Ok, let me start over. Yesterday, I read the story about the Goergia Governor, Nathan Deal (R) who, as the Post reported it, "vetoed a controversial religious liberties bill." One could almost admire his courage, given that he is a governor in a state where the vote of the evangelical right matters. "I do not think," he said, "that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia." I say, "almost admire," in part because he was pressured into the veto by "outrage from Hollywood, sports leagues and corporations for what critics said was its discrimination against gay and transgender people." The NFL suggested it "might pass over Atlanta for future super bowls, and leading Hollywood figures threatened to pull production from the state." If the god of Israel is great, the god of mammon is perhaps greater, and one might think the republican governor sacrificed the former on the alter of the latter.
He is, of course, getting substantial criticism for his "buckling" to the pressure of big money, particularly the "big money" of liberal hollywood. Since moving to Utah and then to Idaho, I have been scratching my head trying to find a "core" to conservatism, but cannot find it. One can read conservative thinkers, like Hayek, and I can agree with most of what he (yes he) says, particularly his justifiable fear of the "comprehensive" doctrines of fascism and communism, and his defense of "liberal" democracy. Were he writing today, I suspect he would find the "comprehensive" doctrines of the fundamentalists, whether muslim or christian, equally threatening. Though I suspect he would agree with writers like Sam Harris, an atheist who has no truck with any theistic religion, but has taken some reflexive flack from the left leaning hollywood types (Ben Affleck) for "racism" for calling out Islam as a particularly pernicious religion. Fundamentalist, literalist religion opens the door to the proto-fascism of theocracy. So long as we maintain a "secular" democracy, we are probably safe against the encroachments of the fundamentalists, but one wonders always just how safe. It's absurdly ludicrous to believe that Obama is implementing sharia law, but its not quite so ludicrous to believe that a fundamentalist christian version of the same, the law of deuteronomy and leviticus, might not find its adherents among the faithful here.
Of course, when I wrote "conservative thinkers, like Hayek, most probably thought I meant Selma, not Frederich, and I suspect that most Americans, including the most conservative, know more about Selma Hayek, then Frederich Hayek. She is, of course, astonishingly beautiful, and the big money hollywood types have no doubt capitalized on that beauty. I don't know her politics, and don't care, but the Post, yesterday, published an article on the current divisiveness within the republican party, what with the donald and all, and I do believe we're seeing the rending of republican garments. The core of the party has been made up of (1) those big money capitalists who want to "conserve" and expand their wealth against the encroachments of redistributive taxes, and (2) the christian evangelicals who want to "conserve" a religious world view and protect it against the encroachments of secularism. I'm not sure who is the more dangerous, but my money (what little I have) is on the latter. The big money capitalists will follow the markets, particularly the emerging markets of the better educated young, and there is sufficient survey data to show the widening misalignment between their attitudes and the evangelical right, particularly the all but obvious issues of race and xenophobia. Still, I'm not sure ...
Beyond that are the "single issues" of guns and abortion. If the issue is a reverence for life, they seem inherently contradictory in themselves. There can be little doubt that guns are a "public health hazard" as significant, if not more significant, than say Zika or salmonella. While the cliche "guns don't kill people, people kill people" might have a grain of truth in it, guns nevertheless make killing is SO much easier, SO much more effective. People have been known to kill people with kitchen knives and hammers, but it's difficult to imagine a deranged fool with a kitchen knife having the same "success" that the killers of Columbine and Sandy Hook have had. Of course, as our middle eastern brethren have demonstrated, there's no end to inventiveness for mass killing, but having a gun handy is hardly a defense against a chemical weapon or an improvised bomb. I'm relatively convinced that fewer guns, particularly those designed to kill people en masse, would be a "public health" benefit. Having said this, guns connect up with the big money capitalists represented by the NRA, and they prey upon the fears of the under-educated who want to "protect themselves" against the criminal mexicans stalking their women and zombie muslim terrorists that lurk behind every bush. Big money is willing to look the other way on this one for the same reasons that they look the other way on the emerging "public health hazard" of pollutant-induced climate change or fracking-induced earthquakes -- real money is involved.
If you are holding firm on the 2nd amendment, and tsk tsk tsk away every mass shooting, then I suspect a "reverence for life" is not the core reason for opposition to abortion. Having guns trumps protecting the public health, and I suspect that the opposition to birth control and abortion is more a rear guard action to contain the liberation and empowerment of women, than a reverence for life proper. I won't rehearse the argument here. The reality of "reproductive" politics has been argued better than I can argue it, but generally speaking the evangelical right seems to have a vision of the "family" stuck in the mid-twentieth century. Women might be "accomplished," and Heidi Cruz is an example of that, but nevertheless "accomplished" in ways that are derived from and subordinate to their husband's ambitions. Hillary's greatest hypocrisy, or so we feel, wasn't "standing by her man" when he proved to be a Lothario, but in not being "devastated" by it. One could argue that her initial accomplishment may have been derived from and subordinate to her husband's ambition, but clearly she has also moved on from there. There's plenty to critique in Hillary, but it is now a critique of her in her own right, no longer a secondary critique of her husband.
If Cruz is a better republican alternative than Trump, it's probably because he, in his person, holds together the interests of the big money capitalists and the evangelical right that have given them the electoral success they have had. It's ultimately an uneasy alliance between the 1% and the under-educated poor, and Cruz himself may be forced, as the governors of the southern states have been forced, to choose. In the meantime, there is Trump, rending the republican garments. There are several reasons for the biblically inclined to rend the garments. One is blasphemy. Trump is, in many ways, the great republican blasphemer. There is a sort of America first strain among the populace that Trump has tapped into, the sort who have seen blue collar jobs disappear into China, who fear and distrust "immigrants" who have taken the jobs that remain. They want the borders closed, in every sense of the word. They want to buy American. The big money capitalists (including Trump) have little regard for international borders. They have more regard for corporate borders, and beginning with Reagan, have pushed free trade deals. They have also pushed for a stronger, deterrent military, within internationalist compacts like NATO, to protect property rights across borders. In his appeals to the red neck nation, that Trump has blasphemed first and foremost against the doctrine of laissez faire capitalism, has the republicans rending their garments. Hillary, despite everything, judging by her record, would be better for the internationalists than Trump, particularly if he tries to make good on his rhetoric.
The second is the apostasy of a family member. Trump is, in many ways, the great republican apostate. Although he spouts the gun-toting, misogynistic, racist, and ethnocentric attitudes of the red neck nation -- much of it supported with a "praise jesus" sort of home grown religion -- no one suspects him of being a "true" evangelical. Mitt Romney's critique helps make the point. The mormon faith, like the big money capitalists, is internationalist. Although they have their own history of racism, to some degree, in making missionary service an obligation of the church and then sending those missionaries literally all over the world, they have transcended their own history. They remain gun-toting and misogynistic -- if you want to see "families" stuck in the mid-twentieth century, spend some time in Salt Lake with anti-depressants and plastic surgery a staple of the middle-class mormon woman. Nothing about Trump shouts reverence for the messiah, or religion. Everything about Trump shouts his own messianic "only I can solve" megalomania. That so many have supported Trump over Cruz has the republicans rending their garments the apostasy of their acolytes.
The third is death. In all of this there is the smell of death. One suspects that (one hopes that) as we go along, the irreconcilable differences between the big money capitalists and the evangelical right will portend the death of an uneasy and cynical alliance.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Religious Freedom
Yesterday, I read the story about the Goergia Governor, Nathan Deal (R) who, as the Post reported it, "vetoed a controversial religious liberties bill." One could almost admire his courage, given that he is a governor in a state where the vote of the evangelical right matters. "I do not think," he said, "that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia."
I say, "almost admire," in part because he was pressured into the veto by "outrage from Hollywood, sports leagues and corporations for what critics said was its discrimination against gay and transgender people." The NFL suggested it "might pass over Atlanta for future super bowls, and leading Hollywood figures threatened to pull production from the state." If the god of Isreal is great, the god of mammon is perhaps greater, and one might think the republican governor sacrificed the former on the alter of the latter.
I say, "almost admire," in part because one might have admired him more if he had stuck by his guns (pun intended) and signed the bill into law. The North Carolina governor, as reported by the LA times, "where Gov. Pat McCrory vowed to defend a new state law that prohibits legal protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, even as civil rights advocates filed a lawsuit Monday to strike it down." If McCrory swapped places with Deal, one wonders if he would have buckled to the pressures of almighty NFL and Hollywood? Probably, but that is a matter of speculation.
Don't misunderstand me. I find the anti-discrimination laws themselves somewhat saddening. Every time we fail to act in concert with our own better angels, every time we must enact legislation forcing the decent treatment of others, then one should be saddened. I believe such laws serve as a reminder of our failure as moral and ethical human beings. Nevertheless, I recognize the necessity, even though the necessity creates its own set of equal and opposite resentments -- those who feel that "protected" minorities are not only given "protection" under the law, but "advantages" under the law.
I find the "religious liberties" laws even more saddening. The Georgia law, the exact title of which is "Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act," is worth dissecting a bit. In it, the law acknowledges that "government has a fundamental, over-riding interest in eradicating discrimination," and in that way acknowledges the necessity (perhaps) of anti-discrimination statutes. I can hardly disagree. Having said this, however, it also says that "The framers of the United States Constitution and the people of this state, recognizing free exercise of religion as an inalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Paragraphs III and IV of Section I, Article I of the Constitution of this state, respectively." Again, though I firmly believe that no good whatsoever comes of government sanctioned religion, I can hardly disagree that the constitution, in its wisdom, allows for the private practice of religion and that "governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification."
The crux of the law, however is this: "The compelling interest test as set forth in prior federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests." Religious liberty is given very wide berth by the law, insofar as the "exercise of religion," as defined by the law, is "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief" -- that is to say, pretty much anything goes. If I say I'm "exercising my religion," well then, I'm exercising my religion, and I don't need to show that it is the recognized doctrine of any established denomination. The "competing prior governmental interests" are, of course, "eradicating discrimination," but the government has a "compelling interest" in doing so before limiting any "exercise of religion." Finally, the coup de grace comes with the following: "in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) the Supreme Court held that the compelling interest test provided for in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act must be adopted by a state through legislative act or court decision in order to apply to state or local government action." In other words, the state can adopt anti-discrimination laws, but local municipalities or government agencies cannot. As a consequence, any local law is struck down.
Here's the thing. Let us say I own an apartment building. I do not, but let's just say I own an apartment building. It is a large building, and I occasionally use its "common space" for religious observances. I am not, but let's just say I'm of a religious stripe that believes homosexuality is a "sin" prohibited by the bible in Leviticus 18:22. In my world view, "moral behavior" is the same thing as "obeying the law of god," and as a consequence, as a moral man obedient to the law of god, I should not only avoid homosexual acts for myself, but abhor the homosexual acts of others. Though I wish to, I cannot stone homosexuals to death in the public square. I do, however, own this apartment building and, in my self-proclaimed "exercise of my religion," I CAN demonstrate that obedience by refusing them a lease. It's perhaps convenient that my refusal will likely be supported by other tenants of the building, but so much the better. We can be good christian people together in our "casting out" of the abhorrent homosexuality. Insofar as "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," any generally applicable anti-discrimination law inhibiting my ability to "cast them out" is an infringement of my freedom to worship as I choose, an infringement of my religious liberty, and consequently illegal.
In short, in case we missed it, the paradox, the conundrum, is this: the "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" opens the door to a wide range of discriminatory acts, it might restore "religious freedom," but in doing so it allow those "exercising their religion" to deny basic rights to others under the "protection" of religious freedom. There is, of course, no end to this. There is Matthew 13, and those who do not worship christ are, by definition, against christ, and of course we cannot have buddhists, muslims, or (even worse!) godless atheists among us. Although they are protected in their "right" to worship as they choose by the first amendment, those who would restore religious freedom likewise want the "right" to worship as they choose. Of course, then too, one can hear McCrory and those who support him saying "As a shop owner, I don't want them shopping here. As an employer or business owner, I don't want to employ them." So on and so forth. Any law that infringes my "exercise of religion," which is pretty much whatever I say it is, can at least be litigated. It is, of course, a classic slippery slope and we soon slip and slide into the morass of Jim Crowe like practices, if not laws. I'm cynical enough to believe the framers of the law know this.
