March 31, 2010
Education is Progressive Part 15: Empowering Students
Last week, I had a troubling experience while administering an exam in one of my classes, one that drives many teachers into a hissy fit, but fails to perturb me. I noticed one of my better students in the class, staring at a nearby student, then realized that the reason she was doing that was because he had his class notes out. I went to check it out, and reminded him that class notes are not allowed on exams, and mentioned that perhaps he did not know that, as I may not have made that clear. While I was over there, I noticed two gals who are friends, also with the notes of one of them out. I told them to put their notes away, and the one closer to me said something to the effect that she was about to do that, since she heard me talking to the other student.
The student who alerted me to the problem wrote a note on her test stating that she wished I wouldn't let these students "get away with" using their notes on the test, and that the gal who spoke with me "flipped me off" after I turned around. I did not have much room to reply to her on her exam, but I wanted to write something. After scoring her exam, I wrote that I could easily compose a ten page response to her, but in the space given, I would mention several points, which I paraphrase here:
1. My occasional tentative experience with open note/open book exams has shown me that they don't really help the students get better scores. What helps them get better scores on their exams is paying attention in class, taking good notes, and studying, so that they won't have to search for answers during the exam, which is very time consuming and inefficient;
2. Many of these students may be used to open book/open note exams, the way that high schools are run in this area these days, so they may honestly expect my exams to be that way. They probably weren't trying to cheat, in my opinion. (It was too obvious to be a serious cheating attempt.) In any case, I use the innocent until proven guilty principle;
3. I feel one of my strengths is that I provide a calm, rational, caring role model for students who may not have that at home. Many of my students have probably been raised on welfare, by single moms, or irrational, flighty, or emotionally harsh parents. Unfortunately, that is pretty much the reality of the community where I live, and probably much of the United States. I concluded that I choose a loving approach to teaching over harshness and anger.
After returning the exams, the student who wrote the note seemed to understand and agree with my point of view.
I should mention here that the reason I don't have open note or open book tests is that this is not the way things are done at universities, and I hope to help give as many of my students as possible the training they will need in order to go on to university and be successful students. Another reason is that students need to build up their long term memory for information presented in class. It is not because I think using the book or notes unfairly helps students during exams. In fact, I encourage them to use their notes and book, before exams as much as they please. By the way, the results of the exam were that, the student who alerted me to the note-using had an "A" on the exam, and the 3 students in question had a "C," a "D" and an "F" on the exam, even after "curving" the exam. A year ago, I had a course in which a group of 4 students with possible ADHD were chatterboxes, even during exams, which gave some of the other students the impression that they were cheating. As a result, I repeatedly warned these students to be quiet during exams and concentrate on their work, which never seemed to effect their behavior. In fact, they might have been discussing some of the questions inappropriately during the exam, but it never seemed to help their scores. As I recall, 3 of them had "Fs" as their final grades for the course, and the other, a "D." They probably would have done better on the tests if they had concentrated on doing their tests instead of talking.
There are two psychological approaches which have great application to teaching, in my opinion. One is the behaviorist principle of "shaping," along with the behaviorist principle of "modeling" good behavior. The other is the humanistic principle of unconditional positive regard. Shaping is the process of rewarding successive approximations to a desired, complex behavior with the aim of eventually training individuals to perform the complex behavior, first described by B. F. Skinner. Unconditional positive regard is the attitude advocated by Carl Rogers as the primary means to facilitate self-actualization. It means something like trusting in and having confidence in someone, that the person will do something good for society as a result of the person's natural desire to develop his or her own capacities and talents as a good person. Also helpful in facilitating self-actualization are empathy, honesty and being a good listener. These principles are essentially the basis for Rogers' Client Centered Therapy, which is the most popular psychotherapy technique worldwide, but they have many other applications as well, including the teaching endeavor, and relationships in general.
We cannot expect all students to have well-shaped behaviors, such as good test taking skills, paper writing skills, or classroom behavior, but teachers can help shape such behaviors over time. In fact, the grading process is essentially a way of shaping a student's behavior and exam responses, a process which continues as long as the student continues to go to school. Meanwhile, perhaps even more important than the shaping process, is the caring attitude of the teacher toward the students, modeling unconditional positive regard, empathy, honesty and listening skills, as Rogers described. While the teacher of a single course in a students' life may not be a big influence, one never knows. I believe there are cases where a teacher has a major positive impact on a student's life, not so much because of the teacher's teaching, but because of the life lessons taught by the teacher, and the teacher's caring attitude. Certainly, as a whole, teachers are an important influence, hopefully a positive one. Applying these humanistic techniques for the facilitation of self-actualization, is a way of empowering students. The self-actualization process is essentially a process of empowering people, allowing them to make good decisions, using their free-will. Shaping is the process of showing people the way, using reinforcement, and encouraging people to follow the lead of the teacher. The teacher not only reinforces correct behavior and responses, but models them as well.
A well adjusted person is one who exhibits both good socialization and individuation. Individuation is a psychological term for a person who has developed productive individual talents as a person, and a healthy personality. Education is not only about knowledge acquisition, learning how to acquire knowledge, or encouraging creativity; it is also about socialization in a broad sense, and individuation in a positive, prosocial direction. That is, education is about the dual tasks of shaping students' futures, while empowering them to make good decisions and develop their capacity to be good, caring people. Both are needed; empowerment without self-discipline, adequate knowledge or prosocial concern is a dangerous thing, but empowerment combined with self-discipline, good knowledge and prosocial concern is a wonderful, essentially progressive thing, and a blueprint to success in life.
March 28, 2010
Education is Progressive Part 14: Education is a Tortoise, Not a Hare
We have probably all heard of the story of the Tortoise who beat a Hare in a race. I have come to realize that the effects of education are Tortoise-like, and that the impatient, flighty Hares among us may get the most attention, but have few practical solutions while creating many problems.
Cognitive psychologists over the years have increasingly focused on information processing as the key to learning and cognitive development. It used to be thought that cognitive development occurs in stages (as in Piaget's approach), with sudden shifts from one form of understanding to another. Now, information processing theorists believe that cognitive development, memory, knowledge base and learning are incremental. We learn a little bit more every day, not only as children, but also as adults. The Tortoise moves forward a little farther everyday.
Education facilitates the Tortoise-like process of incremental learning. Students who try to compete in courses they are not ready for, usually fail. Knowledge builds upon prior knowledge; learning builds upon prior learning. Even as a professor, new research and new textbooks update one's knowledge incrementally, as new information becomes available.
So it is in politics as well. I have encountered many people who are frustrated, ready to demonize all politicians, including those in the Obama administration, and are basically screaming for the change they wanted when they elected Obama. I can understand their frustration, but with all the progressive things that the Obama administration is trying to do, I don't really agree with it. I think Obama has realized, as have I, that essentially 28 years of conservative rule in the United States has done great harm, entrenched conservatism in powerful places, and damaged our institutions in ways that will take a long time to repair. Short of total social chaos and its destructiveness, anything we do to make progress requires patience at this time.
I do believe that there are turning points or tipping points in history, but they only happen when the groundwork has been laid. Had Einstein been born in the stone age, he would never have had the chance to develop his insights into the nature of the universe, for example. It is education that builds the groundwork for progress; education prepares a fertile soil for good ideas to grow in. We may be on the verge of reaching a tipping point in history now, but if so, that is only because of the work of generations to prepare us for what is to come, much as the work of generations of civil rights minded people prepared us for the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. For now, we must plod forward, like the Tortoise in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare, and hope we reach that finish line, that tipping point, in time. Perhaps we are closer than we know. But on the other hand, the regressive and repressive forces of social conservatism, monied interests who support social conservatives, and the inertia of history all impede our progress and make only slow plodding possible.
