreams and go as far as their desire and talents can take them. What we don’t agree upon is how to secure that vision.

Conservatives think it is accomplished by keeping regulations and taxes at a minimum so that entrepreneurs are unhampered in their pursuit of growing their business. Presumably they believe that low taxes at least allow the non-business individual to put his or her money in appropriate educational or training endeavors to secure their vision of happiness. For Conservatives, government needs to get out of the way, allowing the free market to determine who succeeds and who fails.

It’s unclear how this benefits all the non-business world, but they seem to assume that such business people, so happy at their ability to operate unfettered, will gladly pay their workers a good wage, and maintain good working conditions, and of course all this supports a superior product.

As we have seen, this has not been the our history when such practices have been allowed to govern. Business has become a game of the very rich and open warfare for control of the industry has been the norm, with little or no thought to the worker or his well-being being given.

Both sides would theoretically believe in a level playing field. Conservatives look to existing laws and would make all evenly available to all. Liberals see the field as uneven by historical behaviors and that the field must be made level by offering those who have been inhibited a leg up for some period of time.

If the playing field can be level, then Liberals would argue that these things must be true:

1. All citizens must have sufficient nutritious food each day. Children who arrive at school hungry don’t learn as well as those who do. Workers who are ill-fed don’t perform as well on the job. Inner city groceries are often replete with soda, snacks, and prepackaged foods and bereft of fresh fruits and vegetables. Obesity is an epidemic. We cannot achieve our best when we eat only high-fat, highly processed foods.
2. All citizens are entitled to decent housing. Nothing is truer than the statement, a person’s home is their castle. It is the place where we are safe and our haven of relaxation. It is where we can be ourselves, dropping the facades that we carry about in our public lives. It is where we rejuvenate our bodies and spirits. Everyone should have some place to call home and feel at ease.
3. All citizens are entitled to a good education. Not “an” education, but a good one. To the degree that our cities cannot support such places, then government must step in and fill the void. Children arrive at school in very different conditions. Those from wealthy homes come with vastly more assets than those who do not. Those who come from financially secure homes have less things to inhibit their learning than those who are constantly aware that their very existence is under threat. Universities cannot be the place where remedial work is done. And of course no child should be unable to pursue their dreams because they cannot afford the education and training required. The government must assure this. No one can pursue happiness who cannot afford tuition.
4. All citizens are entitled to medical care. No one should die because they cannot afford the treatment required to maintain or cure their health concern. The toll of the individual who is unable to secure insurance is devastating. It devastates their savings, and their families emotionally. No one who is threatened by disease can be the best parent, spouse or worker when their minds are locked in a fight for survival. Care must include that which helps people to learn how to maintain their health–this lowers the cost for everyone in the end.
5. All citizens are entitled to jobs at decent wages. Workers have no incentive to do their jobs well when they are basically being paid slave wages. They cannot get ahead, cannot dream of a better life for themselves or their families. People need to feel useful and valued. Decent wages provide this. No entrepreneur has anything without the work force to actually build her product. They must be paid accordingly.
6. All citizens are entitled to have sufficient leisure time during the work week. Our bodies, minds and souls need replenishing. We need the time to have real hobbies that engage the mind and the spirit. We need time to play with our children, teaching them how to bake pies and change the oil, and fly fish, and prune the apple tree. Vital family relationships are nourished in this time and children learn how to be adults.
7. All citizens have the right to experience clean air and clean water, untainted foods and safe products. Government must ensure that business and all citizens protect and promote our environment for future generations. Global warming is a fact. We need to address it now.
8. All citizens have the right to engage in whatever faith practices they desire, or none. Our government is based on protection of minorities in some real aspects and this is one of them. Those who do not agree with faith or with yours have a right to be free from your public-government sponsored displays. Government should be out of the business of religion in any respect. Our laws should reflect  “provision for the common welfare” not some false and gimmicky “Judeo-Christian” standard that was NEVER intended.
9. All citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws. Race, sex, orientation, religion have no place in determinations of who gets what. We must have a serious and dispassionate discussion of when  a life is a “person” for purposes of rights.