There is a counter argument. One can hear them say, "I'm not denying their basic rights. I just don't want them here, in my apartment or store or workplace, but they are always free to go elsewhere." The question, of course, is where? If a sufficient majority of apartment owners and dwellers feel as McCrory and his followers feel, however, then their access to shelter is greatly diminished. One might imagine a number of apartment owners who are homosexual themselves, but one imagines they will be in a significant minority, and to confine potential shelter to those would eventually create at best enclaves, at worst ghettos. Adams and our founding fathers legitimately feared the "tyranny of the majority," or ochlocracy, because, well, the herd instinct prevails, and it doesn't take much of a demagogue to set the majority of the herd against a minority, particularly when there are biblical or other supports for the behavior of the herd, particularly when such biblical authority is buttressed with the fear and loathing of simple bigotry. As the drafters of the law recognize, at least, Adams and our founding fathers understood that majorities simply do not need protection in the same way that minorities need protection, even if protecting the basic rights of the minority infringes on the majority's perfect freedom to do as they please.
Having said all this, the law does point to a central fault line running through the GOP party, the pernicious alliance between "big money" and evangelical religion.
I say, "almost admire," in part because he was pressured into the veto by "outrage from Hollywood, sports leagues and corporations for what critics said was its discrimination against gay and transgender people." The NFL suggested it "might pass over Atlanta for future super bowls, and leading Hollywood figures threatened to pull production from the state." If the god of Isreal is great, the god of mammon is perhaps greater, and one might think the republican governor sacrificed the former on the alter of the latter.
I say, "almost admire," in part because one might have admired him more if he had stuck by his guns (pun intended) and signed the bill into law. The North Carolina governor, as reported by the LA times, "where Gov. Pat McCrory vowed to defend a new state law that prohibits legal protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, even as civil rights advocates filed a lawsuit Monday to strike it down." If McCrory swapped places with Deal, one wonders if he would have buckled to the pressures of almighty NFL and Hollywood? Probably, but that is a matter of speculation.
Don't misunderstand me. I find the anti-discrimination laws themselves somewhat saddening. Every time we fail to act in concert with our own better angels, every time we must enact legislation forcing the decent treatment of others, then one should be saddened. I believe such laws serve as a reminder of our failure as moral and ethical human beings. Nevertheless, I recognize the necessity, even though the necessity creates its own set of equal and opposite resentments -- those who feel that "protected" minorities are not only given "protection" under the law, but "advantages" under the law.
I find the "religious liberties" laws even more saddening. The Georgia law, the exact title of which is "Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act," is worth dissecting a bit. In it, the law acknowledges that "government has a fundamental, over-riding interest in eradicating discrimination," and in that way acknowledges the necessity (perhaps) of anti-discrimination statutes. I can hardly disagree. Having said this, however, it also says that "The framers of the United States Constitution and the people of this state, recognizing free exercise of religion as an inalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Paragraphs III and IV of Section I, Article I of the Constitution of this state, respectively." Again, though I firmly believe that no good whatsoever comes of government sanctioned religion, I can hardly disagree that the constitution, in its wisdom, allows for the private practice of religion and that "governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification."
The crux of the law, however is this: "The compelling interest test as set forth in prior federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests." Religious liberty is given very wide berth by the law, insofar as the "exercise of religion," as defined by the law, is "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief" -- that is to say, pretty much anything goes. If I say I'm "exercising my religion," well then, I'm exercising my religion, and I don't need to show that it is the recognized doctrine of any established denomination. The "competing prior governmental interests" are, of course, "eradicating discrimination," but the government has a "compelling interest" in doing so before limiting any "exercise of religion." Finally, the coup de grace comes with the following: "in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) the Supreme Court held that the compelling interest test provided for in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act must be adopted by a state through legislative act or court decision in order to apply to state or local government action." In other words, the state can adopt anti-discrimination laws, but local municipalities or government agencies cannot. As a consequence, any local law is struck down.
Here's the thing. Let us say I own an apartment building. I do not, but let's just say I own an apartment building. It is a large building, and I occasionally use its "common space" for religious observances. I am not, but let's just say I'm of a religious stripe that believes homosexuality is a "sin" prohibited by the bible in Leviticus 18:22. In my world view, "moral behavior" is the same thing as "obeying the law of god," and as a consequence, as a moral man obedient to the law of god, I should not only avoid homosexual acts for myself, but abhor the homosexual acts of others. Though I wish to, I cannot stone homosexuals to death in the public square. I do, however, own this apartment building and, in my self-proclaimed "exercise of my religion," I CAN demonstrate that obedience by refusing them a lease. It's perhaps convenient that my refusal will likely be supported by other tenants of the building, but so much the better. We can be good christian people together in our "casting out" of the abhorrent homosexuality. Insofar as "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," any generally applicable anti-discrimination law inhibiting my ability to "cast them out" is an infringement of my freedom to worship as I choose, an infringement of my religious liberty, and consequently illegal.
In short, in case we missed it, the paradox, the conundrum, is this: the "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" opens the door to a wide range of discriminatory acts, it might restore "religious freedom," but in doing so it allow those "exercising their religion" to deny basic rights to others under the "protection" of religious freedom. There is, of course, no end to this. There is Matthew 13, and those who do not worship christ are, by definition, against christ, and of course we cannot have buddhists, muslims, or (even worse!) godless atheists among us. Although they are protected in their "right" to worship as they choose by the first amendment, those who would restore religious freedom likewise want the "right" to worship as they choose. Of course, then too, one can hear McCrory and those who support him saying "As a shop owner, I don't want them shopping here. As an employer or business owner, I don't want to employ them." So on and so forth. Any law that infringes my "exercise of religion," which is pretty much whatever I say it is, can at least be litigated. It is, of course, a classic slippery slope and we soon slip and slide into the morass of Jim Crowe like practices, if not laws. I'm cynical enough to believe the framers of the law know this.
There is a counter argument. One can hear them say, "I'm not denying their basic rights. I just don't want them here, in my apartment or store or workplace, but they are always free to go elsewhere." The question, of course, is where? If a sufficient majority of apartment owners and dwellers feel as McCrory and his followers feel, however, then their access to shelter is greatly diminished. One might imagine a number of apartment owners who are homosexual themselves, but one imagines they will be in a significant minority, and to confine potential shelter to those would eventually create at best enclaves, at worst ghettos. Adams and our founding fathers legitimately feared the "tyranny of the majority," or ochlocracy, because, well, the herd instinct prevails, and it doesn't take much of a demagogue to set the majority of the herd against a minority, particularly when there are biblical or other supports for the behavior of the herd, particularly when such biblical authority is buttressed with the fear and loathing of simple bigotry. As the drafters of the law recognize, at least, Adams and our founding fathers understood that majorities simply do not need protection in the same way that minorities need protection, even if protecting the basic rights of the minority infringes on the majority's perfect freedom to do as they please.
Having said all this, the law does point to a central fault line running through the GOP party, the pernicious alliance between "big money" and evangelical religion.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Easter Weekend
We had dinner last night with some friends met through my wife's hospice work. The wife suffers from alzheimer's disease, the husband and their son are devoted to her care, and Lora acts not only as a care provider, but almost as a surrogate daughter. These are good people, in almost every sense of the word, who live for the most part a quiet, Morman life. He has had the good sense to call Trump a "false prophet," words that, for the Mormans who have an active faith in contemporary prophecy, carry more significance than we might normally give. Beyond that, I suspect we differ on almost every political point. He brought up two points yesterday.
The first concerned the chinese purchase of a chicken farm in the US. Ostensibly, they are raising chickens here, slaughtering them, shipping them back to china frozen, preparing and packaging them, then shipping them back to the US. This has been on his mind for at least a couple of weeks. On the surface of it, this makes little sense. Even if the chinese owned the chicken far, the transportation costs would be enormous and easily avoided. I am pretty sure this idea was fed by a fox news story -- like many others they have the vitriol of fox news yammering in the background throughout much of the day -- and I suspect the economics of it are irrelevant to them in many ways. They are mostly concerned with the very "idea" of the chinese owning US property, and in the way they address it, I also suspect that it is a "self-evident" evil, but even if it were true, so what? I suspect that the chinese own a considerable amount of US property, just as the US own a considerable amount of "foreign" property. I very much want to ask that question, but Lora, in her wisdom, remarked "that's interesting" and changed the subject.
The second is in some ways more interesting. It concerned the "ownership" of Yellowstone National Park. They were concerned that the UN, as in United Nations, "owned" Yellowstone National Park. Again, I'm pretty sure the source of this would be fox news, who seem to be the purveyors of half-baked alarmist thought, but let's consider. It doesn't take much to come across information. Here's the scoop according to the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank:
In 1972, our government signed the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty, a treaty that creates "World Heritage Sites" and "Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks under U.N. mandate.1 Since 1972, 68 percent of all U.S. national parks, monuments and preserves have been designated as World Heritage Sites.
Twenty important symbols of national pride, along with 51 million acres of our wilderness, are World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves now falling under the control of the U.N. This includes the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon - to name just a few.
Most ironic of all is the listing of Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The birthplace of our Republic is now an official World Heritage Site. The very place where our Founding Fathers signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - the documents that set America apart from other nations and created the world's longest-standing democracy - is no longer fully under the control of our government and the American people.
OK, so we are signatory to a UN treaty that, in some way, covers the Yellowstone National Park, among other things. They seem to be aghast at the "very idea" that such things are "falling under the control of the U.N." and they conclude the brief policy statement with "We should not turn our backs on the Founding Fathers by surrendering the precious gift of sovereignty. We should treasure and protect it." Of course this makes it sound like the UN is directly managing "Independence Hall," which would indeed be an "irony" if it were remotely true.
It isn't. Yes, we are signatories to the treaty, but the treaty itself is much more benign. Although I'm a bit reluctant to quote Wikipedia, it nevertheless points out that such sites are
listed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as being of special cultural or physical significance.
There is a difference between "controlling" and "listing," though one suspects that being on the "list" does have some consequence and obligation. Namely,
The programme catalogues, names, and conserves sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance to the common heritage of humanity. Under certain conditions, listed sites can obtain funds from the World Heritage Fund. The program was founded with the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage,[3] which was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. Since then, 191 states parties have ratified the Convention, making it one of the most adhered to international instruments. Only Liechtenstein, Nauru, Somalia, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and Tuvalu are not Parties to the Convention.
We are, in other words, obligated to preserve and protect, "treasure and respect" it, and we may even get a few dollars to help out in that respect. Having said this, of course, we are not the only ones to "turn our backs" on the "precious gift of sovereignty" in this way. Indeed, "Italy is home to the greatest number of World Heritage Sites with 51 sites," and perhaps even more "ironically," it is followed by China (48), Spain (44), France (41), Germany (40), Mexico (33), and India (32)." We have 23, fewer than either the United Kingdom (29) or Russia (26).
The bottom line, however, is this: "each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site." Should UNESCO ever consider actually "enforcing" the terms of the treaty, who would they likely turn to? You guessed it. The UN would turn first to the US. I would love to see the day when US troops, wearing UN blue helmets, stormed in to protect Yellowstone National Park against what? Militia ranchers seeking forcibly to extract grazing rights? Really? Since we are irony deficient as a nation, I'll say it straight: it's virtually impossible to imagine that anything other than voluntary enforcement by the signatory nations would ever be called upon. Does it infringe upon our "national sovereignty?" Of course it does, as does every treaty we sign -- that is to say, each time the Senate ratifies a treaty, per the constitution, we create a mutual obligation with another nation, which could be construed as an infringement on our "national sovereignty," if by "national sovereignty" we mean our perfect freedom to do whatever we damn well please. The point being, however, that it was perceived to be in the mutual interest of the signatory nations to obligate themselves in this way to each other. As history demonstrates, some "deals" (to use the donald's term) are better than others, but I strongly suspect this treaty is largely a symbolic recognition that the US and others have played, and will continue to play, a role in the common history of humankind. How horrible!