Take heart in history's (including evolution's) long, patient, progressive arc, my progressive friends. Know that history does not truly repeat itself, but rather, as one bright fellow with a British accent -- whose name escapes me -- said recently, history rhymes. I rather think of history as being like DNA, the double helix, the inner left side progressive, the outer right, conservative, but they both spiral upward like a staircase. No matter how hard the right side tries to keep the left side from moving forward, the left side still drags the right along with it. I think of education as building the steps upward, one at a time, until at some point, the Tortoise wakes up one day and realizes he is ready to fly -- not because he sprouted wings, but because he and his Tortoise friends and relatives of all Tortoise ages, genders and races and nationalities built an airplane.
Political Gangbanging – Being a Revolutionary when your guy won!
I’d like to think I am pretty engaged in politics. I mean I watch a lot of news, I read a lot online and I get out to the occasional political rally. Well there are a lot of things that bother me about the political climate in America today and being that I am a Black man, obviously the Tea Bag Movement is one of them. Since the Health Insurance Reform Bill passed these Tea Baggers have gone crazy! I mean seriously crazy! Calling Democratic Politicians and threatening them, their families. What about cutting gas lines at the homes of the brother of a Democratic Politician or death threats and "baby killer" talk on the voicemail of Bart Stupak? Really, how the hell is Bart Stupak a baby killer? Do they even know how hard ol’ Bart worked it to get the abortion language to his liking? I doubt it, or maybe it doesn’t matter since they hate Obama so much.
Now I am far from a punk! I’m not saying I’m the toughest guy in California, not even close, but I ain’t no punk. Back in the day I did my fair share of dirt. So I when I see Tea Baggers out there yelling "nigger" to American heroes like Congressman John Lewis or calling a Black man like Obama a Nazi (when we all know they go home and their kids are the ones with the swastika tattoos) or when I see them openly carrying weapons at what are supposed to be political rallies, I get upset and want to respond with the same shit, but I can’t because that would be wrong. Sometimes when I get with a group of my friends and family we talk about these cowards, a lot. Probably more than we should. Someone will say "Man I wish one of them Tea Baggers would come to me talking that shit" or "Stop with the Nazi mess" or "You know what they really want to call him is nigger".
It seems to me that things are starting to look like the 60’s. That is a scary thought right? What if these racists get crazy like they did in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s? I mean they used to hang Black people, White people who associated with Black people, Immigrants and whoever else they didn’t like, right? Today it would be the same people but let’s not forget the Gays, Latinos, Progressives, Muslims, Jews, you get the point right? The Right wing was crazy back then!
But, they weren’t the only active ones! Back then the Left wing had a lot of "fire power" themselves, right? There was Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzales, Cesar Chavez, The Black Panthers, the Weather Underground, Revolutionary Youth Movement, Students for a Democratic Society, Gay Liberation Front, there are tons more but you get the point. To me, the Left wing was a lot more politically active back in the day.
Fast forward to when George W. Bush woke a sleeping beast in America that eventually leads to us electing our first Black President. Electing our first Black President leads us to the Tea Bagger Movement. What will the Tea Bagger Movement lead us to?
Let me start off by saying that I am not encouraging us on the Left to fight back the same way the Tea Baggers do. I mean we could though, right? I just gave you a list of activists from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and some of them were non-violent and some were extremely violent! Remember "By Any Means Necessary" wasn’t just a slogan!
The corporatists, fascists and real Nazi’s have their "soldiers" on the street; they are Tea Baggers, who will be ours on the left? Will we have civilized discourse on our side as demonstrated by the Coffee Party Movement? Or will the "intimidation" delivered from the Tea Bags lead to another Black Panther Movement or Weather Underground?
People forget that the Panthers used to associate with like minded "White" and Latino groups! I mean the way things are now, a lot of the time Blacks and Latinos have beef, but what if they get smart and realize that we have a bigger enemy than each other. What if Black Gangs and Latino Gangs took their beef and directed it at the real enemy? What if Rollin’ 60’s Crip Gang, Bounty Hunter Blood Gang, 18th St Gang and MS13 Gang decided that there were bigger fish to fry? What if they decided that those fish wear hats with Tea Bags hanging from them?
Now I don’t recommend these gangsters grabbing their AK’s and Uzi’s or how about just the one’s with legal guns and going to the Restore the Constitution Open-Carry Rally April 19th, 2010 at Fort Hunt National Park in VA to show off their heat. I mean the Black Panthers did it at the State Capitol in CA in 1967. Would that be a good look now? Probably not! We’d be like the Tea Bags. Plus we all know what happened to the Panthers and we know what would happen if Blacks and Latinos showed up at one of these. But what I do recommend is that we start linking together for a bigger cause; for a bigger fight and I also recommend that we do it smart!
The Right has teamed up the Republicans, Tea Baggers, Anti-Abortion groups, Ant-Gay groups, Corporatists etc. We need to do the same! We need to respectfully communicate with our natural allies!(BTW, some of our "natural allies" actually think they are Tea Baggers, we need to work on that) We need Blacks, Latinos, Progressives, Gay Groups, Anti-War groups and even Hip-Hop heads and Gangsters to take a minute to get engaged. Make sure everyone you know who is eligible to vote, votes! Try to attend a rally or two this year! Donate to a cause or to a politician you believe in. Like we sometimes say "Don’t talk about it, be about it!"
A lot of racism and hate is directed at the Blacks and Gays, but as we touch on the Immigration issue, please believe Latinos will get there turn to be called all kinds of names.
The Left has a tendency to in-fight, but I know that when we all get our heads on right we are capable of making a huge amount of noise! The Tea Baggers are on TV everyday! We should be too! We need to make a scene! Now we need to be smart about it, but we need to make a scene. I don’t mean intimidate them; most of them are scared cowards already, nah we need to show them that we can play politics too! We can rally too! We can raise money too! We showed some backbone in the Healthcare debate down the stretch, but we aren’t done!
Imagine a Movement where Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Asians, Gays, Labor Unions, Anti-War groups and other Progressive minded groups got together and made something happen? Wait a second, we have done this recently! November 2008 we all got together and even grabbed some people from the other side of the aisle and made something happen! We made Obama the President of the United States! Let’s make it happen again in the 2010 Mid Terms! We can push the Republicans all the way out of here if you want to!
Get up! Stand up! Make something happen! NOW!
Macarone
DOP Inc Records/WATCH OUT for the GOP Movement
http://www.thedopincrecords.com/
Check out DOP Inc Records/WATCH OUT for the GOP for the latest Political Hip-Hop, News Videos and more.
March 22, 2010
Education is Progressive Part 13: The True Protectors of Freedom
We have all heard of academic freedom. Those professors who have taught long enough, can get tenure, so that they are free to teach and do research as they see fit. We have also all heard of the slogan "Freedom is not free." It must be paid in blood, so the thinking goes. "We must fight for our freedoms," literally, conservatives say, thus justifying war as a noble cause. If not for war, we would be slaves to the world's tyrants, so we owe our freedom to our brave warriors, is the implication. The reason that we fight all these wars (and occupy all these nations) is to make us free, so say conservatives. Thus, we are the most free nation in the world, say these American exceptionalists.
In this post, I will combine my thoughts on war and freedom, about which I have written before, with my thoughts about the progressive nature of education.
I thought of this topic at least a year ago, while writing about war. I more or less forgot about it, until last week, Thom Hartmann's quote of the day one day was the following by Civil War ear politician Edward Everett: "Education is a better safeguard of our liberty than a standing army." Thanks for reminding me, Thom!
It is in the classroom that the battle for freedom is truly fought, and the truth and freedom warriors who promote peace, prosperity and progress are its teachers! I am aware that not all teachers do a good job of teaching students to value and understand human rights, but by and large, they do. Civics has become a lost topic that should be taught regularly, but no longer is. We do still teach the Bill of Rights, and progressive ideas through a plethora of topics, particularly in the social sciences. Not only that, but we back it up through research which shows why progressive values and ideas work better than the regressive ones promoted by conservatives.