These seem to me to be basic.

Why do we owe them?

Because we are human, and we can contemplate the question. The question answers itself. If we can conceive the discussion, we have already explained why we must do these things. If we do not, then we are simply not the species we think we are.

Will there be those who abuse this? Of course. In the same way that Earls and Counts abuse the system of monarchy, and countless party officials abuse the system of Communism. There are always those who seek the shortcut to unwarranted riches. This will be no different, but I hazard in the long run, the human desire to create, to be recognized, to feel worthwhile and valuable will tame that tendency. In any case, I feel it worth it.

What do you think?

 

You Got It All Wrong

Tags

Amendments, checks and balances, citizenship, Constititution, democracy, federalism, freedom, government, liberty, theocracy, tyranny

It has been my considered opinion for many years, that democracy requires a certain political maturity to pull off. I came to that conclusion as we wasted so many thousands of lives in Vietnam, all in pursuit of exporting democracy.

The neo-cons cannot “get” this. So we have continued to go about the business of “nation building” over the years, with little success.

Texas is busily trying to rewrite history to suit its collective religious notions. So out goes Jefferson as part of the Enlightenment, and out goes the Enlightenment in favor of “other ideas.” Caesar Chavez is dropped. What is in, is that the Founding Fathers were all Christians and their purpose was to establish the “City of God.”

Bunk, but what can you do against such mindsets? In fact, our Founding Fathers, (FF) knew quite a bit about government and had a pretty clear idea of what they did not want. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is one of the truest phrases ever spoken.

Democracy comes after all the other forms have been tried. I’m not sure if we ever gave Aristotle’s “philosopher king” much of a chance, but then such persons are mighty hard to come by. So we ended up with a strange seemingly unworkable structure that was based on the premise of “trust no one.” We established three branches, and were careful to give no one branch too much power, and plenty of veto power over the others. (Yes, before you start, I know the difference between democracy and federalism–we can treat them the same for this analysis.)

Yet, even then, we knew it was risky. Complicity still paced along the horizon. I mean the in’s in Washington could agree that at least they WERE the powerful rulers and could AGREE to at least protect themselves against the great hordes of ordinary citizenry. And of course that is pretty much what has happened today. Almost nobody in Washington gives a hoot about the American “people.” Remaining in their little fiefdom is the point today.

I contend that the FF actually saw this as a possibility and that the Amendments to the Constitution were really the last ditch defense against the return of tyranny. Seen in this way, we can I submit make a better choice as to how to break apart this log jam of inaction on crucial social issues we find today.

Freedoms of speech, assemble, and press insure that citizens can gather, discuss, organize and plan the ouster of those who are not doing the public good. No jail for dissidents. Freedom of religion is a direct response to the legitimacy that a “national” church can lend to a corrupt regime, and the tit for tat forced legitimacy of a particular faith interpretation. (Look to Latin America as a perfect example of a tyrannical government working hand in hand with a church to keep the status quo alive and well.)

Seen in this light the right to bear arms has zero to do with people having the right to amass personal arsenals. Rather it has to do with the fact that the people, thwarted by a government who enlists its personal army to defeat dissidents, don’t have to show up with pitchforks and shovels to war against tanks and machine guns. It is our final and most dangerous alternative to a government run amok.

Such an alternative is usually not necessary when trial rights, peers, and so forth are protected constitutionally. We can’t be jailed for opposing our government. We used to think we couldn’t be tortured into telling on ourselves (now open to wonder). We realized the importance here of liberty from tyranny, devoting half of our amendments to protecting the opposition.

None of this sounds very like the idea of creating a City of God. It seems more a sober reflection of how dangerous power is, and that we must remain ever vigilant to its excesses. Those who try to pervert the amendments into something else, either singularly or in groups are dangerous and must be watched carefully. Those who would suspend them even temporarily, even for “security’s” sake, must be opposed.

Texas is so appallingly wrong. It already has about the worst record in terms of graduating kids in the country. It has avoided what 48 other states have agreed is proper–minimum national standards of learning–and it’s increasingly at the beck and call of religious bigots who are determined to establish what the FF abhorred–a theocracy. Sadly, no doubt it will prevail at least within its borders and continue to turn out ill-educated backward and bigoted new adults ready to enter the voting booth.

