... George Smather's 1950 Senate nomination campaign against incumbent Democrat Claude Pepper, in which Smathers successfully exploited Pepper's reputation as a doctrinaire New Dealer and forceful advocate of the welfare state, which opened him to attacks as a Soviet sympathizer and "Stalin's mouthpiece in the Senate," or "Red" Pepper as unscrupulous opponents called him. Whimsically taking advantage of the climate of suspicion and the extraordinary ignorance of his audience, Smathers shamelessly described Pepper in a speech as an "extrovert," who practiced "nepotism" with his sister-in-law and "celibacy" before his marriage, and had a sister who was a Greenwich Village "thespian."
From pp. 160-1, Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, Little Brown & Company, 2003.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
31 May 2007
Putin's Antidote to Global Warming? A Small Dose of Cold War
From Yahoo News
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a scathing attack on the West on Thursday, accusing Washington of imperialism and of starting a new arms race.
Moscow has been alarmed by U.S. plans to deploy elements of its global missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington says it wants to avert attacks from "rogue states" such as Iran but Russia sees a threat to its own security.
"There is a clear desire by some international players to dictate their will to everyone without adhering to international law," Putin said. "International law has been replaced by political reasons."
"In our opinion it is nothing different from diktat, nothing different from imperialism," he added.
From Harper's Index
Percentage of top Soviet(or Russian) officials who were drawn from the armed forces or security services
under Mikhail Gorbachev: 5
under Boris Yeltsin: 47
under Vladimir Putin: 78
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a scathing attack on the West on Thursday, accusing Washington of imperialism and of starting a new arms race.
Moscow has been alarmed by U.S. plans to deploy elements of its global missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington says it wants to avert attacks from "rogue states" such as Iran but Russia sees a threat to its own security.
"There is a clear desire by some international players to dictate their will to everyone without adhering to international law," Putin said. "International law has been replaced by political reasons."
"In our opinion it is nothing different from diktat, nothing different from imperialism," he added.
From Harper's Index
Percentage of top Soviet(or Russian) officials who were drawn from the armed forces or security services
under Mikhail Gorbachev: 5
under Boris Yeltsin: 47
under Vladimir Putin: 78
30 May 2007
The Allure of Kings
In 1689, British Parliament "hired" William & Mary to be king and queen of England. John Locke, a good buddy of Isaac Newton's, was the apologist for this Glorious Revolution and came over from Holland with Queen Mary. The brilliant and rather infectious idea behind this scheme of Parliament was simple but powerful: have a constitutional rather than absolute monarchy.
In an absolute monarchy, the monarch was the ultimate authority. In a constitutional monarchy, even the monarch is subject to the constitution. (And about a century later, the Americans decided that once a country had a constitution it had no need for a monarch.)
Still, some apparently yearn for the early days of one person's judgment trumping wearisome legal processes subject to appeals, delays, and confusion. How else to explain the fact that Americans now love Reagan, the man who decided that the constitution was too constraining and decided to launch a war without approval from congress, financed by illegally selling arms to Iran? Or the fact that Bush is still admired by about a third of Americans in spite of wiretapping proposals that John Ashcroft ruled unconstitutional? Or tacit approval of Bush's dismissal of constitutional rights in the Jose Padilla case?
There are plenty of Americans who would apparently love to simply vote in a monarch every 4 years and then let him have free reign.
----------
Jami Floyd of Court TV describes the sad condition of Jose Padilla and the even sadder condition of the legal process here.
"Padilla was held without charge for years as an enemy combatant. Padilla's lawyers have said that, as a result of his isolation and interrogation, their client is so mentally damaged that he is unable to assist in his own defense. He is so passive now, they say, so fearful that he is 'like a piece of furniture.'"
Alex Whalen writes about the illegality of the wiretapping program Bush was pushing for over the top of Ashcroft's sick body here.
"Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his 'aggressive' use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal."
In an absolute monarchy, the monarch was the ultimate authority. In a constitutional monarchy, even the monarch is subject to the constitution. (And about a century later, the Americans decided that once a country had a constitution it had no need for a monarch.)
Still, some apparently yearn for the early days of one person's judgment trumping wearisome legal processes subject to appeals, delays, and confusion. How else to explain the fact that Americans now love Reagan, the man who decided that the constitution was too constraining and decided to launch a war without approval from congress, financed by illegally selling arms to Iran? Or the fact that Bush is still admired by about a third of Americans in spite of wiretapping proposals that John Ashcroft ruled unconstitutional? Or tacit approval of Bush's dismissal of constitutional rights in the Jose Padilla case?
There are plenty of Americans who would apparently love to simply vote in a monarch every 4 years and then let him have free reign.
----------
Jami Floyd of Court TV describes the sad condition of Jose Padilla and the even sadder condition of the legal process here.
"Padilla was held without charge for years as an enemy combatant. Padilla's lawyers have said that, as a result of his isolation and interrogation, their client is so mentally damaged that he is unable to assist in his own defense. He is so passive now, they say, so fearful that he is 'like a piece of furniture.'"
Alex Whalen writes about the illegality of the wiretapping program Bush was pushing for over the top of Ashcroft's sick body here.
"Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his 'aggressive' use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal."
The Power of Priestly Robes
About a month ago, Joshua Bell performed live in the subway. As arguably the premier violinist in the world, he might earn hundreds of thousands for a live performance at Carnegie Hall. The Washington Post was curious - would his performance attract attention from the rush of commuters hurrying to or from work?
The answer seems to be, no. Bell ended up with $32 in his case and most people who passed by him didn't recognize his playing as anything special. Absent the context of a concert hall and the social signals that screamed - this man is important, pay attention to him! - most people thought him rather unimportant and paid him little or no attention.
Judges know this. It is no coincidence that historians speak of the "royal court." One key to the nation-state's ascension to the point of having a monopoly on law and its interpretation was the promotion of the king's court as the true arbiters of justice.
For centuries, people have bowed their heads to the pronouncements of men in robes. It is no mystery why the Supreme Court would borrow from the wardrobe of priests and the architecture of the ancient Greeks. The trappings of ancient wisdom and revelation serve to make pronouncements that might otherwise seem arbitrary sound authoritative instead. To have 9 people at the diner counter opine about gender discrimination would lack the authority of pronouncements from an elevated dais.
The president of the U.S. decides who is worthy of Carnegie Hall performance, his utterances having the force of law, and who stays at the coffee shop diner, his utterances to be ignored by the waitress.
All that simply to say that this week's ruling by the Supreme Court would have been dismissed by any hard-working waitress with a sense of justice.