My point is not to "debunk" the good people who bought into some half baked conspiracy theory about our nation "turning its back" on the "precious gift of sovereignty" to UNESCO. They are not stupid people, and don't deserve to be "debunked," but it is another subtle example of the "conservative" think tanks inflate a non-issue into an issue, when there are so many other things to worry about. Free speech matters, but so too does "accurate" speech, and if anyone has an obligation to "accurate" speech, it's the news media. As an aside, in the world of fox news, I'm pretty sure Obama somehow reached back in time and gave away the liberty bell, but if there really is an "irony" in all of this, I should point out that the treaty was signed in 1972. Richard Nixon, a Republican, was the president who signed it. If the thing really is one half, no one fourth, as horrible as the National Center for Public Policy Research suggests, they should also remember that it is a result of "conservatism" in its best sense the "conservation" of our common human heritage, not in its worst sense, the paranoid, conspiracy-laden politics, brought to the white house courtesy of Richard Nixon, which the conservative party has not seemed to out-grow.
The first concerned the chinese purchase of a chicken farm in the US. Ostensibly, they are raising chickens here, slaughtering them, shipping them back to china frozen, preparing and packaging them, then shipping them back to the US. This has been on his mind for at least a couple of weeks. On the surface of it, this makes little sense. Even if the chinese owned the chicken far, the transportation costs would be enormous and easily avoided. I am pretty sure this idea was fed by a fox news story -- like many others they have the vitriol of fox news yammering in the background throughout much of the day -- and I suspect the economics of it are irrelevant to them in many ways. They are mostly concerned with the very "idea" of the chinese owning US property, and in the way they address it, I also suspect that it is a "self-evident" evil, but even if it were true, so what? I suspect that the chinese own a considerable amount of US property, just as the US own a considerable amount of "foreign" property. I very much want to ask that question, but Lora, in her wisdom, remarked "that's interesting" and changed the subject.
The second is in some ways more interesting. It concerned the "ownership" of Yellowstone National Park. They were concerned that the UN, as in United Nations, "owned" Yellowstone National Park. Again, I'm pretty sure the source of this would be fox news, who seem to be the purveyors of half-baked alarmist thought, but let's consider. It doesn't take much to come across information. Here's the scoop according to the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank:
In 1972, our government signed the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty, a treaty that creates "World Heritage Sites" and "Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks under U.N. mandate.1 Since 1972, 68 percent of all U.S. national parks, monuments and preserves have been designated as World Heritage Sites.
Twenty important symbols of national pride, along with 51 million acres of our wilderness, are World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves now falling under the control of the U.N. This includes the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon - to name just a few.
Most ironic of all is the listing of Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The birthplace of our Republic is now an official World Heritage Site. The very place where our Founding Fathers signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - the documents that set America apart from other nations and created the world's longest-standing democracy - is no longer fully under the control of our government and the American people.
OK, so we are signatory to a UN treaty that, in some way, covers the Yellowstone National Park, among other things. They seem to be aghast at the "very idea" that such things are "falling under the control of the U.N." and they conclude the brief policy statement with "We should not turn our backs on the Founding Fathers by surrendering the precious gift of sovereignty. We should treasure and protect it." Of course this makes it sound like the UN is directly managing "Independence Hall," which would indeed be an "irony" if it were remotely true.
It isn't. Yes, we are signatories to the treaty, but the treaty itself is much more benign. Although I'm a bit reluctant to quote Wikipedia, it nevertheless points out that such sites are
listed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as being of special cultural or physical significance.
There is a difference between "controlling" and "listing," though one suspects that being on the "list" does have some consequence and obligation. Namely,
The programme catalogues, names, and conserves sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance to the common heritage of humanity. Under certain conditions, listed sites can obtain funds from the World Heritage Fund. The program was founded with the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage,[3] which was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. Since then, 191 states parties have ratified the Convention, making it one of the most adhered to international instruments. Only Liechtenstein, Nauru, Somalia, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and Tuvalu are not Parties to the Convention.
We are, in other words, obligated to preserve and protect, "treasure and respect" it, and we may even get a few dollars to help out in that respect. Having said this, of course, we are not the only ones to "turn our backs" on the "precious gift of sovereignty" in this way. Indeed, "Italy is home to the greatest number of World Heritage Sites with 51 sites," and perhaps even more "ironically," it is followed by China (48), Spain (44), France (41), Germany (40), Mexico (33), and India (32)." We have 23, fewer than either the United Kingdom (29) or Russia (26).
The bottom line, however, is this: "each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site." Should UNESCO ever consider actually "enforcing" the terms of the treaty, who would they likely turn to? You guessed it. The UN would turn first to the US. I would love to see the day when US troops, wearing UN blue helmets, stormed in to protect Yellowstone National Park against what? Militia ranchers seeking forcibly to extract grazing rights? Really? Since we are irony deficient as a nation, I'll say it straight: it's virtually impossible to imagine that anything other than voluntary enforcement by the signatory nations would ever be called upon. Does it infringe upon our "national sovereignty?" Of course it does, as does every treaty we sign -- that is to say, each time the Senate ratifies a treaty, per the constitution, we create a mutual obligation with another nation, which could be construed as an infringement on our "national sovereignty," if by "national sovereignty" we mean our perfect freedom to do whatever we damn well please. The point being, however, that it was perceived to be in the mutual interest of the signatory nations to obligate themselves in this way to each other. As history demonstrates, some "deals" (to use the donald's term) are better than others, but I strongly suspect this treaty is largely a symbolic recognition that the US and others have played, and will continue to play, a role in the common history of humankind. How horrible!
My point is not to "debunk" the good people who bought into some half baked conspiracy theory about our nation "turning its back" on the "precious gift of sovereignty" to UNESCO. They are not stupid people, and don't deserve to be "debunked," but it is another subtle example of the "conservative" think tanks inflate a non-issue into an issue, when there are so many other things to worry about. Free speech matters, but so too does "accurate" speech, and if anyone has an obligation to "accurate" speech, it's the news media. As an aside, in the world of fox news, I'm pretty sure Obama somehow reached back in time and gave away the liberty bell, but if there really is an "irony" in all of this, I should point out that the treaty was signed in 1972. Richard Nixon, a Republican, was the president who signed it. If the thing really is one half, no one fourth, as horrible as the National Center for Public Policy Research suggests, they should also remember that it is a result of "conservatism" in its best sense the "conservation" of our common human heritage, not in its worst sense, the paranoid, conspiracy-laden politics, brought to the white house courtesy of Richard Nixon, which the conservative party has not seemed to out-grow.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Terrorism
I remember in my youth watching a buddhist monk self-immolate in protest of the continuing violence in his country. This was something different, and something profoundly more self-sacrificial than simply "protesting," even when there were modest risks associated with "protesting." Watching him sit in the lotus position, the flames rising from his body, I was inspired to look into buddhism and I have been looking into ever since. I am not a "practicing" buddhist. I find the ritual associated with buddhism as silly and counter-intuitive as any other religion, and insofar as it is a "religion" in its various manifestations, it asks for belief as silly and counter-intuitive as any other "religion." My philosophy of life, however, has been profoundly influenced by my study of buddhism, and continues to be. By way of disclosure, some thoughts:
First, buddhism is not a theistic religion. There is no single all-powerful, all-knowing god, nor is the buddha the oriental equivalent of the christ. While he IS revered, and there are enough gold plated statues to signal that reverence, including the one on our bedroom dresser, he is NOT revered as a God, but more as a founding father of a philosophical lineage. Those forms of buddhism that DO make of him the oriental equivalent of the christ, and that make the Lotus Sutra a bible of sorts -- the forms of buddhism that subscribe to magic chants that fulfill our wishes -- have succumbed to a form of fundamentalism that misses the entire point of buddhism. One must transcend one's self, and become, if not self-immolating, then at the very least above the petty dictates of day-to-day desire and fear. Although it puts a release from "suffering" or a salvation of sorts at the center of things, that release comes through a self-development that ultimately transcends self, looking deeply into the nature of consciousness through meditation. There is an arduousness, life-long quality, about that self-development. If you believe that its "easy" to have an empty mind, just try sitting for a half hour, and empty your mind of everything, every transient thought, to include thoughts around the challenge of just sitting with an empty and serene mind. It's as difficult as NOT thinking about an orange elephant now that I've asked you, implored you, please! DON'T think of an orange elephant. Letting orange elephants, especially those with long blue tusks, into the mind is dangerous.
Second, to the best of my knowledge, buddhism has never condoned organized violence. I am sure I'm wrong in saying this, and I'm sure someone can point out more than one instance. As a wholly human endeavor, however, it is as subject to human folly and foibles as any other and I can be reasonably certain it would include violence against others, but I have not gone looking for it and it has not come easily to hand, unlike the biblical and koranic religions, where there are plenty of examples, not only condoned in the "holy" texts, but played out in the historical life of the religion. Although there are some variants of buddhism that do revere one or another sutra, and would make of it something like a bible, there really is no core, canonical, infallible "holy" book that professes to be the "word" of god, with a capital G, because, well, there is no such god. At any one point, if one fully understands a sutra, one has gone well beyond the need for it. They are, after all is said and done, just words, and one should not mistake words for the thing itself, any more than one should mistake the word "moon" for the waxing and waning presence in the night sky. I can imagine a buddhist country, so to speak, making the five ethical precepts the law of the land -- that one should abstain from harming living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication -- but then it's not difficult imagining any country making the precepts the law of the land.
There is a strain of home grown "buddhist" thought that runs through writers like Thoreau, and has found its adherents, but I don't see that, really, as much of a threat. Here again, I am sure I'm wrong, and somewhere no doubt in the more radical fringes of the environmental movement, I'm sure there has been Thoreau inspired violence, but again I have not gone looking for it, and the daily paper does not deliver to my doorstep. If I were to list the threats to America, however, I would list "religion" first and foremost. I am thinking mostly of theistic religions, and even more directly of fundamentalist theistic religions. By far, in ways that frighten me more deeply than Trumps brand of oligarchic fascism, I am frightened of fundamentalist theistic religions.
First, of course, there is the threat from without. The GOP is asking us to say "radical Islam" and I will say it, "radical Islam." Indeed, insofar as it is a theistic religion, I will say "Islam" is a threat to the country. I am not suggesting, not even for a nano-second, that we do what cruz suggests -- that we "monitor" muslim neighborhoods for potential "radicalization." In the US, I'm not sure what a "muslim" neighborhood might be. In Michigan, the state with the greatest number, Muslims represent about 1.2% of the population, with the greatest concentration in Dearborn at 29K. In New Jersey, Patterson also has a high concentration of Muslims. I am sure in Dearborn and Patterson, there are predominantly muslim neighborhoods, but elsewhere it becomes more diffuse, particularly in New York and LA. Perhaps we should then create Muslim neighborhoods so that they might be monitored. Oh, wait, someone else relocated a particular religious community into "neighborhoods" so they might be more easily monitored, and we probably don't want to be like him! And besides, how would we know someone is a Muslim? Short of registration by religion (perhaps when we get our driver's license?) or a very robust surveillance system (we all have accessible cell phone data?), I'm not sure how anyone would know, or that anyone should know, whether or not I'm a muslim. There's that pesky first amendment, not to mention the fifth and fourteenth amendments, which we ALL know should really only apply to good christians (except, perhaps, catholics). If you want to radicalize the muslims in the US, if you want to precipitate even more religiously inspired violence to excuse even more religiously inspired violence of counter-jihad, then absolutely do what cruz suggests.