Freedom is more about how our own mental processes restrict us or not, than how we are allowed to behave by others. It is our mental processes -- thoughts and feelings -- which lead us to make the decisions that we do, and lead to our behaviors. Our mental processes also are largely what restricts our behavior, to not be free. Our desire to "fit in" leads to conformity in most people, which is not free behavior. Our fears may lead to restricted behavior, with both figurative and literal locked gates and shutters on our windows. And of course, people who would arbitrarily take away or restrict the freedoms of others, are closed-minded people. Open-minded people are free people, and closed-minded people are not. It is both open-minded educators, and students, as well as other open-minded people, who protect our freedoms.
Education leads to open-mindedness. That is the crux of the freedom issue, whether it involves the protection of human rights, the promotion of peace, the appropriate use of science, building a more progressive political system, or whatever. People who are open-minded do these things; people who are closed-minded do not. Education is also sequential and incremental in its effects. It acts as more of a tortoise than a hare, but over time, we look up and find that, with education, the world is transformed in wonderful ways we had barely dreamed of. I guess that is why I am more of a tortoise than a hare, metaphorically speaking. I would like to see instant fixes to our problems, but that is not realistic. As an ancient Chinese proverb says: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Before we know it, with a well educated society, we will have made that thousand mile walk to freedom.
Note: Edward Everett, whose biography I just checked on Wikipedia, was a brilliant person who graduated from Harvard at the age of 17, and eventually, became a progressive politician in the mid 1800s. He also was a well known speaker, who gave the 2 hour speech just prior to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. (I guess he was warming up the audience.)
We got our first Black President, They want him to fail
They say if you ain’t Conservative, You going to Hell,
But my God don’t play no Politics
If he had to vote I bet it’d be Obama b*tch!
Ya’ll fools more dumb than Potsie
How you gonna call a Black Man a Nazi
Those are some lyrics, now check out the video for
SOMETIMES I… by Macarone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0VmD8yMnc8&feature=player_embedded
Download free at www.thedopincrecords.com
March 17, 2010
Education is Progressive Part 12: The Internet is Giving me Cause for Hope
There is plenty of cause for despair among seekers of truth and freedom. "Freedom of the press" was enshrined in the U.S. Consitution as a principle of our nation from its inception. However, our so-called free press does not seem so free anymore. Propaganda has bloomed all around -- in advertisements, radio, and even newspapers and news television. People with excess money have long since figured out, with or without help from marketing researchers, that propaganda is effective, as long as it is not labelled as such. What is actually mind-numbing propaganda is labelled as "news," "advertisements," "information," "time-honored tradition," or entertainment based on "true events." Over time, media outlets have become more and more effective at using propaganda rather than facts to influence public opinion. Since the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, the door to monied interests, even foreign ones, has been thrown even wider open. Meanwhile, even our textbooks are subject to the vagaries of the conservative dominated Texas School Board, for reasons which are bizarrely puzzling to me. Why don't we have the California School Board decide what to put in textbooks? After all, this is the most populous state. We should have textbook industries, and authors, more broadly distributed. (By the way, textbooks are overpriced, and virtually all from Texas, along with many of their authors -- just what I would expect from a Texas dominated industry, though.)
Where is one to turn for unbiased information? Thank God, we have the internet to turn to. At least for the time being, the internet is relatively open, and we continue to enjoy net neutrality. Of course, people have diverse opinions and points of view which they express on the internet, but these do not represent systematic biases such as presented in the media, biases which serve the purposes of those who control the message. The internet, along with public television and those few media outlets which can be trusted to give good information, serve the public's need for knowledge. The internet has become an adult education tool. As much has been clearly stated to me by several of my internet friends. Educational and informational websites, blogs and personal communications have enlightened a large portion of the public. The internet has helped unite us, and played a crucial role in creating the presidency of Barack Obama. I believe that the internet will continue to play a crucial role in swinging the pendulum of public opinion and politics in a progressive direction in the future.
At this time, it is the internet which will give us the best opportunity to undo the damage being done by the monied interests who control the messages we are all exposed to. For example, outrage over the Citizens United decision has resulted in popular movements on the internet to protest this decision and counteract its effects. Groups opposed to this decision have been forming and growing on social networking sites such as Facebook. Such groups make great sources of free information. Similarly, groups in favor of comprehensive health care reform -- something that would give us guaranteed low-cost health care as enjoyed in other nations -- have been growing on the internet. On the other hand, conservative movements such as the Teabaggers have certainly been aided by the internet, but the primary point is that the internet aids in open communication and the exchange of information, even between adversaries. Just recently, I had an adversarial discussion on Facebook with a high school student who is a "free-market" conservative type who insisted that we live in a constitutional republic, which according to him, precludes our nation from being a representative democracy. Since my wife and I recently bought a new car, which actually has a radio that works well, I discovered that there is a local conservative radio station. What I listened to has made me angry enough to seriously consider invading some conservative websites to provide an alternate viewpoint. Why do I hear conservatives on progressive radio programs, but never hear progressives on conservative ones? It has also given me some ideas for blog posts.
Also, I have discovered NPR (National Public Radio), which at times seems distressingly wedded to free-market economics ideology, while at other times, has encouragingly progressive programming. One of the most encouraging segments I have listened to was about how many parts of the U.S. still lack broadband internet access, with perhaps 1/3 of the U.S. population being so affected, myself included, even though I live in a city of at least 150,000-200,000 people. (We'll know better after the census information is in.) The show highlighted Trinity County at the northern end of California, a beautiful area I have been to on occasion. There is no broadband access in the entire county. Why? AT & T has deemed the project too unprofitable to go ahead with. An elementary school in Trinity County hooked up cable access to the internet for $5,000, but it doesn't even work properly. This documentary clearly put the blame at the feet of large communications companies such as AT&T (making me think about quitting my AT&T phone service). Clearly, government intervention is needed, was the implication of the show, which was touting a proposal by the Obama administration to create broadband access nationwide. This will make the internet even more powerful as a public educational resource and instrument of progress than it already is.
As long as we keep the internet a tool for open communication, it will remain one of our best, if not the best, tool for people power. The internet is the ultimate tool of public education, as well as the ultimate tool of populism. Of course, we could always use allies in the media, but on the internet, the people control the message, not the media. Ultimately, they will have to listen to us.
The future is here, and it is called the internet. May we use it to create an ever more educated electorate.
March 12, 2010
Education is Progressive Part 11: Students are Giving me Cause for Hope
Yesterday after my first class, I had a conversation about politics with two of my students, Yvette and Andrew. A few days before that, one of my students in the same class told me that she was going after class to the rally against the tuition increases at the University of California. I explained the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case to Yvette and Andrew, and how the Obama administration is fighting an uphill battle against entrenched corporate interests. Both of them totally got it. In fact, they helped me with it. Andrew mentioned that Obama must have found out that he wasn't as powerful as he thought he would be as President, and I confirmed that essentially that seems to be true -- much of the power has already been apportioned to corporations, to the wealthy, to the Supreme Court, something that most of us rarely think about. I told Yvette and Andrew that we are up against a wall, and we can't just blow it down; we need to chip away at it, and eventually, it will come down. "I see it that way, too" said Yvette, this didn't happen in a day, and it won't be undone in a day, but it needs to be undone, she related to me.
I think the attitudes of Yvette and Andrew are fairly typical of college students now. These are not students at an elite school, either, but community college students who may constitute a large portion of the future electorate. It is clear to me that we are not talking about low information voters, here. They are putting their education to use, broadening their perspectives and seeing how our society operates more and more clearly as time goes on. I have gone through the same process, myself, although I have innately always been a progressive. For all I know, there could be a sudden progressive revolution, or on the other hand, World-Mart could happen, but I doubt either of those will happen. I think our future electorate will chip away at the conservative military-industrial-political-religious alliance which has been thrust upon America, until eventually, there are only remnants of it remaining. It will take many years, but these people are young, and they have many years to do so -- if not them, then the next generation, and the next. I plan to stick around as long as I can, myself, and I am in very good health.