Lilly Ledbetter sued her employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, for gender discrimination. A jury agreed with her that her pay of $5,000 a year less than the lowest paid male peer was unfair and awarded her back pay and damages. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, disagreed, stating that litigants had to sue within 180 days of the act of discrimination. Barring the fact that this seems to ignore the obvious problem of dating a pattern of discrimination, the ruling rested on the oddest precedent.
In 1991, a bipartisan majority of Congress passed a Civil Rights Restoration Act, reversing a series of decisions made by a conservative court. Conservatives argue against activist courts, stating that the role of courts is to interpret laws passed by congress, not make law. Yet this week, the Supreme Court ruling cited as precedent the decisions reversed by Congress's 1991 law.
If only men like Samuel Alito and Antonio Scalia were normal old men, sitting at the diner counter sipping coffee between talk about how women have gone too far, their odd opinions would be something the sore-footed waitress could shake her head at. As it is, they determine how this waitress is treated. Perhaps it is time to dress the court in Bermuda shorts and polo shirts. At least then their decisions would seem more honest than utterances from men dressed like priests or ancient philosophers.
-------------------
For Slate's Richard Thompson Ford's take on this see:
The Supreme Court mixes up intending to screw over your employee and actually doing it.
The answer seems to be, no. Bell ended up with $32 in his case and most people who passed by him didn't recognize his playing as anything special. Absent the context of a concert hall and the social signals that screamed - this man is important, pay attention to him! - most people thought him rather unimportant and paid him little or no attention.
Judges know this. It is no coincidence that historians speak of the "royal court." One key to the nation-state's ascension to the point of having a monopoly on law and its interpretation was the promotion of the king's court as the true arbiters of justice.
For centuries, people have bowed their heads to the pronouncements of men in robes. It is no mystery why the Supreme Court would borrow from the wardrobe of priests and the architecture of the ancient Greeks. The trappings of ancient wisdom and revelation serve to make pronouncements that might otherwise seem arbitrary sound authoritative instead. To have 9 people at the diner counter opine about gender discrimination would lack the authority of pronouncements from an elevated dais.
The president of the U.S. decides who is worthy of Carnegie Hall performance, his utterances having the force of law, and who stays at the coffee shop diner, his utterances to be ignored by the waitress.
All that simply to say that this week's ruling by the Supreme Court would have been dismissed by any hard-working waitress with a sense of justice.
Lilly Ledbetter sued her employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, for gender discrimination. A jury agreed with her that her pay of $5,000 a year less than the lowest paid male peer was unfair and awarded her back pay and damages. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, disagreed, stating that litigants had to sue within 180 days of the act of discrimination. Barring the fact that this seems to ignore the obvious problem of dating a pattern of discrimination, the ruling rested on the oddest precedent.
In 1991, a bipartisan majority of Congress passed a Civil Rights Restoration Act, reversing a series of decisions made by a conservative court. Conservatives argue against activist courts, stating that the role of courts is to interpret laws passed by congress, not make law. Yet this week, the Supreme Court ruling cited as precedent the decisions reversed by Congress's 1991 law.
If only men like Samuel Alito and Antonio Scalia were normal old men, sitting at the diner counter sipping coffee between talk about how women have gone too far, their odd opinions would be something the sore-footed waitress could shake her head at. As it is, they determine how this waitress is treated. Perhaps it is time to dress the court in Bermuda shorts and polo shirts. At least then their decisions would seem more honest than utterances from men dressed like priests or ancient philosophers.
-------------------
For Slate's Richard Thompson Ford's take on this see:
The Supreme Court mixes up intending to screw over your employee and actually doing it.
26 May 2007
Flow & The Pursuit of Happiness
My daughter recently wrote a paper for her humanities class, a paper about Freud, Kafka, and Happiness. This seemed to me rather like writing a paper on Stephen Hawking and athletic prowess. But as I tried to explain what little I knew of Freud and modern psychology, it made me aware that my favorite psychologist may actually be my favorite philosopher.
Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi popularized the notion of flow - the mental absorption that both makes us the happiest and the most productive. I've found this notion immensely helpful and still see his ideas as a starting point for making daily life happy.
Freud argued that much of our behavior is motivated by subconscious desires that we little understand. For him, sublimination of the sex drive explains the desire to paint, play guitar, or write poetry.
Skinner argued that we do things for hope of reward, or to avoid pain. By controlling rewards and punishment, we can control behavior, this behaviorist argued. Sadly, his philosophy of human behavior is still the most influential in the definition of businesses and schools.
Freud and Skinner's explanations of motivation seem so clumsy, like Rube Goldberg devices. It's hard to believe that Freud and Skinner are completely wrong. Motivations are complex. But these explanations seem more convoluted than complete.
Csikszentmihalyi observed that people engaged in tasks as varied as painting, rock climbing, novel reading, chess playing, and motorcycle riding didn't seem to be subverting sexual impulses into more socially acceptable behavior. Nor did the painters, for instance, seem motivated by the prospect of rewards: by a particular point in their career most had lost illusions about finding fame and fortune. Rather, he learned that the absorption in the task was, itself, the motivation.
We seem to be happiest when we lose self consciousness and are so absorbed in a task that we lose track of time. Additionally, this full engagement in an act that requires our complete attention generally leaves us more able, better equipped to face the next challenge. Flow is a path to development and improvement.
So, what makes Csikszentmihalyi a philosopher? The implications of his psychology suggest a different society. Rather than teach children to learn only as a means to rewards, we would coach children on how to find flow, how to find meaning. That is, we'd coach them in becoming absorbed in tasks that make a difference, that gives the tasks (and by extension their lives) meaning. Rather than focus on outside control - doing what leaders reward - we'd focus on internal control - doing what brings us flow.
This suggests a very different society, a place where the locus of control is with the individual and not outside of the individual in leaders or institutions who control or influence behavior.
Centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote about the pursuit of happiness. The notion that individual happiness might be a valid basis for governance was a revolutionary idea. Csikszentmihalyi has done as much as anyone to help us to better understand happiness. I find it fascinating that fully realizing this happiness ultimately rests on creating a society where the individual is the locus of control over the individual life. As it turns out, happiness and liberty really are intertwined. How we pursue happiness is our philosophy put into action. Offer a new psychology and you have effectively offered a new philosophy.
Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi popularized the notion of flow - the mental absorption that both makes us the happiest and the most productive. I've found this notion immensely helpful and still see his ideas as a starting point for making daily life happy.
Freud argued that much of our behavior is motivated by subconscious desires that we little understand. For him, sublimination of the sex drive explains the desire to paint, play guitar, or write poetry.
Skinner argued that we do things for hope of reward, or to avoid pain. By controlling rewards and punishment, we can control behavior, this behaviorist argued. Sadly, his philosophy of human behavior is still the most influential in the definition of businesses and schools.