Patrick Kennedy went ballistic the other day calling up the national media to stop its insane laziness and start to focus on real news. He was utterly right. If the press cannot or will not do it’s job, then it is up to us. It’s up to you. And me. Or we can kiss this find experiment goodbye.

Just what I’m thinkin’ about today.

The Only Person I Know Who is Sane, is Me

Tags

atheists, biblical studies, civil rights, Congress, Declaration of Independence, democracy, Democrats, enemy combatants, Evan Bayh, fundamentalism, Jefferson, justice, Miranda warnings, terrorism, theology, war on terrorism

I figured you should share in my nightmare too, so the picture at right, having little to do with the commentary which follows, only serves to seer your brain with an image that will haunt your peaceful sleep in ensuing nights.

You see, it’s all too apparent that I don’t belong here. I’m in the wrong century, on the wrong continent, and most likely I belong on Betelgeuse, a red giant star, found in the constellation Orion. Well, not  actually ON Betelgeuse, that would be a short life indeed, but orbiting it at least, on a planet that is SANE.

This one, boringly named “earth” (why earth which is small in comparison to “water” I have no clue), is patently insane, and I have more proof for you today of that fact.

The uproar for weeks about where we can try a criminal, Khalid Sheikh  Mohammed, has been ongoing. Of equal hue and cry is the correctness of interrogating Umar Farouk Abdulmutallub using civil criminal methods versus military methods. At the center of much of this is the god-awful horror of our having “read them their rights.”

Everyone on the far right, and heck, half in the moderate category suggest this is a no brainer. Not a citizen, not entitled to Miranda warnings. I cannot fathom why. Now before you start up all the usual enemy combatants garbage, its a bit more basic that all that.

Once upon a time, far far ago, a country was contemplated, a nation, a place of freedom and liberty for all. In fact, a document to those principles was created by a guy by the name of Thomas Jefferson. You may have heard of him.  One of the things he wrote, and presumably believed, was something about freedom and liberty. He claimed that such rights were the “laws of nature, and of nature’s God.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, what it did not say, is that said rights only accrued to “American” citizens or those who were contemplated anyway. At the end, there are the signatures of a whole bunch of white men, who apparently all agreed to such a claim. We refer to them collectively as our “founding fathers.”

Historically, for several decades now, we have held ourselves out as that beacon of freedom, an example to the rest of the world. We have made awful attempts to export our “freedom” to others. We have encouraged revolutions to overthrow dictatorships and we have instigated wars to do the same.

Yet, we parse hairs here and claim that non-citizens in our custody are NOT to be beneficiaries of such GOD given rights? Explain this please? Oh and just for the record, should anyone ask, there is no such thing logically as a “war against terror.” Terror is a state of mind, and not an enemy. People who hold extreme views that cause them to espouse destruction without reference to the consequences to innocents are proper targets of efforts to put them out of business. Let’s keep things straight.

***

Evan Bayh comes off as Mr. reasonable in his decision to not seek re-election as Senator from Indiana. He seems reasonable. All that touchy feely, “I can’t stand the gridlock,” and “I love Indiana, but I don’t love Congress.”

Yes, but his timing was about as bad as it could be and Democrats are scrambling to even get a Democrat on the ballot now for next November, and Republicans now are starting to realize the impossible–control of Congress after 2010. Lots of time to go, lots can change, but the damage is huge.

And of course Bayh did NOTHING to help the Health care reform bill get through, and has been a whiny crabber about fiscal responsibility when we can’t afford to do anything else but pump the economy full and bring down unemployment rates for the working poor.

One could argue that Bayh was himself one of those obstructionists he condemns so loftily. That being said, I suspect what he has done is not so bad overall.  The electorate, having an attention span that is over faster than the speed of light, is so fickle these days that what chagrins today, will be forgotten tomorrow.

There is something to be said, that democracy is wasted on those who have inherited it. Every where you turn, the far right makes it clear they would remove freedom in the name of freedom. Catchy huh?