I am not so blinkered, however, to suggest that religiously inspired violence is NOT a threat to the citizens of the US. I am pretty sure that radical islamic terrorists will not soon show up in Mountain Home and bomb the walmart, but the daily news provides enough evidence to suggest that it is a threat to our own and the safety of others throughout the world. If the self-immolating buddhist monk inspired a reverence in me, the notion of the suicide bomber inspires nothing but a deep sense of repugnance and sadness. The buddhist monk did not impose his suffering on others, but suffered himself in the hopes that it might ease the suffering of others. The suicide bomber is suffering -- to deny it would be absurd -- but in the very nature of the act he or she imposes suffering on others. I wanted to say "innocent others," but of course the suicide bomber, and those who send him on his mission, do not see the others as "innocent," but rather "guilty" of the deepest infractions against their god, and the bomb blast is punishment for that "guilt" in exactly the same way that the fire and brimstone raining down on Sodom and Gomorrah were punishment for their infractions against god.
The suicide bomber imposes suffering on others as "punishment." I am pretty sure that our "retribution" against them -- carpet bombing ISIS as cruz suggests -- might make us feel better, might assuage our honor, but it will most assuredly not serve as a deterrent. Anyone willing to strap a bomb to his chest and walk into an airport is not going to be deterred when we bomb him. Indeed, if you want to precipitate even more religiously inspired violence, then absolutely do what cruz suggests. I'm not sure what he believes carpet bombing to be, but carpet bombing areas containing civilians is considered a war crime according to the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. There is a reason its a war crime, and it surprises me (NOT) that someone so adamantly opposed to abortion, so pro-life, should be willing to bomb children, and by definition you cannot carpet bomb WITHOUT bombing children.
Moreover, it doesn't work. Douhet, the original proponent, was wrong. It didn't hasten the surrender of Germany in WWII. It didn't break their will, any more than the bombing of London broke their will. It was only the threat of total annihilation with the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... wait, maybe that's what he means? Perhaps we should create acres of trinitite. No wonder Iraq wants nuclear weapons. So they might retaliate appropriately against our retaliation. Round we go round we go round. Retribution at this scale never works, unless of course one is able and willing to commit complete genocide. Nuclear weapons create the ability, but I would hope not the willingness, though my hopes may well be disappointed. For those who absolutely need biblical authority for the assertion, and an imperative to resist the "heroic" impulse of retribution, one need look no further than matthew 5:38. Of course, as we all know, christ was a crucified weakling, and it is ever so much more satisfying to ignore the fulfillment of the law and simply exact the law as prescribed in deuteronomy 19:21 and "show no pity" in doing so. Either way, one has biblical authority. We have not outgrown the heroic age, and it seems our politicians are vying with one another to be the biggest and baddest action hero or, better, super hero, but the reflection of evil is itself evil. I am suggesting that retribution, particularly the sort of retribution advocated by the GOP contenders, and particularly the sort of retribution advocated by cruz, is hypocritical and itself evil. Understandable, perhaps, but no less hypocritical and evil in its appeal to the worst instincts of the American people.
Ok, so let me say it, not only is radicalized, militarized Islam a threat, but equally radicalized, militarized christianity is a threat as well. The real threats are the mutually exclusive forms of mono-theistic religion, whether muslim, christian, or judaic. In this country, religion represents an even bigger threat from within because it undermines who we are and what we value, not as individuals, but as a nation. First and foremost, we are not a "christian" nation. We are a secular nation. We are, of course, predominantly christian, but the constitutional amendments were in part designed, from the outset, to protect the minority from the majority, and so designed to protect the muslim minority from the christian majority, particularly the sort of evangelical religion that would impose its own versions of biblical values and law, that would impose its own versions of willful ignorance in opposition to both biological and earth sciences, that would reveal to be as "intolerant" as the most radicalized forms of islamic authority. We have made considerable progress over the course of the last century, but were we to become, truly a "christian" nation with an "evangelical" base, I fear for all those who, like myself, who find evangelical values, with their thinly disguised xenophobia, their thinly disguised racism black and white and brown, their thinly disguised denial of female sexuality and their reduction of women to reproductive chattel by denying birth control and abortion, their sanctimonious and supercilious ignorance and disdain for science and all empirical reason -- I fear, that is, for all those who, like myself, find evangelical values deeply repugnant. So be it. So long, however, as we remain a secular nation, I grant you the freedom to live in fear, ignorance and hatred, so long as you tolerate my altogether feeble attempts to rise above it.
First, buddhism is not a theistic religion. There is no single all-powerful, all-knowing god, nor is the buddha the oriental equivalent of the christ. While he IS revered, and there are enough gold plated statues to signal that reverence, including the one on our bedroom dresser, he is NOT revered as a God, but more as a founding father of a philosophical lineage. Those forms of buddhism that DO make of him the oriental equivalent of the christ, and that make the Lotus Sutra a bible of sorts -- the forms of buddhism that subscribe to magic chants that fulfill our wishes -- have succumbed to a form of fundamentalism that misses the entire point of buddhism. One must transcend one's self, and become, if not self-immolating, then at the very least above the petty dictates of day-to-day desire and fear. Although it puts a release from "suffering" or a salvation of sorts at the center of things, that release comes through a self-development that ultimately transcends self, looking deeply into the nature of consciousness through meditation. There is an arduousness, life-long quality, about that self-development. If you believe that its "easy" to have an empty mind, just try sitting for a half hour, and empty your mind of everything, every transient thought, to include thoughts around the challenge of just sitting with an empty and serene mind. It's as difficult as NOT thinking about an orange elephant now that I've asked you, implored you, please! DON'T think of an orange elephant. Letting orange elephants, especially those with long blue tusks, into the mind is dangerous.
Second, to the best of my knowledge, buddhism has never condoned organized violence. I am sure I'm wrong in saying this, and I'm sure someone can point out more than one instance. As a wholly human endeavor, however, it is as subject to human folly and foibles as any other and I can be reasonably certain it would include violence against others, but I have not gone looking for it and it has not come easily to hand, unlike the biblical and koranic religions, where there are plenty of examples, not only condoned in the "holy" texts, but played out in the historical life of the religion. Although there are some variants of buddhism that do revere one or another sutra, and would make of it something like a bible, there really is no core, canonical, infallible "holy" book that professes to be the "word" of god, with a capital G, because, well, there is no such god. At any one point, if one fully understands a sutra, one has gone well beyond the need for it. They are, after all is said and done, just words, and one should not mistake words for the thing itself, any more than one should mistake the word "moon" for the waxing and waning presence in the night sky. I can imagine a buddhist country, so to speak, making the five ethical precepts the law of the land -- that one should abstain from harming living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication -- but then it's not difficult imagining any country making the precepts the law of the land.
There is a strain of home grown "buddhist" thought that runs through writers like Thoreau, and has found its adherents, but I don't see that, really, as much of a threat. Here again, I am sure I'm wrong, and somewhere no doubt in the more radical fringes of the environmental movement, I'm sure there has been Thoreau inspired violence, but again I have not gone looking for it, and the daily paper does not deliver to my doorstep. If I were to list the threats to America, however, I would list "religion" first and foremost. I am thinking mostly of theistic religions, and even more directly of fundamentalist theistic religions. By far, in ways that frighten me more deeply than Trumps brand of oligarchic fascism, I am frightened of fundamentalist theistic religions.
First, of course, there is the threat from without. The GOP is asking us to say "radical Islam" and I will say it, "radical Islam." Indeed, insofar as it is a theistic religion, I will say "Islam" is a threat to the country. I am not suggesting, not even for a nano-second, that we do what cruz suggests -- that we "monitor" muslim neighborhoods for potential "radicalization." In the US, I'm not sure what a "muslim" neighborhood might be. In Michigan, the state with the greatest number, Muslims represent about 1.2% of the population, with the greatest concentration in Dearborn at 29K. In New Jersey, Patterson also has a high concentration of Muslims. I am sure in Dearborn and Patterson, there are predominantly muslim neighborhoods, but elsewhere it becomes more diffuse, particularly in New York and LA. Perhaps we should then create Muslim neighborhoods so that they might be monitored. Oh, wait, someone else relocated a particular religious community into "neighborhoods" so they might be more easily monitored, and we probably don't want to be like him! And besides, how would we know someone is a Muslim? Short of registration by religion (perhaps when we get our driver's license?) or a very robust surveillance system (we all have accessible cell phone data?), I'm not sure how anyone would know, or that anyone should know, whether or not I'm a muslim. There's that pesky first amendment, not to mention the fifth and fourteenth amendments, which we ALL know should really only apply to good christians (except, perhaps, catholics). If you want to radicalize the muslims in the US, if you want to precipitate even more religiously inspired violence to excuse even more religiously inspired violence of counter-jihad, then absolutely do what cruz suggests.
I am not so blinkered, however, to suggest that religiously inspired violence is NOT a threat to the citizens of the US. I am pretty sure that radical islamic terrorists will not soon show up in Mountain Home and bomb the walmart, but the daily news provides enough evidence to suggest that it is a threat to our own and the safety of others throughout the world. If the self-immolating buddhist monk inspired a reverence in me, the notion of the suicide bomber inspires nothing but a deep sense of repugnance and sadness. The buddhist monk did not impose his suffering on others, but suffered himself in the hopes that it might ease the suffering of others. The suicide bomber is suffering -- to deny it would be absurd -- but in the very nature of the act he or she imposes suffering on others. I wanted to say "innocent others," but of course the suicide bomber, and those who send him on his mission, do not see the others as "innocent," but rather "guilty" of the deepest infractions against their god, and the bomb blast is punishment for that "guilt" in exactly the same way that the fire and brimstone raining down on Sodom and Gomorrah were punishment for their infractions against god.
The suicide bomber imposes suffering on others as "punishment." I am pretty sure that our "retribution" against them -- carpet bombing ISIS as cruz suggests -- might make us feel better, might assuage our honor, but it will most assuredly not serve as a deterrent. Anyone willing to strap a bomb to his chest and walk into an airport is not going to be deterred when we bomb him. Indeed, if you want to precipitate even more religiously inspired violence, then absolutely do what cruz suggests. I'm not sure what he believes carpet bombing to be, but carpet bombing areas containing civilians is considered a war crime according to the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. There is a reason its a war crime, and it surprises me (NOT) that someone so adamantly opposed to abortion, so pro-life, should be willing to bomb children, and by definition you cannot carpet bomb WITHOUT bombing children.
Moreover, it doesn't work. Douhet, the original proponent, was wrong. It didn't hasten the surrender of Germany in WWII. It didn't break their will, any more than the bombing of London broke their will. It was only the threat of total annihilation with the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... wait, maybe that's what he means? Perhaps we should create acres of trinitite. No wonder Iraq wants nuclear weapons. So they might retaliate appropriately against our retaliation. Round we go round we go round. Retribution at this scale never works, unless of course one is able and willing to commit complete genocide. Nuclear weapons create the ability, but I would hope not the willingness, though my hopes may well be disappointed. For those who absolutely need biblical authority for the assertion, and an imperative to resist the "heroic" impulse of retribution, one need look no further than matthew 5:38. Of course, as we all know, christ was a crucified weakling, and it is ever so much more satisfying to ignore the fulfillment of the law and simply exact the law as prescribed in deuteronomy 19:21 and "show no pity" in doing so. Either way, one has biblical authority. We have not outgrown the heroic age, and it seems our politicians are vying with one another to be the biggest and baddest action hero or, better, super hero, but the reflection of evil is itself evil. I am suggesting that retribution, particularly the sort of retribution advocated by the GOP contenders, and particularly the sort of retribution advocated by cruz, is hypocritical and itself evil. Understandable, perhaps, but no less hypocritical and evil in its appeal to the worst instincts of the American people.