Freud and Skinner's explanations of motivation seem so clumsy, like Rube Goldberg devices. It's hard to believe that Freud and Skinner are completely wrong. Motivations are complex. But these explanations seem more convoluted than complete.
Csikszentmihalyi observed that people engaged in tasks as varied as painting, rock climbing, novel reading, chess playing, and motorcycle riding didn't seem to be subverting sexual impulses into more socially acceptable behavior. Nor did the painters, for instance, seem motivated by the prospect of rewards: by a particular point in their career most had lost illusions about finding fame and fortune. Rather, he learned that the absorption in the task was, itself, the motivation.
We seem to be happiest when we lose self consciousness and are so absorbed in a task that we lose track of time. Additionally, this full engagement in an act that requires our complete attention generally leaves us more able, better equipped to face the next challenge. Flow is a path to development and improvement.
So, what makes Csikszentmihalyi a philosopher? The implications of his psychology suggest a different society. Rather than teach children to learn only as a means to rewards, we would coach children on how to find flow, how to find meaning. That is, we'd coach them in becoming absorbed in tasks that make a difference, that gives the tasks (and by extension their lives) meaning. Rather than focus on outside control - doing what leaders reward - we'd focus on internal control - doing what brings us flow.
This suggests a very different society, a place where the locus of control is with the individual and not outside of the individual in leaders or institutions who control or influence behavior.
Centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote about the pursuit of happiness. The notion that individual happiness might be a valid basis for governance was a revolutionary idea. Csikszentmihalyi has done as much as anyone to help us to better understand happiness. I find it fascinating that fully realizing this happiness ultimately rests on creating a society where the individual is the locus of control over the individual life. As it turns out, happiness and liberty really are intertwined. How we pursue happiness is our philosophy put into action. Offer a new psychology and you have effectively offered a new philosophy.
7 Steps to Disaster
1. Let neocon ideologues manufacture a war, launching an invasion of Iraq with no plan other than sweeping up the flowers thrown by adoring masses upon liberation from the rule of a tyrant.
2. Let pragmatic problem-solvers work with Iraqis to equip them and train them, ensuring that they'll be an effective and deadly fighting force. Don't worry much about the political forces that will define how this military might will be deployed.
3. Let responsive politicians engineer a pullout of American troops to appease an American public tired of lies, ineffectual promises, and a situation that shows no signs of abating. Argue that the Iraqi Civil War is an Iraqi affair.
4. Decry the genocide that follows once well armed Shiites avenge themselves of decades of abuse under minority Sunni rule. If you argued for a pullout, wring your hands and say, "It would have been so much worse if our troops were in the middle of that." If you argued for keeping American troops there until 2058, wag your finger and say, "If we would have stayed, Baghdad would already look like Dallas."
5. Decry the regional instability and political chaos that follows from a stream of refugees out of Iraq and a stream of religious warriors into Iraq. Insist that the Iraqis, Iranians, and other countries do what we could not - control the violence.
6. Furiously negotiate to avoid the Arabic equivalent of World War Three. Make ultimatums that we can't enforce.
7. Watch as G-8 nations are drawn into the conflict in order to protect oil reserves. Gradually and rationally, introduce NATO forces into the region in an attempt to protect oil supplies to the industrialized nations. Helplessly watch as the Arabic equivalent of World War Three becomes World War Three.
Note that the only thing that makes sense in this entire disaster is the fact that future generations begin to use terms like "bush," "wolfowitz," "rumsfeld," "kristol," and "cheney," as curse words.
2. Let pragmatic problem-solvers work with Iraqis to equip them and train them, ensuring that they'll be an effective and deadly fighting force. Don't worry much about the political forces that will define how this military might will be deployed.
3. Let responsive politicians engineer a pullout of American troops to appease an American public tired of lies, ineffectual promises, and a situation that shows no signs of abating. Argue that the Iraqi Civil War is an Iraqi affair.
4. Decry the genocide that follows once well armed Shiites avenge themselves of decades of abuse under minority Sunni rule. If you argued for a pullout, wring your hands and say, "It would have been so much worse if our troops were in the middle of that." If you argued for keeping American troops there until 2058, wag your finger and say, "If we would have stayed, Baghdad would already look like Dallas."
5. Decry the regional instability and political chaos that follows from a stream of refugees out of Iraq and a stream of religious warriors into Iraq. Insist that the Iraqis, Iranians, and other countries do what we could not - control the violence.
6. Furiously negotiate to avoid the Arabic equivalent of World War Three. Make ultimatums that we can't enforce.
7. Watch as G-8 nations are drawn into the conflict in order to protect oil reserves. Gradually and rationally, introduce NATO forces into the region in an attempt to protect oil supplies to the industrialized nations. Helplessly watch as the Arabic equivalent of World War Three becomes World War Three.
Note that the only thing that makes sense in this entire disaster is the fact that future generations begin to use terms like "bush," "wolfowitz," "rumsfeld," "kristol," and "cheney," as curse words.
25 May 2007
Nine Guys Are Banging Their Head Against a Wall
Nine guys are banging their head against the wall. Their foreheads are bloody, the wall unfazed.
A guy walks by and says, "Why don't you stop that?"
"What!?" they loudly exclaim. "And admit defeat?"
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate John McCain assailed Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Friday for voting against legislation paying for the Iraq war, accusing them of embracing "the policy of surrender."
"What is Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton's 'Plan B' if we withdraw?" McCain, an Arizona senator who backed the measure, said in a telephone interview. "What are their options if the withdrawal fails and we have chaos and genocide?"
Yet, when pressed, McCain suggested he didn't have an alternative plan for success should President Bush's recent troop build-up, which he supports, fail. "We are examining many other plans and none of the options are good," he said. "I have other options, but they are not good."
A guy walks by and says, "Why don't you stop that?"
"What!?" they loudly exclaim. "And admit defeat?"
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate John McCain assailed Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Friday for voting against legislation paying for the Iraq war, accusing them of embracing "the policy of surrender."
"What is Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton's 'Plan B' if we withdraw?" McCain, an Arizona senator who backed the measure, said in a telephone interview. "What are their options if the withdrawal fails and we have chaos and genocide?"
Yet, when pressed, McCain suggested he didn't have an alternative plan for success should President Bush's recent troop build-up, which he supports, fail. "We are examining many other plans and none of the options are good," he said. "I have other options, but they are not good."
Two Kinds of Conservatives - One Divisive Issue
Republicans are split on the issue of illegal immigration.
To say that you are a conservative begs the question: Conserve what? The Republican Party is a place for various kinds of conservatives: religious conservatives, business conservatives, and cultural conservatives. Generally speaking, these groups overlap. The issue of illegal immigration highlights one area where they do not.