Another community college student who gives me cause for hope is my good friend from the internet, David Walker. He may not be typical of our young adults today, but he certainly represents a growing portion of America, who see that populist actions for progressive causes, is the way to make our future brighter. David just made the Dean's List at his community college in Chicago. With people such as David out there fighting the good fight for the public, I feel better about our future.
Of course, reality will surely slap us in the face eventually, showing us what atrocities humankind has commited against the planet, and against each other, as global warming continues, fossil fuel and food supplies dwindle, and mass extinctions continue. I believe that the current generation of young adults, and subsequent generations, will understand how we need to change our worldview. They will expect a good and inexpensive education, and if they don't get it, will protest in large numbers until they do. If universities become unaffordable, they will go to community colleges such as mine. There, they will receive the information they need to help them understand the realities we face in this world. Once they understand this, they will do what is necessary to create a better reality for us all.
To me, college is not some place other than "the real world." It is the real world. Those who live in the fantasy world of big business, with its delusional billionaire superstars, are the ones who are not living in the real world. These few individuals who are so fortunate as to be billionnaires, not because of inheritance, but because of their business, seem to fancy themselves to be "self-made" billionnaires, as I heard them referred to on NPR yesterday. What nonsense! It is the system, and the work and money of countless other persons, which allows these few people to become billionnaires. If I could, I would send all of these billionnaires back to college, to live as students with little money, so that they could learn what the real world is like. But given that is not possible, I am glad we have a generation of progressive minded young, informed voters and political activists to bring our power structure back to reality.
March 7, 2010
This is a revision of a post which I originally wrote on July 25, 2008. Ordinarily, I am not one to engage in apocalyptic or pessimistic visions of the future, but I think it would be appropriate to take a glimpse into the future in the case that political conservatism and corporatism prevail. I do not think this will happen, but if it does, we could wind up with World-Mart in charge. By happenstance, my wife asked me to take her shopping this afternoon to a place near the relatively new Super Wal-Mart here in Moreno Valley, after I had already started revising this post. Thus it was that we decided to go there for the first time ever, to buy some things she wanted. While there, I couldn't help but think that this represented the future of our world -- huge megastores with relatively little competition, and relatively fixed, not-so-cheap prices. My wife agreed with me about the not-so-cheap prices, for sure. Once we went inside, we heard a tremendous thunderclap, followed by the nearly deafening sound of heavy rain on the aluminum roof. When we left, the downpour was still ongoing, yet the late afternoon sun was shining, and a huge, beautiful complete rainbow was visible just to our east, from end to end, perhaps the most beautiful rainbow I have ever seen. Was that an auspicious sign? I don't know; I try not to be superstitious, but it seemed like a good sign.
World-Mart
After finishing their educations at the World-Mart chain of high schools, colleges and universities, where each receptive young mind was indoctrinated with World-Mart approved information, including its version of history, every young man was expected to apply for a position at World-Mart. Of course, it wasn't really a matter of being hired or not, so much as a matter of what position the individual would get. The better connected the applicant, the better the position, in general. Women could apply also, but only single women, and they only were given the more menial positions (greeter, cashier, stock clerk), especially since women had been banned from going to college. On the other hand, World-Mart was extremely generous. They could afford to be, since they basically owned everything, including our government. Every new employee was assigned a house in a World-Mart community. They had a choice of World-Mart doctors, and local World-Mart stores in which to fulfill their shopping needs. Of course, only approved World-Mart products were allowed. And prior to going to live in a World-Mart community, each person had to sign a document absolving World-Mart of any legal responsibility. Furthermore, since World-Mart controlled the entire housing market, there was no place to live other than a World-Mart community. Consequently, no one could sue World-Mart. At home, television viewers and radio listeners had a choice of several World-Mart stations, all plying the individual's psyche with appropriate propagandistic drivel chosen by World-Mart executives. On Sundays, all citizens were required to attend one of several World-Mart run churches.
Welcome to the world of 2110, a world in which World-Mart, the winner of a world-wide unrestrained capitalistic game of Monopoly, is in charge of the entire world. World-Mart had begun as a state run department store named Ah-Geng, in China, the world's most populous nation, and had used it's privileged position and the fact that other nations such as the U.S. were greatly in debt to China, as leverage to eventually gain world domimance. The corporation changed its name from Ah-Geng to its final form, World-Mart, after acquiring Wal-Mart. Also used to gain power was the all-to-easy to sell meme that "government is bad," which was promoted by companies such as World-Mart. Of course, they failed to mention that the alternative to government was corporate control, which is worse than even bad government, and infinitely worse than good government. In fact, there was only one viable political party left in the United States, the ironically named People's Party, which had effectively squelched all opposition one way or another, until there was barely a whimper of protest remaining. The presidential elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008 in the United States, all close and controversial elections, were looked back upon by historians and World-Mart's owners as crucial in the story of World-Mart's ascendency to power. In 2000, conservative Republican George W. Bush became president despite losing the popular vote, and despite the fact that he should have lost the electoral vote, as well, thanks to his friends in high places. In 2004, George W. Bush won another close election, although there were suspicious circumstances occuring in some areas, especially Ohio. In 2008, despite African-American Democrat Barack Obama's historic victory, the corporate class warfare on the middle class continued. Strangely, even when supposedly progressive Presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and Democrat dominated congresses, were elected, U.S. government policy continued to become more and more corporate friendly, as though these administrations were operating under some sort of never-mentioned dire threat from corporate America. Also crucial in humanity's slide was a decision by the conservative dominated Supreme Court approximately one year after Obama's election, giving corporations the right to spend as much money as they wanted to in order to promote candidates and political causes who favored them. After that, not only American history, but world history was all downhill, as corporations solidified their worldwide dominance of life in the 21st century. Even relatively affluent socialist minded nations which resisted the tide of World-Mart's dominance, were boycotted, harassed and even militarily invaded into eventual submission by World-Mart. Of course, the historians who wrote the history were all empoyees of World-Mart, so their version of history celebrated these events as great turning points for the better, and failed to mention anything about the controversies and suspicious circumstances surrounding these elections. Similarly, politicians, being funded soley by World-Mart, voiced the official World-Mart version of history.
Meanwhile, executives at World-Mart's world headquarters in Beijing were in charge of setting policy. For example, the official policy for the United States included teaching its citizens that the United States was the "world's greatest nation" and the "world's greatest democracy." America was "the land of the free and the home of the brave" as it had always been. Now that China's government had control of the entire world's business, the world had been made to resemble a 1950's style Chinese commune, except that its citizens were being duped into believing that they lived in some sort of great democracy, in which people went to the polls every so often to vote for World-Mart's chosen politicians, and except that its citizens had more technology, but fewer actual choices to make. There were occasional grumblings among the citizenry about World-Mart's total domination, but people, even though secretly miserable with the situation, felt helpless to do anything about it. Mostly, they were too busy working like servants permanently indentured to World-Mart to really think about it. Meanwhile, use of the internet had been restricted to only World-Mart approved parties, and only for World-Mart approved purposes. And since vices such as smoking, liquor and gambling were rampant, as well as crimes both petty and violent, the food of the masses was cheap and of poor nutritious quality, and health care had deteriorated to third-world quality, except for World-Mart's executives, average life expectancy in the United States had decreased to 55 years.
In contrast to the rest of the world, World-Mart's executives lived like emperors, with a jet setting lifestyle, and numerous mansions to occupy. Over time, these people's behavior, already extravagant, greedy and self-centered, became increasingly pathological. Disregard for the welfare of their fellow humans, and narcissistic disregard of the law, became the norm. Children of World-Mart executives grew up in a world apart from the rest of humanity, shielded from the true conditions under which their workers labored. They were told that people were happy to be under the benificent auspices of the great leader class of the world who ran World-Mart, and they seldom learned any better. If they had, surely many of them would have been appalled and would have tried to change things in ways which merely contemplating, scared World-Mart's leaders as nothing else could. People who acted as servants to the World-Mart leadership felt lucky to work for these executives. The situation in the United States was typical of the entire world. World-Mart had taken over everywhere. "People's Party"s and their annointed representatives dominated politics in nation after nation. Just as in the United States, they had "elections" in which World-Mart's chosen candidate ran virtually unopposed and was "rubber-stamped" the leader of a relatively hapless and powerless government in low-turnout elections. The basic role of government was to enforce the will of World-Mart's executives, who came from a variety of nations, although the real chiefs were Chinese.