Ok, so let me say it, not only is radicalized, militarized Islam a threat, but equally radicalized, militarized christianity is a threat as well. The real threats are the mutually exclusive forms of mono-theistic religion, whether muslim, christian, or judaic. In this country, religion represents an even bigger threat from within because it undermines who we are and what we value, not as individuals, but as a nation. First and foremost, we are not a "christian" nation. We are a secular nation. We are, of course, predominantly christian, but the constitutional amendments were in part designed, from the outset, to protect the minority from the majority, and so designed to protect the muslim minority from the christian majority, particularly the sort of evangelical religion that would impose its own versions of biblical values and law, that would impose its own versions of willful ignorance in opposition to both biological and earth sciences, that would reveal to be as "intolerant" as the most radicalized forms of islamic authority. We have made considerable progress over the course of the last century, but were we to become, truly a "christian" nation with an "evangelical" base, I fear for all those who, like myself, who find evangelical values, with their thinly disguised xenophobia, their thinly disguised racism black and white and brown, their thinly disguised denial of female sexuality and their reduction of women to reproductive chattel by denying birth control and abortion, their sanctimonious and supercilious ignorance and disdain for science and all empirical reason -- I fear, that is, for all those who, like myself, find evangelical values deeply repugnant. So be it. So long, however, as we remain a secular nation, I grant you the freedom to live in fear, ignorance and hatred, so long as you tolerate my altogether feeble attempts to rise above it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Moral Pragmatism -- Part V (the one who can command unity)
Party, I suspect, is irrelevant to the donald. He transcends party. He represents, however, the full flowering of GOP in all its inherent contradictions. I want to say that the sort of fractious ineffectuality we see in the body politic can be laid at the feet of the Republican party as it has grown more and more extreme. Here's why, at least my limited take on it.
First and foremost, with the possible exception of the regelian functions of military and police, there is the attack on government itself. It is one thing of course to demand a fiscally responsible, limited government -- the sort of Jeffersonian dictate that the government that governs least, governs best -- but it is another thing to attack the very notion of government itself. The government itself is the problem, and the tea partiers, among others, were elected, not to govern, but to dismantle government, bit by bit, from the inside out. beginning with the hated Affordable Care Act, and then moving on to the DOE, the EPA, and all those functions of government originally created and charged to provide systemic and regulatory solutions to perceived problems within education, environment, et cetera. It is not surprising then that the "outsiders, and currently the consummate outsider, the donald, are rising into national political consciousness.
Setting aside the fractious ineffectuality, one has to admit that the "insiders" have helped this along. Beginning with Nixon and Watergate, moving through Clinton and Monika Lewinsky, the latter Bush's outright lies concerning the WMDs in the middle east. Then too there is the popular culture's take on political office. We have come quite a way from the West Wing to House of Cards -- a comparison that deserves a full post -- but suffice it to say, from a president that one could admire to a president that is not only a lying, cheating politician, but a bona-fide murderer, "the terror itself." Both were democrats, but one has to admire Netflix' balance. The republican challenger comes off as little better. I could go on, but it's difficult to imagine a parent saying defining a child's aspirations as "you too could grow up to be the president of the United States," easier to imagine a parent saying "you too could be honey-boo-boo or Donald Trump."
In the latter case, of course, it's very highly unlikely. As has been demonstrated sufficiently, the donald is not a self-made man. He did not start from scratch, but from a position of privilege. Given his starting point, his accumulated riches are not that terribly impressive, but are, as Picketty demonstrates, simply the natural growth of capital within the current environment. There is little social mobility within the US today, in part because the cards are stacked against it. We want to believe in social mobility. We want to believe that our children will have it better than we had it. And there are always the few exceptions that prove the possibility, if not the likelihood, of social mobility, but the reality is something quite different. Our faith in the so-called American Dream is just that -- a faith maintained through willful ignorance, a willful disregard of the available evidence -- and is no more rational than the most perverse religious faith. Indeed, it is just as damaging. Faith in the American Dream, the possibility of rags to riches success, tends to rely on the notion of meritocracy, that those who have succeeded have something "special," no doubt a bigger and more powerful brain ("for the bumper sticker philosophers, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich"). The meritocracy, however, is itself a myth, though it serves to validate, to justify what is essentially a capitalist, post-agrarian, post-industrial but still, an inherited aristocracy.
In the absence of government, in the absence of a strong social democracy, the question is no longer "how will we be governed," but "who will govern." It is essentially a tory conservatism of the sort that we haven't seen since Hobbes. The Democrats and the GOP are asking essentially different questions, and they are no longer reconcilable. The progressives still believe that progress, that a more perfect union, can be achieved through systemic government. I used the DMV as an example earlier not without irony. No one loves the DMV, apparently not even the people who work there if one judges by the depth of boredom in their eyes, but it is, one could argue, necessary. I WANT a systemic approach to the licensing of drivers, no matter how imperfect, because I WANT to be safe on the road. I WANT to have some assurance, no matter how imperfect, that other drivers understand the basic rules, basic safety, and mature enough, and the list goes on. It is admittedly a bureaucratic approach, and it does take taxes and fees to sustain the bureaucracy, and the Democrats are still asking, "how can we make life better, solve problems, through admittedly bureaucratic government action."
The donald, however, is tapping into the resentment felt by those that have fallen through the cracks of bureaucratic government, of the social state, and of course the cracks are widening, more and more people are falling through. Last night, Lora suggested that she "disagreed with almost everything he stands for, but Trump is right about one thing, we need a strong president." She was reading that the State of Idaho was thinking about expanding medicaid, which caused a visceral reaction. It has become apparent, particularly with health care, that Lora and I are falling through the cracks in the bureaucratic, social state. We seem to be excluded from medicaid and the VA because we make too much money, and in reality we cannot afford the private insurance provided through the exchanges. We will, quite literally, lose everything if either of us has a major illness prior to our reaching medicare age. By a "strong president" she means essentially "one who can command unity," a sovereign in the Hobbesian sense. We have bought into the notion of meritocracy as measured by money for so long now that it seems natural that someone like the donald, someone already in the public eye, someone will self-profess boat loads of money and "success" and all that "success" implies, should emerge as the "one who can command unity." Unlike Romney, who had some modicum of modesty, the donald toots his own horn with some alacrity.
It is wistful thinking, however, that the "one who commands unity" will do so to fix problems within the health care system, particularly if he is running on a GOP platform. The only way that problems within the health care system can be address is through "tinkering" with the system, making gradual improvements, or more radically, deciding on a different system altogether. The democrats are taking that approach. Clinton is the tinker, Sandars the radical, but both still see government (with, yes, its inherent tax funded bureaucracies) as the potential solution. Nevertheless, name the problem and the donald, so far as one can see, is proposing himself as the "one who can command unity" and "fix the problems." He doesn't need to propose policy, or systemic approaches, because he will ultimately "command" the best solution and one should trust him to do so because, well, he has sufficient endowment below the waist and above the neck to do so. That he has sufficient endowment is self evident in his "success" thus far.
The difficulty lies in the very notion of "one who commands unity." Those who come to power propelled by the resentments of the populace demonstrate a very predictable pattern of behavior once they are in power. It probably goes without saying that the resentments of the populace are rarely, if ever, cohesive. Lora and I have our resentments around the healthcare systems, but one can imagine the unemployed mine worker in West Virginia has his resentments around the EPA and the regulatory demise of coal as a fuel. Likewise, those in manufacturing who have lost their jobs to China or in the service industry who have lost their jobs to lower wage immigrants, might have some resentment against the "trade deals" and the "immigration" policies that don't seem to serve their interests. Likewise, poor southern white have long felt resentment toward black communities, and perhaps feel it even more deeply insofar as the EEO considers the African American, and not him, a privileged member of a "protected class." Finally, those who resent Roe v Wade, those who resent any infringement on their "right to protect themselves" with assault rifles, et cetera. There is plenty of anger and resentment to go around, but there is no solid core EXCEPT the anger and the resentment. It is, however, a powerful and propulsive force, a forty foot wave, behind any demagogue willing to surf it.
For those who come to power propelled by the resentments of the populace, once in power, what if they actually do set about "commanding unity." Just to suggest the stage, those who make their money drilling for natural gas might have a different take on the demise of coal as a fuel. Those who have made their boat load of money "outsourcing" jobs to places like China might have a different take on particular aspects of the "trade deal." The list goes on. Ultimately, the only way to "command unity" is to quell opposition, and if the opposition is held strongly enough, the only way to quell opposition is through violence and the fear of violence. It's not surprising that Trump felt his "first amendment rights" breached by the protestors in Chicago, without giving much if any thought to the "first amendment rights" of the protestors themselves, and the repeated calls to "get him out of here" is a small sample of things to come. The first right to go is the right to free speech, the very right that allows us, not only to express opposition, but to quibble over what might be the best policy, the best form of bureaucratic response. The only policy is the policy of the "one who now command unity," and if it doesn't serve you, if you continue to harbor resentments, and feel betrayed, it might be wise to keep it to yourself.
First and foremost, with the possible exception of the regelian functions of military and police, there is the attack on government itself. It is one thing of course to demand a fiscally responsible, limited government -- the sort of Jeffersonian dictate that the government that governs least, governs best -- but it is another thing to attack the very notion of government itself. The government itself is the problem, and the tea partiers, among others, were elected, not to govern, but to dismantle government, bit by bit, from the inside out. beginning with the hated Affordable Care Act, and then moving on to the DOE, the EPA, and all those functions of government originally created and charged to provide systemic and regulatory solutions to perceived problems within education, environment, et cetera. It is not surprising then that the "outsiders, and currently the consummate outsider, the donald, are rising into national political consciousness.
Setting aside the fractious ineffectuality, one has to admit that the "insiders" have helped this along. Beginning with Nixon and Watergate, moving through Clinton and Monika Lewinsky, the latter Bush's outright lies concerning the WMDs in the middle east. Then too there is the popular culture's take on political office. We have come quite a way from the West Wing to House of Cards -- a comparison that deserves a full post -- but suffice it to say, from a president that one could admire to a president that is not only a lying, cheating politician, but a bona-fide murderer, "the terror itself." Both were democrats, but one has to admire Netflix' balance. The republican challenger comes off as little better. I could go on, but it's difficult to imagine a parent saying defining a child's aspirations as "you too could grow up to be the president of the United States," easier to imagine a parent saying "you too could be honey-boo-boo or Donald Trump."
In the latter case, of course, it's very highly unlikely. As has been demonstrated sufficiently, the donald is not a self-made man. He did not start from scratch, but from a position of privilege. Given his starting point, his accumulated riches are not that terribly impressive, but are, as Picketty demonstrates, simply the natural growth of capital within the current environment. There is little social mobility within the US today, in part because the cards are stacked against it. We want to believe in social mobility. We want to believe that our children will have it better than we had it. And there are always the few exceptions that prove the possibility, if not the likelihood, of social mobility, but the reality is something quite different. Our faith in the so-called American Dream is just that -- a faith maintained through willful ignorance, a willful disregard of the available evidence -- and is no more rational than the most perverse religious faith. Indeed, it is just as damaging. Faith in the American Dream, the possibility of rags to riches success, tends to rely on the notion of meritocracy, that those who have succeeded have something "special," no doubt a bigger and more powerful brain ("for the bumper sticker philosophers, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich"). The meritocracy, however, is itself a myth, though it serves to validate, to justify what is essentially a capitalist, post-agrarian, post-industrial but still, an inherited aristocracy.
In the absence of government, in the absence of a strong social democracy, the question is no longer "how will we be governed," but "who will govern." It is essentially a tory conservatism of the sort that we haven't seen since Hobbes. The Democrats and the GOP are asking essentially different questions, and they are no longer reconcilable. The progressives still believe that progress, that a more perfect union, can be achieved through systemic government. I used the DMV as an example earlier not without irony. No one loves the DMV, apparently not even the people who work there if one judges by the depth of boredom in their eyes, but it is, one could argue, necessary. I WANT a systemic approach to the licensing of drivers, no matter how imperfect, because I WANT to be safe on the road. I WANT to have some assurance, no matter how imperfect, that other drivers understand the basic rules, basic safety, and mature enough, and the list goes on. It is admittedly a bureaucratic approach, and it does take taxes and fees to sustain the bureaucracy, and the Democrats are still asking, "how can we make life better, solve problems, through admittedly bureaucratic government action."