***

The most idiotic post I’ve read in a long time can be found here. First I would say, that I don’t for a minute think the author believes what he says, namely that fundamentalists are more coherently theological than are liberal Christians. It’s the old, “I want to attack thoughtful rational Christians and the best way is to suggest that the most incoherent Christians are actually the most rational.” So I see this all as just that, shock value rhetoric designed to stick it to mainstream believers.

To suggest that fundamentalists have a coherent worldview and “live out” their theology accordingly with a faithful though wrong, consistent interpretation of scripture, is to be so utterly devoid of rationality as to be a joke. The writer cannot be serious.

There is zero coherence in fundamentalism, in fact its most noted element is the ability to hold diametrically opposite views at the same time. It’s followers are famous for picking and choosing what bits of scripture they will follow and which not.

Mainstream theology and biblical studies have an unbroken 2,000 year history of development, all placing the bible and its contents in proper prospective, as well as tackling the big issues, always conscience of how they impact on each other in a rational logical fashion. Fundamentalism is stuck in mud, having made no progress ever, since by definition it is dramatically cut and dried, once and for all, take it or leave it, archaic and primitive in its outlook.

But then, perhaps it was all done tongue in cheek and I missed somewhere the punch line.

No matter, I hear the moons over Sirius are particularly nice this time of “year” and I’m heading there in my ship now. Come along if you’d like.  Make it so.

Learning from Iran

Tags

civic responsibility, democracy, elections, Iran, protests, voting

If you are like me, you’ve been keeping a close eye on Iran, and the results of the last election. I at least, have remained measurably hopeful. I don’t suppose that is very realistic.

A country that cheats as inelegantly as Tehran has done, probably is not likely to respond with a “my bad” when their deception is uncovered both at home and abroad. I don’t expect they will be announcing a “do over” any time soon.

It is painful to watch as people struggle to just have a fair election, where their voices actually count for something.  I think we take that for granted here in the US. Everyone alive in this country has never known anything different if they were born here.

Of course, we are not free from our own dirty tricks. There are plenty of election shenanigans to go around, mostly in attempts to suppress the votes of opposition voters through “legal” objections to voting rolls. But by and large, we think they are pretty fair. I mean if ever there was one that wasn’t, we can look to 2000, and Gore bowed to the right of the SCOTUS to have the final word. He signaled that that stamp was authoritative and was “fair.”

Because of this overall complacency, we are in danger here, and few realize it, or even believe it. We stood by as the Bushites pushed through “Patriot Acts” designed to take away freedoms such as privacy and speech, making it seem “unpatriotic” to oppose such legislation.

We’ve learned that there are ways around Congresses sole right to declare war, and we have now lost that means of control over our government as well. Plenty of people when polled, are happy to give up rights we claim to hold dear in the name of “national security.”

While we have been busy with life, our elected officials have had their power eroded and controlled by mega conglomerates, beholden to only themselves. They dictate just about everything these days. Obama and his team promise a dismantling of all this, but it’s so far unclear how much they can and are willing to do. Much too much ends up being aimed at re-election rather than the public good.

You can ask, and I invite you to, and plenty of folks will tell you that unfair police practices are okay, because, like national security, crime must be stopped, and “honest” people have nothing to hide, right?

I used to get asked a lot, and still do occasionally, how I “can/could” represent criminals when I “thought they were guilty?” The short answer is that because the law doesn’t assure them a lawyer who believes they are  innocent, but a lawyer to hold the state to its burdens of proof.

The long answer is that we have a country of laws. If lawyers don’t have to represent those they deem guilty, then why have courts or juries at all. Let the cops do justice on the street by personal whim. If you, your child, or loved one were charged with a crime, you’d want the best lawyer in town, not the ignorant sap who “believes” you.

We’ve grown soft in democracy, or federalism as you wish. We actually think we are doing our civic duty by voting. Precious few of us can even bother with that. Far fewer than that go to town councils meetings, and join groups who actively work for issues. I’m not wagging my finger at you, because I fall in the same category. I try, but fail, to convince myself that blogging is my contribution to improve the “public discourse.” Uhuh.