Even though individual governments were relatively ineffectual and weak, there were still wars and skirmishes between nations, many of whom, including the United States, continued to harbor the illusion of independence, despite the fact that it was really World-Mart which was pulling their strings as though they were puppets. In fact, World-Mart manipulated nations into conflicts, in order to distract nations from the real problem, and to keep any one nation from becoming too independent of World-Mart. Most of these wars were over meager resources. Meanwhile, psychopathology had reached record levels, with depression and suicide being epidemic. Why had life deteriorated so? In fact, World-Mart's leaders wanted life for ordinary citizens to be this way. The feared that a well-fed, well-rested, well-educated, physically and psychologically healthy populace would represent a threat to their power. When the standard of living rises among ordinary citizens, and people become well-educated, people start thinking for themselves, and when people think for themselves, they want freedom and want to reshape the world for the good of the people, rather than the glorification of its leader/owners. They get ideas, and that is not what World-Mart wants. Ideas -- especially in combination with time and energy -- can lead to revolutions. Thus I say, let us get the idea, and make sure that World-Mart never happens. Let us start by working to reverse the Supreme Court decision in the Citizen's United case, and continue to encourage the Obama administration to engage in progressive policies. Finally let us work to help our world enjoy a future in which good government prevails.
March 6
Republicans are Baptists; Democrats are Methodists
Last Sunday, my faithful Christian wife, Eunice, had me accompany her to a Methodist church, which is a periodic event. Usually, she makes me take her to a Baptist church, which I barely endure, while opening my eyes to how far off the mark these people's thinking is, and the depth of their brainwashing through what passes for "education" in their schools. The pastor of the Methodist church is a nice, roly poly fellow named Roy, who often writes letters to the editor of the local newspaper supporting the democratic side of politics. He even had a sticker on his car last year from a group of pastors who opposed the proposition in California which banned gay marriage. I like Roy, although I don't agree with all of his religious convictions. Still, I don't particularly mind going to his church, although the attendance at the Methodist church is rather modest. The pastor of the Baptist church is a fairly new one, who took over after the previous one, the founder this church, went awol, probably going off the deep end into some sort of psychopathology involving self-loathing and depression. The new pastor, Matt, is more affable than the old one, and less scary, but still endorses without fail the same rigid party line, without being quite as offensive or damning as many people as the old one. Regardless of who the pastor is, or how much they are in debt, the big, shiny church packs in the faithful, as well as probably a considerable number of people who would rather be somewhere else. I can say that Matt is a nice person, but I find it difficult to respect his beliefs. Willful ignorance is something to be loathed, in my opinion.
After going to the Methodist church last Sunday, I came to a realization that might help explain our current political situation. Both major political parties are worshippers of laissez faire (or as I call it, "lazy unfair") capitalism. There is a difference between the two parties. The fundamentists are the Repubicans. They worship the word of capitalism as the pure and true word of God. They believe in an angry capitalist God, who punishes the unfaithful majority with the poverty of the masses. Fortunately for them, they are the chosen few, whose faith is rewarded with unimaginable wealth. They steadfastly oppose as by their own faulty definition untrue, any ideas which do not agree with their doctrine, labeling them as examples of the dreaded "socialism," which is anathema to them much as evolution is anathema to Baptists. They meet as often as possible to affirm their rigid faith in the Great American Way of free-market capitalism, packing in the crowds. Even though they are a small minority of the population, they are so commited to their cause, that they generate the biggest, most faithful crowds of devotees. Their fanaticism probably accounts for their political influence being far greater than their proportion of the population.
The Democrats are also true believers, but not as fundamentalist. Rather, they are Methodists. Capitalism can be viewed or practiced in different ways, but there are some things about it which are non-negotiable -- thus, the "method" part of capitalism as practiced by Democrats. It's worshippers gather to affirm their faith, though in crowds not as large as that of the Baptists, by going through their regular rituals. Much as the Presbyterian minister father in the movie and book "A River Runs Through It" announced, "Methodists are Baptists who can read," Democrats are Republicans who can think. They can tinker around the edges of the system, but all but the most progressive Democrats are too easily intimidated, and too committed to the "lazy unfair" free market capitalism ideology to really do anything to seriously change the system. After all, it is big business which funds their campaigns, lobbies them, and provides extremely lucrative employment for them when they retire from politics. It is all too easy to believe in that which keeps one virtually swimming in money.
Until we start having a much greater diversity of political beliefs among our politicians, we will never be able to address the problems which plague our political system. This will never happen until we figure out a way to take the "money is power" equation out of our political system. As citizens, we must demand that money stops telling politicians what to do. We must tell them what to do, and they must not forget that. No matter what happens, no matter how much money corporations spend to advance their own interests, it is the voters who vote, not the corporations.
February 19
Personal and Collective Responsibility
Last time, I wrote about personal and collective freedom. Now, I will extend the issue to that of responsibility. I have previously explained that the true price of freedom is that of taking responsibility for one's decisions, actions, and even one's mental state. Being afforded such freedom as we can garner, while never absolute, is embedded with an obligation to be equally responsible. A person of good conscience takes responsiblity for his or her personal conduct, and thus merits whatever freedom life affords that individual. Likewise, a society of good social conscience collectively takes responsibility for its own conduct, thus earning whatever freedom it enjoys.
How does a society take responsibility for its actions?
1. It provides comfort and aid to those it has treated unfairly.
2. It exacts appropriate punishment and lessons upon bad actors, the perpetrators of bad treatment.
3. Its citizens, leaders, and media admit to collective misbehavior and respond with a sense of guilt, shame and desire to compensate for such misbehavior. (For example, to the credit of Germany and Japan, we still see this acceptance of responsibility to some degree for their roles in creating the tragedy that we call World War II, although I think this acceptance of responsibility was somewhat forced upon them by their losing of the war.)
4. It freely examines its shortcomings and searches openly for solutions.
5. In short, this is about social responsibility on a collective level. The citizens of a society take collective responsibility when they work together to ensure good, fair and just treatment of all its citizens. This is primarily accomplished through political means such as good law and its application, but can also be accomplished through charity or even socially responsible business practices.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is the emphasis upon individualism versus collectivism. Conservatives generally think individualistically -- a "me society" orientation. Progressives, in contrast, generally think of the collective good -- a "we society" orientation. Thus, conservatives, just as they emphasize personal, behavioral freedom --most typically economic freedom -- also emphasize individual responsibility over collective responsibility. That is why the idea of "compassionate conservatism" never caught on with the public; it is too easy for people to see through that ploy, when really, so-called compassionate conservatives are really about making individuals take responsibility for their actions. In wanting individuals to be responsible for their actions, conservatives are well-intentioned and essentially correct. I don't think anyone is against this in principle, anymore than anyone, regardless of political orientation, is against valuing family or in favor of unwanted pregnancies, for example. This is something that progressives and conservatives can agree upon.
Where the two sides disagree is on the relative importance of the individual and the collective. I think that even conservatives concede that there is merit to being concerned with the collective good of society, but they see that as subordinate to individual good, and furthermore, seem to have convinced themselves that the best way to achieve collective good is through the individual's unrestrained pursuit of glory -- the fallacy of "enlightened self-interest." Progressives, however, see individual self-interest as subordinate to the interests of the collective, while still maintaining that the interests of individuals are important. The pursuit of individual interests just need to occur within reasonable parameters made necessary by the predominant goal of the collective good, according to progressives such as myself. Thus, just as progressives empasize the collective freedom of a culture, and see individual freedom as a good but inherently limited entity, progressives believe that social responsibility is a greater force than that of individual responsibility. We can accomplish together that which can never be accomplished individually, no matter how responsible the individuals are. This compassionate orientation is exactly what is advocated by psychologist Carol Gilligan as the higher form of emotional morality. She connects the emotional approach to morality with female socialization, while the concept of individual justice is linked to male socialization, which I believe explains why conservatism is generally much more common in men, and progressivism, in women.