The donald, however, is tapping into the resentment felt by those that have fallen through the cracks of bureaucratic government, of the social state, and of course the cracks are widening, more and more people are falling through. Last night, Lora suggested that she "disagreed with almost everything he stands for, but Trump is right about one thing, we need a strong president." She was reading that the State of Idaho was thinking about expanding medicaid, which caused a visceral reaction. It has become apparent, particularly with health care, that Lora and I are falling through the cracks in the bureaucratic, social state. We seem to be excluded from medicaid and the VA because we make too much money, and in reality we cannot afford the private insurance provided through the exchanges. We will, quite literally, lose everything if either of us has a major illness prior to our reaching medicare age. By a "strong president" she means essentially "one who can command unity," a sovereign in the Hobbesian sense. We have bought into the notion of meritocracy as measured by money for so long now that it seems natural that someone like the donald, someone already in the public eye, someone will self-profess boat loads of money and "success" and all that "success" implies, should emerge as the "one who can command unity." Unlike Romney, who had some modicum of modesty, the donald toots his own horn with some alacrity.
It is wistful thinking, however, that the "one who commands unity" will do so to fix problems within the health care system, particularly if he is running on a GOP platform. The only way that problems within the health care system can be address is through "tinkering" with the system, making gradual improvements, or more radically, deciding on a different system altogether. The democrats are taking that approach. Clinton is the tinker, Sandars the radical, but both still see government (with, yes, its inherent tax funded bureaucracies) as the potential solution. Nevertheless, name the problem and the donald, so far as one can see, is proposing himself as the "one who can command unity" and "fix the problems." He doesn't need to propose policy, or systemic approaches, because he will ultimately "command" the best solution and one should trust him to do so because, well, he has sufficient endowment below the waist and above the neck to do so. That he has sufficient endowment is self evident in his "success" thus far.
The difficulty lies in the very notion of "one who commands unity." Those who come to power propelled by the resentments of the populace demonstrate a very predictable pattern of behavior once they are in power. It probably goes without saying that the resentments of the populace are rarely, if ever, cohesive. Lora and I have our resentments around the healthcare systems, but one can imagine the unemployed mine worker in West Virginia has his resentments around the EPA and the regulatory demise of coal as a fuel. Likewise, those in manufacturing who have lost their jobs to China or in the service industry who have lost their jobs to lower wage immigrants, might have some resentment against the "trade deals" and the "immigration" policies that don't seem to serve their interests. Likewise, poor southern white have long felt resentment toward black communities, and perhaps feel it even more deeply insofar as the EEO considers the African American, and not him, a privileged member of a "protected class." Finally, those who resent Roe v Wade, those who resent any infringement on their "right to protect themselves" with assault rifles, et cetera. There is plenty of anger and resentment to go around, but there is no solid core EXCEPT the anger and the resentment. It is, however, a powerful and propulsive force, a forty foot wave, behind any demagogue willing to surf it.
For those who come to power propelled by the resentments of the populace, once in power, what if they actually do set about "commanding unity." Just to suggest the stage, those who make their money drilling for natural gas might have a different take on the demise of coal as a fuel. Those who have made their boat load of money "outsourcing" jobs to places like China might have a different take on particular aspects of the "trade deal." The list goes on. Ultimately, the only way to "command unity" is to quell opposition, and if the opposition is held strongly enough, the only way to quell opposition is through violence and the fear of violence. It's not surprising that Trump felt his "first amendment rights" breached by the protestors in Chicago, without giving much if any thought to the "first amendment rights" of the protestors themselves, and the repeated calls to "get him out of here" is a small sample of things to come. The first right to go is the right to free speech, the very right that allows us, not only to express opposition, but to quibble over what might be the best policy, the best form of bureaucratic response. The only policy is the policy of the "one who now command unity," and if it doesn't serve you, if you continue to harbor resentments, and feel betrayed, it might be wise to keep it to yourself.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Moral Pragmatism -- Part IV (Political Correctness)
Let us consider a question that has come up of late -- the so-called "political correctness." In some ways, the discussion around PC, I think, this cuts to the core of what I've been driving at. Of late, the donald has been disparaging of "political correctness. As I understand it, PC is a self-imposed restraint on what we say, and how we say it, to avoid "offending" others. At one level, of course, we're simply talking about manners. We don't refer to African Americans as "niggers" because the latter is deemed offensive, particularly by those to whom it refers. There are reasons why it is deemed offensive, and I needn't detail them all, but avoiding the offensive term is not a particularly onerous restriction on my speech. It doesn't prevent me from saying what needs to be said, for example, about black and black crime, the state of the black family, black incarceration rates, and so forth. I can speak truth. I can even do speak "truth to power," but I can nevertheless do so politely, and with all the basic respect that I would want in return.
With the donald, however, PC is code for something beyond manners, and beyond dealing with difficult moral, ethical, and social issues. It is, of course, liberating to be freed from any self-imposed limitations on speech, and there are times, of course, when I would like to "speak my mind" without restraint. In retrospect, I'm almost always glad that I didn't, but nevertheless, in the heat of the moment, there are times when I'd like to give vent, mostly, to my pent up anger. There would be a sort of "truth" in doing so, even a sort of "being true to one's self," that the donald seems to value, and those that agree with him also seem to value. There is even a sort of moral imperative behind it -- "to thine own self be true" -- a command given to one's self with all the authority of archaic language.
Having said this, however, let us consider what it might mean for someone who has 88 tattooed on her hand, who has the celtic cross and other quasi-nazi regalia (short of the swastika) tattooed on her arm, to speak her mind without restraint and give vent to her pent up anger? There would be a sort of truth in her assertion "I hate niggers." It would, no doubt, be liberating. It would, no doubt, even have a sort of "truth" -- if not in any particular assertion she might make, then in the outpouring of emotion itself, how she "feels" about things -- and we all know, of course, that she is entitled to her own truth, her own attitudes about things, no matter how repugnant others might find it.
Conversely, let us consider what it might mean for someone who wears a "black lives matter" tee-shirt to speak her mind without restart and give vent to her pent up anger? It would, likewise, no doubt, be liberating. It would, no doubt, even have a sort of "truth" -- again, if not in any particular assertion she might make, then in the outpouring of emotion itself, how she "feels" about things -- and we all know, of course, that she is entitled to her own truth, her own attitudes about things, no matter how distressing others might find it.
When the two are placed in proximity, one ends up with, well, the Chicago Trump rally. On what basis would we seek a reconciliation of the "attitudes?" I lack the problem solving or the negotiation skills to come up with anything, and if push comes to shove, as it did at Chicago, one would simply need to "choose a side" within the coming battle -- assuming, of course, one is given a choice. My sympathies clearly lie with the latter, but I am white. My own race may trump any choice I might want to make and assign me to a camp regardless of my sympathies. Perhaps I was a "liberal" academic for too long, but I was surprised at just how many of my customers simply assumed that I shared attitudes that I found, well, repugnant. Such assumptions work in both directions.
Trump is the anti-Obama in almost every sense of the word. If we can remember, Obama ran initially on a platform of reconciliation, and I am hugely disappointed to say that he failed completely, and the irreconcilable attitudinal posturing has grown even more pronounced, and more dangerous to our "liberal" republic. Perhaps we all should have known better. I remember during the last election cycle, living in Salt Lake, and seeing a banner that someone had put up along the road, urging people "don't re-nig." Whoever put up that sign will not be "reconciled" to a multiethnic, multiracial America. Whoever put up that sign will not take a step back and seek reasoned, systemic solutions to problems, but will rather express and re-express an attitude with each iteration growing a bit louder, a bit more virulent. The problem in his mind was nothing more, nothing less, than the "nigger" in the white house, pun intended, and all that it implies.
Having said this, railing against political correctness, measuring one's language to avoid offense, and railing against politicians, amount to the same thing, if by "politician" we mean those who measure their language to develop as wide a plurality as possible for a pragmatic solutions to systemic problems. To rail against political correctness is to advocate a politics of uncompromising, attitudinal posturing. Within such a politics, there can only be a "choosing of sides," and eventually one side will prove to be "stronger," the other "weaker" -- one side will "win," and the other will "lose." The vote, such as it is, merely betokens which side one has chosen. In the new order, one will be "politically correct" if one has chosen the side that prevails, "politically in-correct" if one has chosen the losers, and of course -- of course! -- he will prevail. He is "correct," in every sense of the word. He is, without doubt, the "correct" man to lead us to greatness. Consequently, he will, without doubt, be "correct" in his governing impositions, in part because he is in himself the embodiment of correctness, not just because he has a "special brain" that sees more deeply into things, but that especially. Without doubt, such overweening certainty is infectious.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Moral Pragmatism -- Part III
Government is systemic. I understand "system" in rather broad terms, but for the most part it is defined by its "intentionality" or "end." I need to digress a bit into philosophical technicalities for a moment and say that "intentionality" precedes consciousness and "intention."
I can make the full case for this, but at the moment, we can think of it this way: our body is a system, itself comprised of systems, and one of those systems -- the "alimentary" system -- insures the broader system is provided with the energy it needs to operate. When I say "insures" I am not implying, of course, that the stomach or the colon "thinks" about its intentionality or purpose. I am simply describing the function it serves in the larger system of "my body." I am not suggesting either that it was "designed" to fulfill its intentionality or purpose. We can marvel at the intricacy of our bodies, and recognize the residual inefficiencies (the appendix, for example, that poses a risk but seems to have no instrumental role within the alimentary system) without resorting to notions of design. It is very difficult to speak of systems without resorting to the language of design, but that points to a feature of our language, perhaps even a failure of our language, but in no way necessitates that there was a "designer" who "designed" our bodies. I do believe they came into being through a long, evolutionary process.
When I say "'intentionality' precedes consciousness and 'intention,'" I am NOT, however, denying that it has an effect on consciousness and intention. Indeed, in many ways, it brings consciousness into being. We can think of it this way: the "intentionality" or end state of my alimentary system is to be "full." When the tank is running low, so to speak, I begin to "feel" peckish and may even form the conscious "intention" to get a bite to eat. In the modern world, a whole range of instrumental acts are necessary to get back to "full" each of which might be preceded by a statement like "I meant to ..." In other words, I meant to get a bite, so I meant to get in the car, start it, drive to Micky D's, get a burger, et cetera. Although I was conscious of being hungry, I did not form the conscious intent to become hungry. Indeed, to suggest as much seems a bit absurd, but less absurd to suggest that hunger is inherent to my physical being, and my "feeling" hungry was no more than the blinking red light on the dash that suggests its time to visit a refueling station.
I might be splitting hairs a bit here, but bear with me. I want to differentiate between two types of "intentionality" -- what might be called "descriptive" and "prescribed" intentionality. Ultimately, this is an epistemological, not an ontological, distinction. We can understand the difference this way. We have "satisfied" the intentionality of our alimentary systems when our bodies have replenished their energy supply. We can describe the elements and functioning of the system, and the consciousness of "hunger" and "full" that comes into being relative to that functioning, but we did not "prescribe" it. It is possible, however, to think of a system that is wholly "prescribed." Imagine for the moment (my sic-fi side is about to come out) we wish to create a robotic system -- better yet an android that is, in fact, designed. It can function autonomously, and like us it needs "energy" to function, but there is nothing "natural" about it. It was, in fact, fully prescribed by humans. Our android is "energized" by a battery pack. When its charge reaches a certain lower limit, say 60% on the battery icon, it seeks out a recharging station and, well, recharges. Here I want to say that description precedes prescription. We can imagine the engineers laboring over the schematic drawings, getting it just right. Does the android "feel" hungry or full? At one level, I want to say "yes," but at another level it's a silly question. We are really asking if it "feels" hungry or full in the same way that we feel hungry or full, and the answer to that question is "most certainly not." Unless it were constructed in exactly the same way that we are constructed, down to the last neuron, it won't "feel" hungry or full in the way we "feel" hungry or full, but in its own way.