Business conservatives generally have no problem with immigration – legal or illegal. Some jobs can be exported and some cannot. For jobs like farming and construction, it makes sense to bring in lower-paid workers.
Cultural conservatives are threatened by immigration – legal or illegal. For them, the country is defined by a common language and culture. If you expect to live in this country, you should speak English and understand, if to subscribe to, Judeo-Christian beliefs and Western culture. To sacrifice this sense of nationalism for low-wages would be like encouraging your daughter to work as a prostitute. For cultural conservatives, values are more important than money.
Of late, national elections have been decided by one or two percent. Republican leaders realize that alienating even a fraction of any one of their conservative groups can cost them control. For them, the very fact that illegal immigration has become an important issue is to have lost on the issue. There is no obvious way to reconcile the views of these two very different kinds of conservatives.
--------------
For more on cultural conservatives, here's Jeralyn Merritt commenting on Tom Tancredo's stance on immigration as a threat to Western Civilization.
"Presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo told supporters gathered at a private ranch here Friday that American culture, as well as the fate of western civilization, is being threatened by illegal immigration.
....'There’s an issue that is so much broader than all that, so much more serious. It is the issue of our culture itself, and whether we will survive.'"
To say that you are a conservative begs the question: Conserve what? The Republican Party is a place for various kinds of conservatives: religious conservatives, business conservatives, and cultural conservatives. Generally speaking, these groups overlap. The issue of illegal immigration highlights one area where they do not.
Business conservatives generally have no problem with immigration – legal or illegal. Some jobs can be exported and some cannot. For jobs like farming and construction, it makes sense to bring in lower-paid workers.
Cultural conservatives are threatened by immigration – legal or illegal. For them, the country is defined by a common language and culture. If you expect to live in this country, you should speak English and understand, if to subscribe to, Judeo-Christian beliefs and Western culture. To sacrifice this sense of nationalism for low-wages would be like encouraging your daughter to work as a prostitute. For cultural conservatives, values are more important than money.
Of late, national elections have been decided by one or two percent. Republican leaders realize that alienating even a fraction of any one of their conservative groups can cost them control. For them, the very fact that illegal immigration has become an important issue is to have lost on the issue. There is no obvious way to reconcile the views of these two very different kinds of conservatives.
--------------
For more on cultural conservatives, here's Jeralyn Merritt commenting on Tom Tancredo's stance on immigration as a threat to Western Civilization.
"Presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo told supporters gathered at a private ranch here Friday that American culture, as well as the fate of western civilization, is being threatened by illegal immigration.
....'There’s an issue that is so much broader than all that, so much more serious. It is the issue of our culture itself, and whether we will survive.'"
24 May 2007
And the Beatlemania Goes On
From The Week magazine:
How popular are the Beatles?
By many measures, more popular than ever. The band sells, on average, 280,000 albums a month worldwide, and according to trade publications, Beatles songs still receive more radio airplay than any other group. Last year, the Beatles topped the Billboard album chart with Love, an album of remixed versions of some of their most famous songs. In 2000, the Beatles released 1, a compilation of all 27 of the group’s No. 1 singles. That album sold 12 million copies in the first three weeks of its release—making it the fastest–selling album of all time—and reached No. 1 in 35 countries.
How popular are the Beatles?
By many measures, more popular than ever. The band sells, on average, 280,000 albums a month worldwide, and according to trade publications, Beatles songs still receive more radio airplay than any other group. Last year, the Beatles topped the Billboard album chart with Love, an album of remixed versions of some of their most famous songs. In 2000, the Beatles released 1, a compilation of all 27 of the group’s No. 1 singles. That album sold 12 million copies in the first three weeks of its release—making it the fastest–selling album of all time—and reached No. 1 in 35 countries.
Now That's Just Absurd
In my teens, my favorite author for about 2 months was Jorge Amado from Brazil. Brazil is quite diverse racially – indigenous, Asians, blacks, whites. One of the characters was listening to the talk of racial tension and finally said, “I think the solution is to just have everyone inter-breed until even God can’t tell them apart.” I still think that’s a hilarious and probably wise solution. Get the Israeli and Palestinian kids dating and accelerate the peace process by decades. Nobody wants to drop bombs on their grandchildren. Or barring that, the UN could mandate that the Palestinians send their kids over to the Israeli side for child care and mandate that the Israelis send their kids over to the Palestinian side. Same effect.
23 May 2007
Bush Heir-Heads
I watched the second debate between the Republican presidential hopefuls. What most shocked and amazed me? Other than Ron Paul, no one seemed to distance themselves from Bush's approach to Iraq. McCain called it mismanaged, but he's as eager to stay as anyone.
The problem? The Republicans have wed themselves to this war. Ron Paul points out that this isn't necessary: the Republicans were brought into power to get us out of the Vietnam War. True conservatives are more skeptical of the power of the state to create a society - whether it be LBJ's Great Society here or GWB's Light in the Arab World over there. Yet nearly all of the Republican candidates have decided to stand behind Bush even as voters are abandoning him in record numbers. They all pledge allegiance to Reagan but show no distinction from Bush. With Bush's approval ratings run below 30%, it is hard to imagine that this strategy will win.
There are three possible explanations for this. One, the Republicans are banking on Americans being more biased against women and minorities than people in Muslim countries (who have elected women presidents and prime ministers). Two, Karl Rove has pictures of these guys. Three, the Republican candidates are savvy enough to realize that cleaning up after Bush is quite possibly going to lead to the most thankless presidency in the history of country and they are doing everything they can to avoid winning.
On a lighter note, the truly interesting debate would be between Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich.
The problem? The Republicans have wed themselves to this war. Ron Paul points out that this isn't necessary: the Republicans were brought into power to get us out of the Vietnam War. True conservatives are more skeptical of the power of the state to create a society - whether it be LBJ's Great Society here or GWB's Light in the Arab World over there. Yet nearly all of the Republican candidates have decided to stand behind Bush even as voters are abandoning him in record numbers. They all pledge allegiance to Reagan but show no distinction from Bush. With Bush's approval ratings run below 30%, it is hard to imagine that this strategy will win.
There are three possible explanations for this. One, the Republicans are banking on Americans being more biased against women and minorities than people in Muslim countries (who have elected women presidents and prime ministers). Two, Karl Rove has pictures of these guys. Three, the Republican candidates are savvy enough to realize that cleaning up after Bush is quite possibly going to lead to the most thankless presidency in the history of country and they are doing everything they can to avoid winning.
On a lighter note, the truly interesting debate would be between Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich.
Jobs Unveils the iRack
Mad TV offers this hilarious parody of Steve Jobs. Or maybe its a parody of that guy with the MBA from Harvard.
21 May 2007
Simple Words to Transform Your Life
Listen as if you have nothing to say.