There is also a link between collective and personal responsibility. In contrast to the viewpoint of conservatives, the best way to maximize responsible behavior in individuals is to have a collectively responsible society, much as the use of collective freedom to create conditions conducive to personal growth, is the best way to ensure individual freedoms. Once again, conservatives have got things backwards. When society treats its citizens responsibly, it is easy and natural for them as individuals to behave responsibly. When society treats its citizens irresponsibly -- a so-called "dog-eat-dog" culture -- it is difficult to behave responsibly. People feel they have to "look out for number one" in order to survive, and thus, as much as they would like to be, personally responsible behavior goes "out the window." Life becomes an ultracompetitive struggle in a game with no rules. Such a lifestyle is certainly not conducive of freedom, either. The very fact that such idioms are so common among us, and that we can relate so well to these sayings, shows that culture in the United States has gone much too far in the direction of ignoring collective responsiblity, while still espousing individual responsibility despite making it difficult. Our nation's current difficulties clearly relate to a lack of collective responsibility, and its consequence of people in powerful positions being lacking in personal responsibility. We need to develop a strong sense of collective responsibility if we are to ultimately succeed. People are much happier, more productive, more progressive, and more free in a society where a sense of social responsibility and fairness prevails.
Next time, I will discuss personal and collective rights.
I encourage you all to check out the show and website of my friend, Frank. He calls himeslf the "aggressive progressive" with good reason. His shows are not for those who may be offended by strong language. Frank is a great guy and has a real handle on things. Here's where you can find him: www.thefrankfactorspace.ning.com
Both parties have shifted to the right. I don't think there is a definitive answer or explanation as to why this has occurred. One can point to cetain social changes, the rise of Fox and right-wing radio, the growth in conservative think tanks, corporate mergers and globalization creating an increasingly consolidated and powerful constituency for politicians, a declining educational system in which blind obedience to authorityand individual achievement has been substituted for discipline, ethics, tolerance, and empathy, and a lack of emphasis on history, philosophy, literature, and civics and political science. Republicans lost ground a a result of economic changes and of the policy failures of the Bush Administration.
Americans tend not to see the harm in having an upper class be in control in relation to our economic problems. President Obama comes from a modest background, but he went to Columbia and Harvard which are Ivy League schools which often have produced presdients, other high government officials, and some some executives of major corporations. People do business with corporations and they grow to accept and even trust these businesses. When on the job, many employees develop regular business relationships with people from different companies. Commerce tends to be associated with friendships. The trouble is that being a member of Congress is NOT commerce; it is govewrning, it is democracy.
I have thought of Republicans as being inherently unethical because of their lack of concern for people who suffer from not being able to afford health insurance or health care, or who have been laid off from their jobs, because of their blind alligience to corporate interests and demands, and because of their phony and dishonest criticism of Democrats on matters of national security.
A march on Washington would benefit, in my opionion, from help from unions. Unions are in the organizing business, and right now, progressives are disorganized. Unions may be able to provide some financial assistance to help bring people, including some of their own members, to Washington for the proposed event.
Progressives -- including talk show hosts -- should not confine themselves to the latest news story or preset talking points. For example, when it comes to global warming and the environoment, there should be some mention of some of the technical developments and financial problems that will be involved. All too often, progressives fall into the same trap as conservatives of making sweeping generalizations rather than talking in specific terms. One concern of mine is how changes in energy might adversely affect poor people. Progressives claim to be concerned with both the middle class and the poor. Even middle class people may not be able to afford some expensive, untested high-tech "green" automobile, such as an electric car. Even some of what we have now in the way of a hybrid vehicle has run into a safety glitch. The government didn't oversee the design of this and other vehciles to insure proper functioning in terms of safety. The government does not always have the answers or does not always do an adequate job in the area of consumer protection. Passing new laws does not necessarily mean they will be adequately enforced. Poor people should not be blamed by progressives if someday cars engines slowly change to different forms of energy and low-income people cannot afford to make the switch. Or punitive taxes for using fossil fuel would only hurt those who can least afford to pay them. Do people out their believe that all poor people ride a city bus or subway to work? How much does the average progressive or progresssive talk show host know about rural poverty?
Another subject that I hardly ever hear mentioned on progressive radio or elsewhere is poverty and discrimination faced by mentally or physicall disabled Americans. How many people who still like Obama, or at least voted for him, are aware that he ran on a platform, in part, to strength anti-discrimination efforts and programs on behalf of disabled citizens? I don't think his administration has done all that much, if anything, in this area. The Americans with Disabilities Act was necessary because discrimination was such a serious problem facing disabled people in this country, and although the most blatant form of it may have been contained and even somewhat reduced by the ADA, there is still a very high rate of unemployment and poverty among disabled citizens. During the Bush Administration, I read a news story that was not widely reported or discussed, but was true, that the U.S. government lost a large number or even a majority of its disabled employeess. The problem was so severe that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had to be called in to train federal supervisors how to work with the law and with disabled job candidates and employees. The Republicans are not qualified to understand the medical as well as the financial circumstances surrounding disabled people or those who have serious illnesses of one kind or another. Obviously, most policians are not doctors. It would be difficult for the Democrats to say that the Republicans are not qualified in the health care field, when the Democrats by and large don't have any real academic credentials in medicine, either. But the destructive nature of the Nazis in Germany parallels the destructive nature of the conservative policies that have allowed for banking failure, widening job loss, poverty, denial of medical claims by insurance companies, employment that does not include health care, the worsening of the coverage while the costs of the insurance and the medical prodecures and products keeps on going up faster than the rate of inflation, and the growing number of uninsured.
The only thing is that I don't think the middle class has shrunk quite as much as some progressives would have us believe, because there are still enough people who are doing well enough not to be worried about those who are failing. These middle class potential Republican voters listen to the Republican fear-mongering which is largely misplaced. The federal deficit is a problem, but a growing economy and fairer taxes where the wealth pay their fair share would help address this issue. But the Republicans feel sorry for the rich, and not enough Americans have the values or insight to question the disparity in income. And to the extent that government is unfair to some who are in need only is twisted into a criticism against "big government."