Sci-Fi interruption aside, my point is simply this: we can, in other words, prescribe or intend intentionality, and that is what we do when we create "systems," to include our governmental systems. Once intended, however, the intentionality takes on, so to speak, a life of its own. Rather than an android, which seems to beg the question of "life of its own," we can think of it as a simple game -- e.g. chess -- one in which we "play a part." At one point in the history of chess, the game itself was described or "intended." Engaging in the game may fulfill a larger purpose in one's overall life -- amusement, ego gratification, intellectual challenge, et cetera -- but considered within itself the progress of the game is "governed" by the purpose or intentionality of reaching a state of "checkmate." No matter who plays chess, for whatever reason beyond chess, the purpose or intentionality of chess itself remains the same, reaching a state of checkmate. It takes on, so to speak, a life of its own. We can imagine any number of government systems -- say, the department of motor vehicles. The activities of the DMV are "governed" by the satisfaction of the conditions of "driver's license granted (or denied)." Of course, not unlike chess, it may fulfill a broader purpose, -- the answer to the question of why one might have a DMV in the first place -- e.g. public safety -- but for the most part, when engaging the DMV, one simply plays the "DMV game," either as an employee or customer.
Let me extend the analogy of chess a bit. First, unlike hunger, we choose to play (or not play) chess. Having chosen to play chess, however, there is an understanding between the adversaries, however, that each will seek checkmate. In either case, the given intentionality, I want to say, provides the moral center of an activity. We understand hunger in others because we are obligated, on behalf of our own bodies, to seek food, and our unintended intentionality provides the basis for simple empathy. We do not feel an other's hunger, any more than we feel an others itch or orgasm, we have felt our own hunger, and so have some fundamental basis for understanding why others seek food. Likewise, we understand our opponent in the game of chess, because we are obligated to seek checkmate, moreover we are obligated to do so to the best of one's ability, and our intended intentionality provides the basis again for simple empathy. Regardless of one's extramural purpose for engaging in the game itself -- whether it be amusement ego gratification, intellectual challenge, or the like -- one feels fundamentally cheated to discover that one's opponent is, say, "throwing the game," even when there is nothing in the way of a bet on the game. To discover that one's opponent is not actively seeking checkmate strips away whatever extramural purpose for engaging the game in the first place.
So, when I say, "we cannot evade the moral question," I am saying at one level that we cannot evade the intentionality that motivates and governs our behavior. To do so, even in games, feels fundamentally "wrong." I should probably add a couple of qualifications. I mean "motivate" more or less literally. It sets our behavior in motion. I use the word govern, I have to say, in part more or less literally and in part for the larger implications. It is probably easy enough to imagine that, when hungry enough, our moment to moment decisions, what we do and don't do, are aimed at getting food, at eliminating the hunger. Kafka's story, "The Hunger Artist," is so deeply disturbing, in part because we have a sense that, in denying himself food, he is behaving toward himself in ways that are, not only uncanny, but fundamentally inhuman and immoral. Moreover, if the ends do not justify the means, they certainly rationalize the means. When hungry enough, stealing food may not be justified, but it is certainly comprehensible and rational, and provides a reason why it is difficult to "blame" a person for stealing food if he has gone hungry for a week. When hungry enough, cannibalism may still provoke a visceral repugnance, but it remains comprehensible and rational, and provides a reason why our "feelings" are so mixed when confronted with the desperation that led to such acts.
With a nod toward Pierce and James, it also serves to introduce the notion of "pragmatism." I am suggesting, through the back door, that the given intentionality of hunger "decides" pragmatically at one level or another the effectiveness of a behavior. Some acts work (and some do not work) to eliminate our hunger. Food is food, whether it is stolen or not, and will likely serve, instrumentally, to satisfy one's hunger. I am also suggesting that, although the given intentionality determines the instrumentality of our acts, our acts must be governed beyond their simple effectiveness -- that is to say, if we cannot evade the moral question, neither can we evade the ethical questions around how we go about fulfilling any given intentionality. When hungry enough, it may be difficult to "blame" a person for stealing food, but how hungry is "hungry enough?" If I'm just a bit peckish, most would consider it wrong for me to steal a Snickers bar from the local convenience store to satisfy that hunger, but if I'm actually beginning to starve, and do not have the means otherwise to procure food, most would consider it wrong, but perhaps excusable, to steal a loaf of bread.
Let me extend the analogy of chess a bit. First, unlike hunger, we choose to play (or not play) chess. Having chosen to play chess, however, there is an understanding between the adversaries, however, that each will seek checkmate. In either case, the given intentionality, I want to say, provides the moral center of an activity. We understand hunger in others because we are obligated, on behalf of our own bodies, to seek food, and our unintended intentionality provides the basis for simple empathy. We do not feel an other's hunger, any more than we feel an others itch or orgasm, we have felt our own hunger, and so have some fundamental basis for understanding why others seek food. Likewise, we understand our opponent in the game of chess, because we are obligated to seek checkmate, moreover we are obligated to do so to the best of one's ability, and our intended intentionality provides the basis again for simple empathy. Regardless of one's extramural purpose for engaging in the game itself -- whether it be amusement ego gratification, intellectual challenge, or the like -- one feels fundamentally cheated to discover that one's opponent is, say, "throwing the game," even when there is nothing in the way of a bet on the game. To discover that one's opponent is not actively seeking checkmate strips away whatever extramural purpose for engaging the game in the first place.
So, when I say, "we cannot evade the moral question," I am saying at one level that we cannot evade the intentionality that motivates and governs our behavior. To do so, even in games, feels fundamentally "wrong." I should probably add a couple of qualifications. I mean "motivate" more or less literally. It sets our behavior in motion. I use the word govern, I have to say, in part more or less literally and in part for the larger implications. It is probably easy enough to imagine that, when hungry enough, our moment to moment decisions, what we do and don't do, are aimed at getting food, at eliminating the hunger. Kafka's story, "The Hunger Artist," is so deeply disturbing, in part because we have a sense that, in denying himself food, he is behaving toward himself in ways that are, not only uncanny, but fundamentally inhuman and immoral. Moreover, if the ends do not justify the means, they certainly rationalize the means. When hungry enough, stealing food may not be justified, but it is certainly comprehensible and rational, and provides a reason why it is difficult to "blame" a person for stealing food if he has gone hungry for a week. When hungry enough, cannibalism may still provoke a visceral repugnance, but it remains comprehensible and rational, and provides a reason why our "feelings" are so mixed when confronted with the desperation that led to such acts.
With a nod toward Pierce and James, it also serves to introduce the notion of "pragmatism." I am suggesting, through the back door, that the given intentionality of hunger "decides" pragmatically at one level or another the effectiveness of a behavior. Some acts work (and some do not work) to eliminate our hunger. Food is food, whether it is stolen or not, and will likely serve, instrumentally, to satisfy one's hunger. I am also suggesting that, although the given intentionality determines the instrumentality of our acts, our acts must be governed beyond their simple effectiveness -- that is to say, if we cannot evade the moral question, neither can we evade the ethical questions around how we go about fulfilling any given intentionality. When hungry enough, it may be difficult to "blame" a person for stealing food, but how hungry is "hungry enough?" If I'm just a bit peckish, most would consider it wrong for me to steal a Snickers bar from the local convenience store to satisfy that hunger, but if I'm actually beginning to starve, and do not have the means otherwise to procure food, most would consider it wrong, but perhaps excusable, to steal a loaf of bread.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Moral Pragmatism -- Part II
So, when I write:
We cannot evade the moral question, nor can we hope to answer it, unequivocally, once and for all. It will, so speak, always be open to question and discussion, and there is likewise no evading the questioning and the discussion.
I am admittedly echoing Thoreau and Walden, a thinker and a text that has had a profound influence on my thinking. In the broad outline of my thought, I am also echoing Isaiah Berlin, another thinker that has had a profound influence on my thinking. I borrow the term "comprehensive doctrine" from him, and spin out to Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I am not sure where the influence of one begins or ends, but they are there, always, in the background, along with many other voices, central and marginal.
Having said that, there seems to be a yearning among the American people, at least today, for a strong and messianic "leader." Historically, we have good reason to be fearful of those who put themselves out as such, and perhaps enough has been said on that score, but indulge me just a moment. It would be delusional and counter-productive for anyone today to claim actual divinity within the populace, and those like the donald, with their overweening megalomania, claim to be, in themselves, the "embodiment" of a comprehensive doctrine. It is, as I've said, the messianic imperative to "follow me, for I am the path to salvation and greatness." In corporate life, and the large public organizations that envy the corporate life, there is an abundant valorization of "leadership" and those who possess it. I have heard the catch phrase -- "lead, follow, or get out of the way" -- too many times to count, and perhaps in corporate life, in the military, where a clarity of vision and the means to achieve it may well be necessary, so too "leadership" and the obedience it demands may well be necessary. In the sovereign state, however, what those who are not "in leadership," but who also refuse to follow, particularly when it is clear enough that the self-interest of leadership has trumped reciprocal moral obligations? It may be sufficient to "lay low," but what of those who refuse to follow, and likewise refuse to "get out of the way?" They are, so to speak, an impediment and must eventually be "PUT out of the way." Within the circumscribed boundaries of corporate life, the military, or even the "church," it is perhaps enough to put the impediment outside the boundaries -- fire them, discharge them, excommunicate them -- but within the sovereign state, what then?
In my youth, another catch phrase that was quite popular among bumper sticker thinkers, was "America, love it or leave it." There was much implied in such a statement that today, post Nixon, would be almost unthinkable. Loving America meant loving the leadership and their bellicose stand against the "red menace," but the prescription to "leave it" was, of course, for the most part meaningless. To avoid the draft, some did, of course, and the destination of choice was Canada, but for the vast majority of disaffected Americans, there was no "leaving," at least not voluntarily. I remember having the conversation with my father, even writing a letter to the Omaha Herald, to the effect that "freedom of speech" allowed us to give voice to our dissent, convince others to our point of view, and change either the minds of the existing leadership, or when the vote came round, change the existing leadership. I was, with all the energy of youth, aghast that so many seemed perfectly willing to contravene what I thought was, after all, a core American value, embodied in our first amendment, "freedom of speech." I am now, with all the cynicism of age, hearing the same refrain in the donald's imperative to "get him the hell out of here." Right now, of course, he is referring to the protestor's presence at his rally, and within the circumscribed space of the rally, not unlike the circumscribed space of a corporate board room, one might actually understand the imperative, but what would it mean were it expanded to the broader sovereign state? If the violence advocated against the protestor were extended outside the space of the rally? We are beginning to see the same confrontational politics that prevailed during the 60s spill over in, of all places, Chicago. So ...
It is perhaps not surprising that the immediate impulse of the leader, the fuhrer, the dictator, the ubermensch, the CEO, those who would be the embodiment of greatness and the one to take us to their greatness, is to shut down free speech. I have railed enough against "comprehensive" doctrines, or the even more dangerous "comprehensive" and messianic ego. They are dangerous in the most fundamental sense because they would "put out of the way" anything that contravenes their doctrine, or their ego, and we have seen enough evidence, throughout history, to believe that they would not be sent to a posh resort in the Bahamas. Both the comprehensive doctrine and the comprehensive ego are, in a fundamental sense, un-American. Our founding fathers recognized early on that "a perfect union" might be unattainable, but "in order to form a more perfect union," a variety of voices should be heard. If we cannot hope to answer, unequivocally, once and for all, the moral and ethical issues implicit to the question "how best to govern?" then free speech, and the dissent to the prevailing view that comes with free speech, is a necessary condition to our continuing attempts to provide, if not perfection, then more perfect provisional answers. Of course dissent always comes with risk -- one imagines Thoreau in the Concord jail and King in the Birmingham jail -- but both venues were rather posh compared to the concentration camp or the gulag.
Moral pragmatism aims at a "more perfect union," and more on that, with a touch of Kuhn, tomorrow perhaps ...
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Moral Pragmatism -- part I
In my previous series of posts, I touched on any number of things, but there is one that might deserve some elaboration. I do believe it possible (though perhaps very unlikely) that we could solve "problems" with moral pragmatism. First, of course, before we can even begin to address solutions, we need to answer the question, "what exactly is the problem?"