Love like nobody is watching.
Dance like you've been hurt.
Love like nobody is watching.
Dance like you've been hurt.
The Difference Between Liberals & Conservatives
Liberals trust big government.
Conservatives trust big business.
Liberals love the idea of individual freedom, but are eager to regulate activity in the boardroom.
Conservatives love the idea of individual freedom, but are eager to regulate activity in the bedroom.
Conservatives focus on individual responsibility and disregard the system.
Liberals focus on the system and disregard individual responsibility.
Liberals believe that the teachers are fine, it is the socio-economic conditions that should change.
Conservatives believe that the socio-economic conditions are fine, it is the teachers who should change.
Conservatives believe poverty is proof that the poor lack character, or the work ethic to lift themselves out of poverty.
Liberals believe poverty is proof that the rich lack character, or the heart and generosity to help the unfortunate.
Liberals would rather subsidize 100 freeloaders than see 1 genuinely needy person do without.
Conservatives would rather see 100 genuinely needy people do without than subsidize 1 freeloader.
Conservatives' ideal citizen is prepared to sacrifice his life for his country.
Liberals' ideal citizen is prepared to sacrifice his wealth for his country.
Conservatives listen to country music.
Liberals listen to folk music.
Conservatives trust big business.
Liberals love the idea of individual freedom, but are eager to regulate activity in the boardroom.
Conservatives love the idea of individual freedom, but are eager to regulate activity in the bedroom.
Conservatives focus on individual responsibility and disregard the system.
Liberals focus on the system and disregard individual responsibility.
Liberals believe that the teachers are fine, it is the socio-economic conditions that should change.
Conservatives believe that the socio-economic conditions are fine, it is the teachers who should change.
Conservatives believe poverty is proof that the poor lack character, or the work ethic to lift themselves out of poverty.
Liberals believe poverty is proof that the rich lack character, or the heart and generosity to help the unfortunate.
Liberals would rather subsidize 100 freeloaders than see 1 genuinely needy person do without.
Conservatives would rather see 100 genuinely needy people do without than subsidize 1 freeloader.
Conservatives' ideal citizen is prepared to sacrifice his life for his country.
Liberals' ideal citizen is prepared to sacrifice his wealth for his country.
Conservatives listen to country music.
Liberals listen to folk music.
19 May 2007
The Most Important Question Never Asked About Illegal Immigration: What's it gonna cost you?
We have a problem. Illegal behavior is killing about 12,000 Americans each year, and costs us about $40 billion. Yet this illegal behavior is generally tolerated in all but the most extreme cases, and is generally winked at. Millions of us enjoy a measure of benefit from this behavior – freeing up our time for leisure.
The above paragraph doesn't refer to illegal immigration. Rather, it refers to speeding.
For some reason, illegal immigration has become one of the hot issues, a source of near hysteria, in this year’s presidential campaign – particularly for the Republicans. This baffles me. There are dozens of other issues - like speeding - that also involve illegal behavior and that are, nonetheless accepted as part of the status quo.
There are activists who take to the street to protest illegal immigration and then activists who protest the protestors. The topic has generated noise and emotion, and I guess that’s what counts for getting media coverage.
But for those of us neither inclined to see illegal entry into this country as a right nor see it as a serious threat, the issue has to make it on its merits. That is, someone has to convince us that the cost of reducing illegal immigration is less than the benefit.
We already spend about $11 billion a year protecting our borders from illegal immigration. The US reports that this money stops or finds about 750,000 illegal immigrants a year. Others estimate that the population of illegal immigrants still increases by 500,000 a year. So, for $11 billion we stop about 60% of those trying to enter illegally.
This raises a number of questions. 1, how does this expenditure already compare with other budget items? 2, how much more would we spend to stop how many more? 3, how much does it cost us to have illegal immigrants here?
1. At $11 billion a year, it is already double the amount spent on either the National Science Foundation or the Army Corp of Engineers (the agency that did not have enough money to shore up New Orleans levies) and more than the $7.5 billion we spend on the Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Marginal cost goes up as the task gets harder. You might stop the first 750,000 immigrants for about $15,000 each, but the next 500,000 will be harder to catch. This is obvious. If they were not harder to catch, we’d already be catching them. So, what are we willing to spend to catch the next 100,000? $25,000 each? And the 100,000 after that? $50,000 each? At some point, the additional $2.5 billion or $7.5 billion begins to look like real money. And at no point does the flow of illegal immigrants ever stop. The only way to even approach zero would be to halt all foreign trade and tourists – actions that would cripple the American economy.
3. What does it already cost us to have illegal immigrants? Well, given that they typically come here to work, most estimates of their economic impact are positive. Let’s instead assume that the impact is negative. Let’s assume that out of every 10 illegal immigrants, 1 has an upaid medical bill of $120,000 and two are here for free K-12 education, at $6,000 a year. This works out to be less than $15,000 a year that they cost us. This is a very pessimistic estimate but one roughly equal to the cost of stopping illegal immigration.
If you don’t get all misty eyed about the rights of poor people to enter this country or about the erosion of our sense of national identity, this issue breaks down into simple economics. Someone is going to get rich if we spend more money to stop more immigrants. If you are an average taxpayer, that someone is not going to be you. It might cost us $15,000 per illegal immigrant. It will cost us more than $15,000 for each additional illegal immigrant stopped.
Better instead to insist that the proponents of the move to spend more on illegal immigration make explicit the costs and benefits of their program. Nobody is proposing that we scrap the current program and simply allow illegal immigrants to rush in at will. The proposals before the American people are proposals to spend even more money. The question that deserves to be asked is, how will this benefit us? So far, I’ve never heard that question answered.
The above paragraph doesn't refer to illegal immigration. Rather, it refers to speeding.
For some reason, illegal immigration has become one of the hot issues, a source of near hysteria, in this year’s presidential campaign – particularly for the Republicans. This baffles me. There are dozens of other issues - like speeding - that also involve illegal behavior and that are, nonetheless accepted as part of the status quo.
There are activists who take to the street to protest illegal immigration and then activists who protest the protestors. The topic has generated noise and emotion, and I guess that’s what counts for getting media coverage.
But for those of us neither inclined to see illegal entry into this country as a right nor see it as a serious threat, the issue has to make it on its merits. That is, someone has to convince us that the cost of reducing illegal immigration is less than the benefit.
We already spend about $11 billion a year protecting our borders from illegal immigration. The US reports that this money stops or finds about 750,000 illegal immigrants a year. Others estimate that the population of illegal immigrants still increases by 500,000 a year. So, for $11 billion we stop about 60% of those trying to enter illegally.
This raises a number of questions. 1, how does this expenditure already compare with other budget items? 2, how much more would we spend to stop how many more? 3, how much does it cost us to have illegal immigrants here?