Instead of moving forward "Globalization" is moving "We the People"backwards (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Feudalism_and_Medieval_life.htm) -----We are on course for the "Social Structure of the Middle Ages" ------------the "Aristocrats and the Serfs" -------------- Where do we get the revenue to pay for social programs and infrastructure when we lowered taxes on the rich and passed "Free Trade" legislation which outsourced "Hard Working American" jobs.We can't have both because one negates the other------- meaning trickle down economics is a farce ----------- it only puts more money into the pockets of the rich.Now that being said if we did not pass "Free Trade" legislation we would not be losing those jobs and thus the workers would be footing the revenue part of the equation.So what do we do -------- Pass a "Large Stimulus Bill" putting people back to work and repaying the "Stimulus" via taxes.Why do we have to do this? ----------- since "Free Trade" and "Supply Side Economics" are not going to be reversed this is the only short term program to put people back to work and living a life of dignity for awhile.At the same time the economy will be stimulated by spending thus putting more and more people back to work which would be a trickle up program.This Theory is still not going to generate enough money to pay off the National Debt nor will it generate enough money to pay back the Countries we borrowed money from to fight our "Lied into War".What does President Obama have to lose if he tells Congress we need to raise Taxes to at least 50% which would solve our Debt problem.Congress has been a do nothing Congress so i don't expect that to be done just as President Obama's "Progressive Agenda" has not been Legislated.This Congress is making President Obama look like an out of touch Leader.As long as we have "Free Trade" with a no "Large Stimulus Bill" we are a doomed Country.----------President Obama because of an uneducated society being brainwashed by the "Corporate Media" is putting him between a rock and a hard place.If the Tea Party was out there for the "Real Reasons" that our Country is in the condition it's in instead of being mislead by the Right we would be striking fear in the Congress.------------President Obama is much too smart a gentleman to not know what's going on and I believe he will eventually in a strong way let "We the People" know why and how he is being "Stonewalled".I believe he's been soft because he thought that Congress would eventually start getting things done not for Obama but for "We the People" which obviously is not happening because he is up against a "Status Quo" that he was not ready for.----------Lord Acton(British Historian circa 1834-1902) said "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" -----------"We the People" are seeing it live and in person by our "Corporatist" who we voted into Congress.These are the same "Corporatist" who passed all the "Free Trade" legislation (knowing that jobs were going to outsourced),Supply Side Economics (lowering the taxes on the rich believing it would trickle down),ratified the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution because the "Corporation" was not happy with FDR'S "New Deal",etc.------------When i was a kid the Father went to work and supported his Family and was Proud ----- than MFN came along and jobs at a turtles speed were being lost causing the Mother to pick up a part-time job to make ends meet ------ than more "Free Trade" bills were passed outsourcing jobs at a faster pace and the Father had to work two jobs and the Mother had to work longer hours in her part-time job and now both Parents have to work full time jobs and maybe a part-time job also to make ends meet ------------ how much can "We the People" take ----------- these "Free Trade" bills are working us to death with nothing to show for all that labor except making ends meet.If "Health Care Insurance" is not a perk from one of those jobs that makes another expense to keep that Family from going under.-----Why "Health Care Reform" is not a top priority in our Country is that Social Security is now being paid from todays workers because our Legislators transferred the Social Security that we paid to pay for something else and since the work pool is low because of high unemplyment there is less money going into the new Social Security Funds.If we all had "Health Care" and lived longer it would be a drag on "Social Security" for those already collecting and for all new "Eligible Recipients". ------------- Our Legislators Plan is to keep us in Wars and keep us from being able to afford "Health Care" thus lowering the number of people reaching the age to collect "Social Security"...................
February 8
Personal and Collective Freedom
It has happened again. A couple of nights ago, shortly after going to bed, I had another realization of a political/social sort. I realized that it is not only individuals who have freedom, but societies as well.
When we think of freedom, we are conditioned to think of it as individual freedom. In particular, we are conditioned to think of freedom as behavioral freedom, the freedom to do what one wants to. The only exception to that may be when we think of "freedom of expression" or "free speech," but even those are behaviors, albeit behaviors which reflect our thoughts and feelings. When I wrote about freedom before, I wrote about behavioral freedom and mental freedom, the freedom to think one's own thoughts and feel one's own feelings. I argued that the mental freedoms were more fundamental than behavioral freedom; without mental freedom, there is no point to having behavioral freedom. I also argued that the mental freedoms are more difficult for others to take away, but at the same time, more subject to subtle restraint.
However, societies have freedom too. That is what democracy -- true democracy, at least -- is all about. People collectively can choose the direction their society takes in a free society. In a not-so-free society, the direction the culture takes is chosen for its citizens, not by its citizens. In a functional democracy, the government is responsive to the collective will of the people. Of course, some people will inevitably disagree with the will of the majority, and sometimes, the majority will make a bad choice; democracy is messy. There also need to be legal limits to the choices which the majority can make; they cannot suddenly decide to execute all gay people, deport all persons of Mexican ancestry, etc. Minorities have rights, too. Ultimately, however, progress will be made. In a non-democracy, those in charge of government decide policy unilaterally, with no chance it will lead to their "firing" by having other leaders chosen in an election.
When I think of the so-called "Tea Baggers," it seems to me just another anti-government counter-revolution being perpetrated by libertarian-minded conservatives. They are against oversized, monopolistic business for sure, but mostly, they are against "big government," especially since the guy they voted against, Barack Obama, is leading that government. Basically, they are against Obama. They are so consumed with fear and loathing, that they fail to think through the ramifications of what they are advocating. They want a society of maximum personal freedom, with minimal government or corporatocracy. However, the only way that is possible, is for each of them, or at most each family, to live on their own little islands. I guess John Donne was wrong when he wrote that "No man is an island," at least according to the Tea Baggers. Thus, we are presented with 3 possibilities. The first is that we break up into a bunch of tiny "island" units, and lose the collective entirely. That is what the Tea Baggers functionally want, as ludicrous as that seems. There aren't enough "islands" in the world for that to happen. The second is that big business runs the show, and effectively uses its money to influence people and pull political strings, using politicians like puppets. That is essentially what our society has currently come to. The third, is that we can recognize that we have a large society with a large population, that needs a large and effective government in order to do the collective will of the people (collective freedom). This is what we should be striving for -- good government which has divested the influence of big money and big business, and through regulation has limited corporations to their proper role as producers of goods and services which enhance people's quality of life, while providing a decent living for all of their employees. As I pointed out in Big Government Versus Big Corporations, the choice in a large society is not between individual freedom and government; rather, it is between corporate control of the collective aspects of society, versus government control of those collective aspects of society. Considering the Tea Bagger movement, their blatant opposition to anything progressive that the Obama administration is trying to accomplish, unwittingly favors the corporate control scenario, which is exactly what the corporatocracy who already controls much of our society wants -- further corporate control.
There is also a relation between collective freedom and individual freedom. In this case, it is the collective freedom which is the more fundamental of the two, in the sense that it is the collective which can best ensure personal freedoms. It is through collective processes that guarantees of personal freedom were written into the Constitution of the United States, for example. We have a tendency to forget that. Societies have representatives get together to enact laws which give citizens rights, that is, personal freedoms. Also, having a civil society with reasonable regulations -- which only good government can provide us -- gives people the freedom from distressing situations, needed to pursue individual freedoms and self-actualization. However, when corporations are pulling the strings behind the scenes to enact the will of the corporate elite, we have only a shadow of a democracy. Actually, what we have currently in the United States is something approaching fascism -- the merging of corporations and state. We now face the prospect of our society becoming even more overtly fascist with the recent Supreme Court decision which allows corporations to openly spend as much money as they want, for political causes. The will of the people is not being carried out if it conflicts with the interests of big business. Even worse, big business is using its influence to propagandize people, influencing their thoughts and feelings so that people's mental freedoms are being limited, without them even being aware of that. However, there is a weakness built into the insidiousness of corporate propagandizing efforts; it only works when people don't realize what is going on. Those of us who are aware of the propagandizing are able to rebel against it. Things can turn around in a hurry in our society, and sooner of later, they will when enough of us realize how we are being manipulated and unduly influenced by corporations who threaten both our collective and individual freedoms. Let us do all we can to make it sooner! I think that is something even the Tea Baggers can appreciate, once they find their wits.
The question of the contest on Progressive Talk radio Chicago was
“Tell us why we should love a Republican”
“How to Love a Republican”
Their goofy.
They have both questions listed on the same page on their website.
My response:
Like a social worker loves a Juvenile Delinquent.
With Compassion. Setting strong limits and boundaries.
Because most likely they were abused as children.
I would change “JD” to something like “ a really screwed up teenager.”
But I was short on time. And the limit was 25 words.
Be compassionate, but don’t let them run your life. Or ruin it.
The Root of the Problem needs to be attended to, not just the symptoms.
Likewise, it’s bad to focus on the Root of the Problem at the expense of the symptoms.
Also, I met and talked with a lot of rural Born Again Christians when I was in college, 1976 - 80.
Eastern Illinois University. Central Illionis. Me and a friend, both Chicago south side Liberals, into learning all sorts of religious paths. We were open to them, and engaged in genuine discussion.
Almost all of them found Jesus after ruining their lives with drugs and alcohol abuse.
It was clear enough - they needed a strong father figure.