And don’t tell me that this happens to all democracies. We have the lowest voting record of any of them I believe. We are complacent. Well, not all of us. White people are complacent. When we move off that  demographic, there is at least a lot of folks who have been the recipient of our less than “fair” democracy. Like African Americans, Latinos, American Indians, Asians, all the non-whites actually. Yet even here, there is  a lack of co-ordinated voting of any kind, and poor turnout as well.

Can you imagine Iranians not voting because they had something better to do? Or Iraqis? Perhaps it is our less than long history of oppression in a real and obvious way that allows us to sink so rapidly into shrugging our shoulders and assuming nothing bad will happen. I don’t know, but I do know, that Iran is important.

Important, not just because we could use some more rational people to deal with there on big issues that face them and the region. We can look repression dead in the face, and place ourselves there, on those streets, in that fear of what will happen next? Will I get out of this alive? Will I be free to say and do what I wish?

We have lost any sense of how precious our freedom is, until of course, we wish to strut it around as giving us permission to dictate to the world on any issue under the sun. They we parade it and our flag high and strong. I find that I can use a remark of  Jesus’ often and well. America, remove the plank from your eye before you go about instructing the rest of the world how to live. Iran reminds us, we recently retreated from the edge, and we can peek over the edge once again all too easily.

Freedom requires vigilance. We best not forget that, or we too may one day face the streets, the batons, the water hoses, and the bullets.

Democracy Shimocracy

Tags

Bush, democracy, federalism, foreign policy, government, political theory, representative democracy, US

I just read that the American people think that Congress is doing a good job to the tune of 9% of the populace. (The Contrarian always points out, that those folks all exclude their own congress people from the mix however.) That is some figure. Bush no doubt feels that somehow that must mean he’s in pretty good shape. I don’t think so, but it kind of fell into line with something I’m reading at the moment.

Jeff Sharlet has written a book called The Family. I’ll be reviewing it for you probably next week some time. Something he said at one point has stayed with me and I’ve let it rattle around for nearly a week. This poll seemed to bring it to a head and I thought I’d share my thoughts with you.

Mr. Sharlet opined that America found itself reaching for (or having it thrust upon it if you insist) imperialistic power long before the country had worked out its own democracy. What he was referring to, is that we started “exporting” democracy before we had a very clear idea of what exactly we had involved into. The more I think about what he said, the more I think he is correct.

Now many will quibble from the start, pointing out that we were designed not to be a democracy in the tradition of Athens, but a representative democracy, based on a federalist system. I recognize that and that is not really my point.

When we look at the Federalist Papers, by all accounts, our best reference book on what our Founding Fathers intended, we see that within that framework of “representative” democracy, there were two main threads of debate. Neither was adopted as it were, and in truth, there was no need to adopt either one perhaps. What they reflected was two very different ways to look at what it means to be a senator or representative of the great people of the US.

The two sides were defined thusly:

• I am elected to serve the interests of my constituents. I determine to the best of my ability what they want, and then represent them in Congress accordingly, voting as they would have me do.
• I am elected to serve the interests of my constituents. They elect me with the express purpose of looking deeply into all these issues that they don’t have time to, and expect me to vote my best conviction based on my expertise.

Now, to some degree this was accomplished by the design of the two Houses of Congress. The person who is elected to the House, represents a smaller constituency, likely more homogeneous and more susceptible of having their actual desires discerned. So House members might be thought to represent the actual desires of their actual constituents more closely than the Senate. The Senate, given a longer tenure, and representing a much larger constituency, needs its members to balance more diverse desires and vote their considered opinion of what they think best.

But in reality, there was never any sharp division, and assuredly members of Congress feel differently about what their responsibilities are. What seems to have happened is that most decided that they knew best most of the time and have voted accordingly. We cannot know all the intricacies and deals that must be struck to attain the “greater” good. It may appear that they are on the wrong side of a particular issue when in fact they are not. So they say at least.