1. At $11 billion a year, it is already double the amount spent on either the National Science Foundation or the Army Corp of Engineers (the agency that did not have enough money to shore up New Orleans levies) and more than the $7.5 billion we spend on the Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Marginal cost goes up as the task gets harder. You might stop the first 750,000 immigrants for about $15,000 each, but the next 500,000 will be harder to catch. This is obvious. If they were not harder to catch, we’d already be catching them. So, what are we willing to spend to catch the next 100,000? $25,000 each? And the 100,000 after that? $50,000 each? At some point, the additional $2.5 billion or $7.5 billion begins to look like real money. And at no point does the flow of illegal immigrants ever stop. The only way to even approach zero would be to halt all foreign trade and tourists – actions that would cripple the American economy.
3. What does it already cost us to have illegal immigrants? Well, given that they typically come here to work, most estimates of their economic impact are positive. Let’s instead assume that the impact is negative. Let’s assume that out of every 10 illegal immigrants, 1 has an upaid medical bill of $120,000 and two are here for free K-12 education, at $6,000 a year. This works out to be less than $15,000 a year that they cost us. This is a very pessimistic estimate but one roughly equal to the cost of stopping illegal immigration.
If you don’t get all misty eyed about the rights of poor people to enter this country or about the erosion of our sense of national identity, this issue breaks down into simple economics. Someone is going to get rich if we spend more money to stop more immigrants. If you are an average taxpayer, that someone is not going to be you. It might cost us $15,000 per illegal immigrant. It will cost us more than $15,000 for each additional illegal immigrant stopped.
Better instead to insist that the proponents of the move to spend more on illegal immigration make explicit the costs and benefits of their program. Nobody is proposing that we scrap the current program and simply allow illegal immigrants to rush in at will. The proposals before the American people are proposals to spend even more money. The question that deserves to be asked is, how will this benefit us? So far, I’ve never heard that question answered.
18 May 2007
Men (or Why Farts are Funny)
"Teenage boys, goaded by their surging hormones run in packs like the primal horde. They have only a brief season of exhilarating liberty between control by their mothers and control by their wives."
- Camille Paglia
There is a reason why farts are funny. They remind us that we're oddly constructed beings. We're the curious juxtaposition of soul and scrotum, brain and belly - part animal and partly aspiring to something cerebral or spiritual or anything that might exist in the gap between molecules rather than being reducible to mere molecules.
We rather fancy the notion that we're a higher life form and then the unbidden fart volunteers itself and we're forced to laugh. The fart is a reminder that whatever it is that we call self or consciousness, it rides uneasily atop an animal only partly tamed and little understood.
Between 15 and 25, our hormone count is about double our IQ. It is a wonder that we males are able to converse at all - and no wonder that young women find us so perplexing. “I tried to talk to him but he just grunted. Is something wrong with him?”
Researchers once performed a study of a young man who'd had the two halves of his brain severed. The right and left hemispheres could no longer communicate directly. Although this had stopped seizures, it provoked odd symptoms. The researchers flashed messages to one half of his brain and then asked the other half to explain what he was doing. They'd flash a message, "Stand up" to the right eye that beamed into the left hemisphere (if I remember this correctly). He'd stand up. The researchers would then ask him why he'd stood up. The problem here is that the right hemisphere responsible for articulating and delivering a response to this question had no access to the "Stand up" sign - was clueless that this had even happened since the image had been beamed into the left hemisphere. Nonetheless, the right hemisphere got right to work busily generating a perfectly plausible reason for standing up. "I was going to walk into the house for a Coke," it would say, making no reference to the sign. One has to suspect that men go through their entire life in some variant of this pattern – impulsive action quickly followed by a plausible but irrelevant explanations. Our lives a Geek drama of hormones acting out and the frontal lobes trailing after, busily making apologies and explanations to aggrieved or curious parties.
This is probably one reason that men are credited with so many breakthroughs. Too often caught daydreaming about sex or barbeque or sports, men are practiced at spontaneously generating a response that has little basis in fact or precedent. We riff. On occasion we create something in the process, a theory that holds up and finds application outside the narrow domain of our own personal lives.
I'm frightened by the possibility of cloning. There is a reason that a woman looks dreamily into the eyes of a man and murmurs, "Oh baby." Trying desperately to see past our bulk and whiskers and dumb jokes and these minds prone to hormonal hijacking, they say "baby" as a reminder to themselves about why they are with us. At some level, every woman has to wonder about subjecting herself to a species who would blissfully live in a environment unsafe even for bacteria, and gladly make conservation about only their own obsession without feigning the least interest in the legitimate concerns of the woman. Once women no longer need us to reproduce, I imagine that we'll quickly die out, no longer needed for our participation in the best fifteen minutes of a pregnancy.
Don't get me wrong. Some of my best friends are men. It's just that I wouldn't want to live with one. Again.
I once heard someone use that quaint phrase, "he married up," in reference to a guy we knew. Of course he married up. That's what it means to be heterosexual. We marry up. We get to live with females. One argument against same-sex marriages is that the men would lose the baby on the night of the big election or big game, misplacing the bassinet in their distracted excitement. And they would be unlikely to realize their mistake until days later.
We wildly discount the role of hormones. We do things for reasons unknown even to us and then the right-brain kicks in, generating rationalizations, explanations, and plausible excuses. But we're all living atop an uneasy truce of competing forces - the id, ego, and superego all staring warily at one another as we navigate our way in the world. Yet the three all speak different languages: the superego pondering particle physics, the ego whistling a tune, and the id making mud pies in the corner. It is not just that the forces uneasily live together – it is that they don’t even have a translator between them to make sense of one another.
Without women, we'd still be sitting in caves regaling one another with those hilarious stories about the last mammoth hunt when fat Charlie was stepped on and died with such a funny look on his face. Men get lots of credit for historical advances, but I suspect that civilization was something imposed on us by our wives and mother, without whom we'd likely think farting a form of music.
Given all this, we really have little choice. Rather than see our lives as a tragedy of misplaced expectations, we struggle to do something – anything –that distinguishes us from other animals. And whenever we have enough success to begin to feel like we’re something important, the fart intrudes. Our sense of self-importance disappears like dispersed gas molecules. What else to do but laugh?
- Camille Paglia
There is a reason why farts are funny. They remind us that we're oddly constructed beings. We're the curious juxtaposition of soul and scrotum, brain and belly - part animal and partly aspiring to something cerebral or spiritual or anything that might exist in the gap between molecules rather than being reducible to mere molecules.
We rather fancy the notion that we're a higher life form and then the unbidden fart volunteers itself and we're forced to laugh. The fart is a reminder that whatever it is that we call self or consciousness, it rides uneasily atop an animal only partly tamed and little understood.