In theory and discussion
You would let your fears
Delay and distract you
You would make friends
Here, I would say any ad hominem answer -- that is to say, any answer that identifies a person or a group of people as the problem -- is inherently wrong. I might be accused of the ad hominem argument when speaking of the donald, but I don't think the donald is the problem, per se, but rather symptomatic of a deeper disease that we have only begun to diagnose. To identify a person as the core of a social problem, in the reductio ad absurdum world we inhabit, is ultimately to advocate assassination. If the donald were truly the root cause of our social malaise, then the only cure ultimately is the removal of the cause. I suspect that, were it possible to travel back in time, and assassinate Hitler, things might have been different, but it is highly dubious that the elimination of Hitler, per se, would have made things better, only different. There is a beautiful Dan Bern song that plays with this recognition. In it, he asks God to send him back to Berlin with a gun to assassinate Hitler, but God denies the request because, as God replies,
If I sent you back
You would get caught up In theory and discussion
You would let your fears
Delay and distract you
You would make friends
You would take a lover
The fears, theory and discussion, and the life that one lives at a specific time, in a specific place, would overwhelm one, even if one were not of that time, and really it is only in hindsight, given all the accidents of history, that we know to assassinate Hitler and not, say, Ernst Rohm. At the time, it may not have been as clear.
Likewise, to identify a group as the core of a social problem is ultimately to advocate for political, ethnic, religious, or racial cleansing. I suspect that there are deeply ingrained (and consequently deeply satisfying) traits that drive our penchant to vilify the other -- you know, the one's lurking, so to speak, out there in the bush, with spears and knives, lying in wait to kill the men, rape the women, and eat the children. I'm being a bit melodramatic around the "threat," but the vilification of the other drives a "banding together" to meet the threat, itself deeply satisfying It is even more satisfying because it is an appeal to the simple, the comprehensible, and the elemental conflict of the kindred good, those who are like us, those who are for us, against the evil other and all those against us. I am disparaging of "comprehensive doctrines," particularly comprehensive religious or political doctrine, even more particularly political doctrine justified by religious doctrine, because they lead very quickly to the reductio ad absurdum of "cleansing." The world would be peachy fine if only "they" were not in it. We have seen it play out, time and again, through history, and it is playing out again as we "reenact" the crusades. It is one thing to say, "I believe the evangelical right (or the secular left) is wrong about, well, nearly everything." It is another things to say, "the evangelical right (or secular left) is inherently evil." The first could, perhaps, potentially, maybe lead to discussion. The latter ultimately only to genocide.
Conversely, of course, any "solution" identified as a single person is ultimately wrong. Speaking historically and temporally, of course, neither Lenin, Hitler, the Christ or Mohammed have succeeded in "saving" us. The world has gone on fractionally pretty much as before, except that we have the residual comprehensive doctrines of Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, the New Testament, and the Koran, each of which purports to have the answer, once and for all, and provide boundaries for the fractures. Whether the latter two will save us in the next life is a matter for speculation, but none have saved us in this life. In the end, neither will the donald save us or this country, though he positions himself as the messiah and the messianic yearning among his followers for a savior is clear enough in his campaign rhetoric. Any "solution" identified with the empowerment of a single group is, likewise, wrong. I would hope it unnecessary to discuss Hitler's "final solution" at any length. We want to see the vilification of the jews as a blind prejudice, but having pledged never to forget, we have forgotten the depth and breadth of populist disdain for the jews. We have forgotten our own American reluctance to accept jewish refugees when the nazi pogroms became clear enough. We have forgotten how conveniently they focused and provided a justification for the exercise of repressive power. Any group has "identity" in the first place because there are boundaries that "identify" it, and in the end the opposing group must maintain the power of its "identity" by excluding and targeting those who cannot or will not conform. In the end, we have the nazi extermination camps, the soviet gulag, an exclusion and "cleansing" of one sort or another. One sort or another "cultural revolution" or another will always play out.
Having said that, what exactly do I mean then by moral pragmatism? Well, first of all, we cannot evade the "moral" question. I have given my take on this, here and there, but ultimately I believe there is the reciprocity of the so-called golden rule -- if I don't want someone killing me, then I am obligated to refrain from killing others -- if I don't want someone raping my wife or my daughters, then I am obligated to refrain from raping the wives and daughters of others -- et cetera. There is nothing "perfect" about the golden rule, and I don't think it provides us with anything that might resemble a "categorical imperative." Take the first example, I don't want someone killing me. True enough. I don't. Though I can think of circumstances where I might want to amend that statement (e.g. after a long, debilitating, and fruitless struggle against a terminal illness) generally speaking, for the most part, I don't want someone randomly killing me, as Johnny Cash might put it, "just to watch me die." Take the reciprocal obligation, that I must refrain from killing others. True enough. I should. Here again, I can think of circumstances where I might want to grant myself an exception (e.g if someone is threatening MY life) but generally speaking, for the most, usually, I really should refrain from killing others. Having said that, the categorical imperative, "thou shalt not kill" can't quite hold water in all circumstances, and even the more generous "thou shalt not murder" equivocates circumstantially around a definition of "murder." It is clearly "killing" but is it "murder" if I dispatch someone who attempts to rape my granddaughter? So on and so forth.
Nevertheless, despite all the equivocation, I still don't want someone killing me, or robbing me, or raping me, or lying to me, or ... there is quite a list. We cannot evade the moral question, nor can we hope to answer it, unequivocally, once and for all. It will, so speak, always be open to question and discussion, and there is likewise no evading the questioning and the discussion. Even with a twenty page definition of murder, outlining each and every possible exception that might conceivably permit one to take another's life, we would still need a court of law to question and discuss the definition of murder and whether a particular killing fits the definition. Here again, the golden rule applies as a point of departure. Were I the accused, I would WANT a full discussion, I would WANT my case to be presented, and so I am obligated to provide others, should they be the accused, with a full discussion. I say "legislature" and "court of law" in part because I am cynical enough to know that we, as human beings, are often quite clear on what we want, but not quite willing, always, to abide by the reciprocal obligation, particularly when our interests might be served by, well, granting ourselves an exception that we would not necessarily grant to others. Just as we cannot evade the moral question, we cannot evade the question of "law," but likewise, we cannot hope to codify our laws, unequivocally, once and for all. We would still need a legislative body to question and refine our understanding of the "law."
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Picketty Called It -- Part III
Let me be honest here. I have some sympathy with the tea partiers. In the admittedly simplistic formulation, I have fulfilled my obligation with the payment of taxes, but I have secured none of the rights. In the first year after my "forced" retirement, it seems I made too much money in the previous year and had too many assets in my retirement account to secure any benefits. Between my wife and I, we have over twenty years of service in the military, but we didn't "qualify" for VA benefits and no subsidy under the provisions of Obama Care, in part because of the income restriction, in part because we were "unemployed."
Consequently, we paid full freight for our insurance, which amounted to a bit over $800 a month, nearly twice what we are paying on our mortgage. This insurance carried with it a $5000 deductible, and co-pays of close to 50% after the deductible had been met. Under normal circumstances, we would never meet the $5000 deductible. Under dire circumstances -- say we had a $100K hospitalization and that is not inconceivable with my wife's health issues -- we would still be obligated for nearly $50K. To be frank, we made the $800 payment a couple of times, but we quit. Here's the thing. Over the course of the year, that amounted to $9,600, more than we could afford. We rolled the dice, and bet that we wouldn't have a dire need over the course of the year, and that our medical expenses wouldn't be more than $14,600 or the total out-of-pocket expenses of premiums and co-pays. Fortunately our bet paid off and we moved through the year in good health.
We now qualify for the subsidies, and we are making payments similar to my employee contribution when I was employed, but here's the other thing. We still have the humongous deductible and co-pays. If something were to happen, if we had that $100K hospitalization, the hospital would get $50K, but I'm not sure how we would pay the remaining $50K without surrendering ALL our assets. I haven't explored the bankruptcy laws of late, but I'm pretty sure that we would need to exhaust all our available means before we could write off any remaining debt. In short, the dire circumstances would be dire regardless. The hospital is protected, perhaps not to the extent that they would like to be protected, but we are only marginally protected and the hospital would continue to have dunning rights. On top of the health issues, we would have a plethora of financial issues to confront.
And here's one more thing. Health care is expensive. We all know this of course, but it's like toilet paper. When you need it, you need it, and you'll pay for it. The Post the other day ran an insightful little story about why the poor pay more for toilet paper. The bottom line is this: they don't have access to or the means to take advantage of cost saving strategies (no access to Costco and no funds to buy in bulk regardless). Consequently, they pay full retail, often the full retail of a convenience store. As the article concluded, it's expensive to be poor, and indeed it is. We could, for example, get a more expensive plan, which would protect us better against the shock of a major hospitalization, but the bottom line is this: we can't afford it and the benefits aren't THAT much better. Moreover, with the deductible, we are postponing or avoiding routine, mostly preventative medical care. Think of it this way. Although the cost of a routine visit would go toward our deductible, and preventative care might well mitigate a more catastrophic event later, it still represents an out of pocket expense, money thrown into a black hole. Most American families have to look at a $200 expense and weigh this against that. I won't say they always make the most prudent decisions, but there are always more pressing day-to-day needs and wants.
So, my tax dollars are at work, but I do feel some resentment that they are most definitely not working very hard for me. The resentment is fueled in part by an invidious comparison. I do, that is, see others for whom they seem to be hard at work. Take, for example, my buddy Mike. I won't get the story exactly right. It came in dribs and drabs when he came into our shop, but the general outline goes something like this: He is an immigrant, born in Ireland, and brought to the US to stay with relatives. He served two years in the military, and at a relatively young age, he had a motorcycle accident which left him with "back problems." Although he probably can't do construction work (his trade before the accident) he is not so disabled that he couldn't seek one form of work or another. Let me put it this way, he is no more disabled than my wife, who suffers from a degenerative arthritis of the spine. She has had three back surgeries, but nevertheless manages to be employed as a hospice worker. Mike, however, remains unemployed. He has access to the VA system, which keeps him supplied with hydrocodone for "pain management." He also receives disability benefits through the social security administration. Perhaps it is one of those ironies that those states that draw most heavily on the federal larders are also the most "republican." There are plenty of Mike's around Mountain Home. One doesn't need to look long or hard for those milking the system, which probably fuels resentments across a broad spectrum of the working and middle class families in the area.
I regret my resentment, but there it is nevertheless. This by way of saying, I don't have many illusions about the poor of this country. I could, for example, have talked about my other buddy Brad. He had to count out pennies to buy a single fly in the shop, but he seems to have sufficient resources to maintain a cigarette habit. The one time I did go fishing with him, he also seemed to have sufficient resources to buy weed. He had illusions as a youth of being a rodeo and country music star, but he is now a fifty year old man who hasn't quite outgrown the illusions. He lives with and on the benefits of his elderly mother. I could, for example, have talked about ... the list goes on. When we had our store, I watched a daily stream of "them" going into the thrift store across the way. I try very hard avoid judgement, but when they meandered into our store, obese, tattooed, reeking of cigarette smoke, with poor hygiene and very often overweening supercilious "attitude," it was difficult NOT to judge. One such, who came into the shop looking for worms, told me that "fly fishing was for people who liked 'play with themselves,'" and went around poking fun at everything in the store, and couldn't leave without a gratuitous comment about that "nigger Obama." This by way of saying, again, I don't have many illusions about the poor of this country. Although it might have been easier to romanticize the noble poor of the depression, I can't romanticize them today because there is little to romanticize.
The American social state is broken. Those it "serves," like the Mike's of this world, can't really respect it, in part because they get their benefits through what amounts to a scam. Those who administer the systems can't respect the recipients of benefits, in part because they know they are being scammed and can't do much about it. Those who are outside it, watching, can't help but feel some resentment that their tax dollars are going into a morass. The idea, for example, that Muslim foreigners would come into the country, as refugees, and no doubt get benefits, sends many over the top. Regardless whether or not it is true, the idea ... The political parties appeal to an amalgam of isolated attitudes about mostly base emotional "issues," with little ability or desire to actually address fundamental problems within the government rationally with solutions. Although I tend to lean toward the progressive left, and feel the so-called conservative revolution that began with Reagan and Thatcher is responsible for much of our current malaise, I am not exempting my progressive brethren from the general malaise. Bernie might be the antithesis of Trump, but he is gaining the traction he has gained fueled by the same resentments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)