What we have essentially is a small group of people, elected or not, who have power, or who have great access to power, and most of these folks think they know what is best, best for us they mouth, but mostly better for them or at least their personal world view.

No one in this country would claim that it is a good thing to give armaments to horrid military dictators who murder their citizenry indiscriminately in order to solidify their power. Yet America has done so more times than you can count on all your fingers and toes, mostly in the name of counterbalancing “Communism.” You can look all over Africa, Indonesia, and Latin and South America and find all the evidence you wish. No, or at least very few Americans would sanction this type of thing. Yet it’s done, for our own good, because we can’t see the “big picture”  as they can.

Once it was done on the basis of manifest destiny. We had a “right” to the continent, but then, I would argue, most Americans actually did agree with that policy. I’m talking about not acting like a democracy. Depriving other peoples of their rights because we had “needs” that must be met. Of course all kinds of justifications are always made. In the long run, we claim, it’s in their interests too, those that survive  that is.

It’s happening again in this “war on terror.’ We are compromising our stated philosophy of human rights and self-determination, in the interests in our security. Of course, once again, we tell ourselves that it is their security as well, again to those who can survive us and our present policies. It’s called ends justifying means, and we do it more often than not.

The Bush administration has begun to gut our civil liberties. At the same time, it has turned every regulatory agency in the US government into a industry apologist. Congress seems paralyzed to do anything about it. Why?

Because they too are busy doing what is best for us. Bush gets a good deal he actually wants because all this wheeling and dealing keeps getting in the way. “We had to cave in on this, because it’s tied to this, and we really really want this.” I have to get elected, so I can’t step too harshly on the toes of X industry, it contributes too much to my campaign. I have to get elected, because I know what my people need, even if they don’t. This is just what I have to do.

A good deal of it is a good deal more sinister than what I’ve related. There are quite hidden agendas out there. Some of them are sick. They all seem to revolve around the idea that those in power have a right to set the agenda. Us little folks are just the fodder for the war machine and the economic rape they continue. We can’t understand, and even if we could, we don’t count, because we don’t have power.

And they are right. The power of the vote? Well, okay, there is some of that. But not really. Much as I will continue to hammer everyone to vote for Obama, I’m not stupid. He is not a radical. And neither are any of the others. We are not going to wake up Christmas morning 2009 and find universal health care, an end to the Iraq war, safe medicine, fair wages, a sparkling environment, two dollar gas, and a whole host of other things we are being promised. We are voting on center to right versus center to left. You might have to turn sideways to get between ’em. It always seems like a lot more, but at the end of every four years, precious little has been accomplished.

You can look at FDR, a most savvy politician. He had to lead us carefully into WWII. He had to coddle us to it. He knew it was inevitable, but being re-elected was essential (no doubt to the world he told himself). And so he had to take us step by step, so in the end we would agree. And guess what? They pretty much knew what Hitler was doing to Jews for a couple of years before we got in. How’s that for morality in action?

But times have changed. Republicans, at least of the neo-con variety, no longer even bother to give lip service to the people. They KNOW we don’t really matter. They can and do do exactly as they wish. As I pointed out several times, Cheney responds with a “So what?” to queries about how the American public doesn’t support their policies.

If you think any of this is lost on the rest of the world, you are deluding yourself. They see in stark reality the difference between what we preach and what we do. Especially this is not lost on those nations who have suffered at our hands when we propped up vicious dictatorships to protect our “interests in the region.” It’s not wonder we are hated so far and wide. It’s not wonder our “exporting” of democracy is not welcome.

We can have all the rights we claim of free speech and free assembly and all that. Until we make the government respond to our desires, we have nothing at all but empty rhetoric. It’s one of the reasons that this despicable thing we call a media makes me sick. Our first line of getting out the truth is failing us all miserably. The bloggers on the internet are the last line of defense.

The bottom line is simple. We cannot honestly and truthfully impact all the moderates out there in the Muslim and “other” landscape until we start living what we preach. It’s time to BE a democracy instead of talking about it. When and if we do that, we might find a more listening world. Right now all they respect is our “given” ability to bomb the hell out of them. That’s not going to be enough in the end.