Between 15 and 25, our hormone count is about double our IQ. It is a wonder that we males are able to converse at all - and no wonder that young women find us so perplexing. “I tried to talk to him but he just grunted. Is something wrong with him?”
Researchers once performed a study of a young man who'd had the two halves of his brain severed. The right and left hemispheres could no longer communicate directly. Although this had stopped seizures, it provoked odd symptoms. The researchers flashed messages to one half of his brain and then asked the other half to explain what he was doing. They'd flash a message, "Stand up" to the right eye that beamed into the left hemisphere (if I remember this correctly). He'd stand up. The researchers would then ask him why he'd stood up. The problem here is that the right hemisphere responsible for articulating and delivering a response to this question had no access to the "Stand up" sign - was clueless that this had even happened since the image had been beamed into the left hemisphere. Nonetheless, the right hemisphere got right to work busily generating a perfectly plausible reason for standing up. "I was going to walk into the house for a Coke," it would say, making no reference to the sign. One has to suspect that men go through their entire life in some variant of this pattern – impulsive action quickly followed by a plausible but irrelevant explanations. Our lives a Geek drama of hormones acting out and the frontal lobes trailing after, busily making apologies and explanations to aggrieved or curious parties.
This is probably one reason that men are credited with so many breakthroughs. Too often caught daydreaming about sex or barbeque or sports, men are practiced at spontaneously generating a response that has little basis in fact or precedent. We riff. On occasion we create something in the process, a theory that holds up and finds application outside the narrow domain of our own personal lives.
I'm frightened by the possibility of cloning. There is a reason that a woman looks dreamily into the eyes of a man and murmurs, "Oh baby." Trying desperately to see past our bulk and whiskers and dumb jokes and these minds prone to hormonal hijacking, they say "baby" as a reminder to themselves about why they are with us. At some level, every woman has to wonder about subjecting herself to a species who would blissfully live in a environment unsafe even for bacteria, and gladly make conservation about only their own obsession without feigning the least interest in the legitimate concerns of the woman. Once women no longer need us to reproduce, I imagine that we'll quickly die out, no longer needed for our participation in the best fifteen minutes of a pregnancy.
Don't get me wrong. Some of my best friends are men. It's just that I wouldn't want to live with one. Again.
I once heard someone use that quaint phrase, "he married up," in reference to a guy we knew. Of course he married up. That's what it means to be heterosexual. We marry up. We get to live with females. One argument against same-sex marriages is that the men would lose the baby on the night of the big election or big game, misplacing the bassinet in their distracted excitement. And they would be unlikely to realize their mistake until days later.
We wildly discount the role of hormones. We do things for reasons unknown even to us and then the right-brain kicks in, generating rationalizations, explanations, and plausible excuses. But we're all living atop an uneasy truce of competing forces - the id, ego, and superego all staring warily at one another as we navigate our way in the world. Yet the three all speak different languages: the superego pondering particle physics, the ego whistling a tune, and the id making mud pies in the corner. It is not just that the forces uneasily live together – it is that they don’t even have a translator between them to make sense of one another.
Without women, we'd still be sitting in caves regaling one another with those hilarious stories about the last mammoth hunt when fat Charlie was stepped on and died with such a funny look on his face. Men get lots of credit for historical advances, but I suspect that civilization was something imposed on us by our wives and mother, without whom we'd likely think farting a form of music.
Given all this, we really have little choice. Rather than see our lives as a tragedy of misplaced expectations, we struggle to do something – anything –that distinguishes us from other animals. And whenever we have enough success to begin to feel like we’re something important, the fart intrudes. Our sense of self-importance disappears like dispersed gas molecules. What else to do but laugh?
17 May 2007
Politics & the Comedian Conspiracy Theory
Rumor has it that Mitt Romney came across as most Reaganesque in the recent debates, leading the panicked Al Sharpton to say, “those that really believe in God will defeat him.” Meanwhile, Romney said that his favorite book was Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard. (Sharpton latter retracted his comment, as did Romney, who clarified that Battlefield Earth is merely his favorite novel and that the Bible is actually his favorite book.)
This raises so many questions.
One, does Sharpton blame his own past defeats as a presidential candidate on the fact that he, himself, doesn't "really believe in God?" or on the fact that "God doesn't really believe in Al?"
Two, could it be that Romney has actually read less than Bush? I mean, how else to explain the fact that his favorite book is by a man who actually began to believe that his own science fiction plots were the explanation of life on earth? Has Romney even read other novels? And if Battlefield Earth really was your favorite novel, would you actually tell anyone? Doesn't that show a terrible lapse in judgment? And if your given name was "Mitt," wouldn't you be more inclined to provide the title of a serious and respected novel?
Three, how did Reagan, the man who decided that ketchup could be counted as a vegetable in school lunches, get to be a minor deity in the Republican Party?
Four, are comedians like Jon Stewart, David Letterman, and Jay Leno actually the true force behind the vetting of politicians? Is it time to launch a comedian conspiracy theory that explains the fact that politicians seemingly can't get into the national limelight until they've passed a test proving some minimal level of absurdity?
Five, why couldn't I have just been fascinated by sports, like other guys?
This raises so many questions.
One, does Sharpton blame his own past defeats as a presidential candidate on the fact that he, himself, doesn't "really believe in God?" or on the fact that "God doesn't really believe in Al?"
Two, could it be that Romney has actually read less than Bush? I mean, how else to explain the fact that his favorite book is by a man who actually began to believe that his own science fiction plots were the explanation of life on earth? Has Romney even read other novels? And if Battlefield Earth really was your favorite novel, would you actually tell anyone? Doesn't that show a terrible lapse in judgment? And if your given name was "Mitt," wouldn't you be more inclined to provide the title of a serious and respected novel?
Three, how did Reagan, the man who decided that ketchup could be counted as a vegetable in school lunches, get to be a minor deity in the Republican Party?
Four, are comedians like Jon Stewart, David Letterman, and Jay Leno actually the true force behind the vetting of politicians? Is it time to launch a comedian conspiracy theory that explains the fact that politicians seemingly can't get into the national limelight until they've passed a test proving some minimal level of absurdity?
Five, why couldn't I have just been fascinated by sports, like other guys?
16 May 2007
The DNA of Social Evolution
DNA is coded by the sequence of four bases. I'd argue for a parallel in social development. At a high level, any society is defined by social order, its dominant institution, economy, and worldview. I'd argue further that a change in one of these has the potential to trigger changes in all, just as the purchase of a new software application might trigger the purchase of a new operating system which might trigger the purchase of a new computer system.
Social Order
The simplest indication of how a society is defined might be seen in its tallest buildings. In medieval Europe, the tallest buildings were cathedrals and churches. Later, castles, parliamentary buildings, banks, and corporate headquarters followed.
Since about 1300, there has been a succession of dominant institutions: church, state, bank, and corporation. In various times and places, the dominant institution is not necessarily the one that has the most physical power but, rather, the one that most structures and shapes the attention and goals of the average person. In 1100 AD, most people conformed their daily lives to the church. Today, it is no longer church bells but, rather, consumption and production of corporate goods that shapes the pattern of most lives.
Dominant Institution
A society dominated by the church is very different from one dominated by the corporation. But how power is distributed within the church or corporation also makes a difference. Quite simply, there are two extremes in the distribution of power within any institution: power held by elites or power distributed to the masses. It is one thing to live in a society dominated by the state, by politics; it is quite another to live in a dictatorship or democracy.
Economy
Agricultural, industrial, information, or entrepreneurial economies are very different, but all are market economies. An entrepreneurial economy is just now beginning to emerge. This emergence will have a sweeping influence, just as did the emergence of the information economy in about 1900 and the industrial economy in about 1700.
Worldview
This is perhaps the most subtle yet most defining of the four elements. How we make sense of the world defines so much else. And a worldview, like glasses, is made to be seen through rather than seen.
Since about 1300, the worldviews that have defined the West are the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Pragmatism. Systems thinking is the set of glasses being adopted by more and more people.
Revolution
We rightfully call the change from agricultural to industrial economies an economic revolution. Intellectual, social, and institutional revolutions characterize the change of each of these elements. Western Civilization has thus far been defined by a pattern of revolutions, seen in the table above.
Social Order
The simplest indication of how a society is defined might be seen in its tallest buildings. In medieval Europe, the tallest buildings were cathedrals and churches. Later, castles, parliamentary buildings, banks, and corporate headquarters followed.
Since about 1300, there has been a succession of dominant institutions: church, state, bank, and corporation. In various times and places, the dominant institution is not necessarily the one that has the most physical power but, rather, the one that most structures and shapes the attention and goals of the average person. In 1100 AD, most people conformed their daily lives to the church. Today, it is no longer church bells but, rather, consumption and production of corporate goods that shapes the pattern of most lives.
Dominant Institution
A society dominated by the church is very different from one dominated by the corporation. But how power is distributed within the church or corporation also makes a difference. Quite simply, there are two extremes in the distribution of power within any institution: power held by elites or power distributed to the masses. It is one thing to live in a society dominated by the state, by politics; it is quite another to live in a dictatorship or democracy.
Economy
Agricultural, industrial, information, or entrepreneurial economies are very different, but all are market economies. An entrepreneurial economy is just now beginning to emerge. This emergence will have a sweeping influence, just as did the emergence of the information economy in about 1900 and the industrial economy in about 1700.
Worldview
This is perhaps the most subtle yet most defining of the four elements. How we make sense of the world defines so much else. And a worldview, like glasses, is made to be seen through rather than seen.
Since about 1300, the worldviews that have defined the West are the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Pragmatism. Systems thinking is the set of glasses being adopted by more and more people.
Revolution
We rightfully call the change from agricultural to industrial economies an economic revolution. Intellectual, social, and institutional revolutions characterize the change of each of these elements. Western Civilization has thus far been defined by a pattern of revolutions, seen in the table above.
15 May 2007
Falwell Falls, Teletubbies Still Standing
Jerry Falwell died today. In 1979, Falwell founded the Moral Majority, a religious special interest group that worked to conform law and policy to their view of religion. At various times, he spoke out against scientists, secularists, Jews, gays, and teletubbies.
To me, Falwell was the epitome of what's wrong with politics. It is true that Jews and Romans killed Christ, but that's actually incidental. They just happened to be in power at the time. Christ's execution was the result of collusion between church and state.
I would argue that all progress we've made in the West traces back to a separation of state force and individual opinion - allowing the individual freedom to argue for, and live by, standards that aren't normal and aren't enforced by the state. Falwell was one of these reformed segregationist who was offended by the parade of abnormal that characterizes America, a man eager to stamp out deviation from his interpretation of God's true law.
My own faith represents about 1/100th of 1 percent of the US population. Nonetheless, there are members of my faith who feel an affinity with the political goals of Falwell and his ilk. That kind of thing just scares me. The best any of us can ever hope for is the freedom to live our own lives. I've no illusions about keeping my rights should there become a national conversation about the ONE way that should guide our politics. And in truth, although minority religions like Bahai or Jews are the first to go in a purge of religious deviancy, it doesn't take long before the Protestants and Catholics are casualties as well. There are very few winners in the battle to align church and state. My contempt for Falwell doesn't follow from my contempt for religion but, rather, my fondness for it.
Falwell was a throwback to the time when each colony represented a particular faith. That he was embraced by so many is proof that we still do a poor job of teaching religion in our schools. In a sane society, he would have received no more publicity than someone advocating the reinstatement of royalty or child labor.
Falwell is dead. One can only hope that the theocon movement he helped to inspire soon follows.
Among those happy to see him go:
Boing Boing
Sadly, no
Among those sad to see him go:
Founder's Ministry
Captain's Quarter's
To me, Falwell was the epitome of what's wrong with politics. It is true that Jews and Romans killed Christ, but that's actually incidental. They just happened to be in power at the time. Christ's execution was the result of collusion between church and state.
I would argue that all progress we've made in the West traces back to a separation of state force and individual opinion - allowing the individual freedom to argue for, and live by, standards that aren't normal and aren't enforced by the state. Falwell was one of these reformed segregationist who was offended by the parade of abnormal that characterizes America, a man eager to stamp out deviation from his interpretation of God's true law.
My own faith represents about 1/100th of 1 percent of the US population. Nonetheless, there are members of my faith who feel an affinity with the political goals of Falwell and his ilk. That kind of thing just scares me. The best any of us can ever hope for is the freedom to live our own lives. I've no illusions about keeping my rights should there become a national conversation about the ONE way that should guide our politics. And in truth, although minority religions like Bahai or Jews are the first to go in a purge of religious deviancy, it doesn't take long before the Protestants and Catholics are casualties as well. There are very few winners in the battle to align church and state. My contempt for Falwell doesn't follow from my contempt for religion but, rather, my fondness for it.
Falwell was a throwback to the time when each colony represented a particular faith. That he was embraced by so many is proof that we still do a poor job of teaching religion in our schools. In a sane society, he would have received no more publicity than someone advocating the reinstatement of royalty or child labor.
Falwell is dead. One can only hope that the theocon movement he helped to inspire soon follows.
Among those happy to see him go:
Boing Boing
Sadly, no
Among those sad to see him go:
Founder's Ministry
Captain's Quarter's
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)