Following Jesus, adhering to bible to the letter was how they kept sober. Kept their addiction in check.
So, we thought them psychologically needy, but harmless.
We never dreamed they would one day be the a serious threat to democracy.
Boy, were we wrong.
- Bob, Chicago
I've been thinking of this little plot to end the GOP. I just thought I'd throw it out there to see what you think.
The GOP is in trouble. If we act now we could make them go the same way as the Wigs and Fedralists.
Step 1: The Democratic party adds these two planks to thier platform:
A: The democratic party accepts some rational and limited form of anti-abortion (pro-life). In other words they say the same things the GOP said and did what they did about it. Nothing!
B: The Democratic party accepts the 1st amendment has no weight and supports a fundimentalist christian theocracy.
The fundamentalists (who are disgruntled by the GOP's inaction and low moral standards) rush to the Democratic party in droves. Along with them they drag most of the tea-partyers.
Step 2: The progressives split from the Democratic party and form the Progressive party. All the progressives in the Democratic party step over to the new Progressive party and the Democratic party becomes the new corporate conservitive standard. The GOP dies from lack of attendence.
What you get is a two party system slightly more centered than what we have now.
What do you think?
February 5
The Truth Assassins
Progressives have been talking about this topic for many years. I have written about it in one way or another myself. However, sometimes a new meme occurs to me. I was lying in bed a few days ago, when the term "the truth assassins" occurred to me. The truth assassins are those in the media who kill the truth, and knowingly pass a false view of the world as the truth, to the world.
This term actually occurred to me in the context of sports. I saw some political pundits a few weeks ago talking about sports. One of them said that sports was a most "egalitarian" endeavor. He meant that it was not racist, and that performance is what matters. However, it has become increasingly apparent to me over the years that professional sports as an industry has lost its soul. In fact, it could be said that, performance is all that matters. Cheaters abound, but are rarely caught. The profit motive prevails, and big business has taken professional sports under its vulture-like wings. As for being egalitarian, a check of the gender difference in professional sports belies that delusion. The great majority of athletes are men, if for no other reason, because the rules of sports themselves are designed for men -- large, strong men. I knew something was wrong when I was a kid and found out that one had to be approximately 7 feet tall in order to play one sport -- basketball -- or weigh around 300 pounds in order to play another -- football. That is anything but egalitarian. It is an extreme physical bias, especially given the enormous salaries that professional athletes at the highest levels are endowed with.
Despite this, the worst thing about professional sports is the "ends justifies the means," low level of morality engendered by the industry. This is a perfect example of the immorality of the capitalism about which I wrote recently. Owners invest in their teams, and expect a return on that investment. The way to have a good return on that investment, is to have a winning team, especially a championship team. The way to have a championship team is to purchase the best team that money can buy, and bail out any player who runs afoul of the law, or is caught apparently cheating. The more important and better the player, the greater the impetus to protect that player's reputation. I think my "Oh no!" moment in this regard was when I realized that both our football and basketball champions of 2009 were lead by accused rapists -- Ben Rothlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers, and Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers. The point was further brought home last week when I was called away by my wife to do yardwork, from a nationally televised game between the Lakers and the Celtics, which the Celtics were leading at the time. (Yes, I do still sometimes watch sports in spite of myself; I think I need to quit this habit.) Although I really don't care for basketball nor the Celtics, either, I was glad that they were leading. However, when I returned, the Lakers had won, having taken the lead on what was described by the idiot announcer as a "miraculous" shot by Kobe Bryant -- just another small part of the massive reputation rehabilitation effort being undertaken on Kobe Bryant's behalf by the sports media. When I saw the shot, it seemed pretty ordinary to me, especially for the son of an NBA player who has spent his entire life playing the game. It reminded me of a game a few weeks ago in which Bryant charged into an opposing player at a crucial moment in overtime, and the other player was called for a foul, when even the Lakers' announcers were expecting a foul to be called on Bryant. As a result the Lakers "won" this game too and Bryant was hailed as a "hero." During the game with the Celtics, the announcers mentioned that the Celtics and Lakers have cumulatively won more than half of the NBA championships -- 17 for the Celtics, 15 for the Lakers. That hardly seems like fair competition to me. Frankly, I was also somewhat disturbed to see President Obama recently honoring the Lakers at the White House, even though I know that honoring sports champions is a Presidential tradition. I hope Obama told the players to behave themselves.
Misbehavior off the playing field is much more common than sports fans seem to realize. In doing some research on the topic, I found that the few brave journalists -- females, by the way -- who have delved into this topic have found that marriages of professional athletes tend to be subject to what one described as socially sanctioned adultery. In other words, most players, married or not, usually have sex with women they barely know, or mistresses while on road trips. Tiger Woods is not the exception, according to these journalists. He has merely been singled out due to his prominent status, apparent "good guy" nature, and especially, the fact that his wife, who is from Sweden where such behavior is not normal, did not accept his infidelity. Frankly, even I was surprised that Woods was being unfaithful to his wife. Living in southern California, I am often exposed to stories about local athletes' misbehavior. They usually surface and quickly are denied and swept under the rug. Kobe Bryant's accuser was subject to death threats and intimidation, more than she could handle, I suppose. The same probably has happened to Rothlisberger's accuser. Lakers' players Kwame Brown and Shannon Brown have both been accused of rape or sexual assault in recent years, only to get out of it one way or another, perhaps by having the Lakers' organization intimidate or pay off the accusers. Looking back at Lakers' stars of earlier eras, there was Wilt Chamberlain and his "20,000 women" he claimed to have had sex with, and Magic Johnson, who was sexually indiscriminate enough to catch the HIV virus, while engaged to be married. Even the baseball team of which I was a lifelong fan, the Anahheim Angels (now subsumed by Los Angeles), turned out to have several steroid using players in 2002 when they finally won a championship, plus a pitcher, Jarrod Washburn, who was accused of having sex with his child's babysitter. Of course, some accusations of misbehavior are probably false, but I find it impossible to believe that all of them are false, despite the truth assassins' attempts to convince the public to the contrary. In fact, the consistent denial of sexual misconduct by the media and sports teams represents the derogation of women in its worst and most insidious form. Real men love women, respect them and take them seriously, not derogate them and mistreat them. But don't worry, sports fans, your teams and the media will always cover for these guys when they don't behave as real men should. And disgruntled fans such as myself, while watching less sports than we used to, will still feel compelled to watch for one reason or another at times.
While what happens in the world of sports represents a sort of truth assassination, it is "small potatoes" compared to what goes on in politics, or perhaps even religion. Our news media and politicians have become experts at framing things in an unrealistic way. To an extent, they may believe some of their own nonsense, but they clearly must be aware that much of it is untrue. Political spin ranges from mildly disingenuous bending of the truth, all the way to outright lies. The same applies to news reporting of politics. For example, it seems that this year, we ceaselessly hear about how 60 votes are needed in the Senate to pass any legislation. What!? Since when did 51% turn into 60%? A simple majority is all that is needed to pass health care reform, or any other legislation. It is true that the master truth assassins of the Republican Party can try to delay or block the voting process. (Maybe they learned this strategy from Tom Delay.) However, there are ways that a bill can be reconciled between the house and senate versions, and passed with 51 votes in the Senate. It has happened many times before. Why is it that we never hear of this problem when a Republican is President, even though it has been many years since the last time that there were 60 Republican Senators. The fact that no health care reform legislation has been passed seems to represent dissatisfaction on both sides with the demands of their opponents. The amount of compromise being asked for is too much for progressives to stomach, and much more than conservatives are willing to accept, especially since they see blocking any meaningful legislation as being to their advantage. Apparently, the so-called "mainstream," that is, corporate media sees any meaningful progressive reforms as being detrimental to their interests, as well.
For many years, Republicans have been painting themselves as friends of the common person, on their side along with God. They have formed an unholy coalition with evangelical Christians who may or may not believe all that they say, but are clearly self-serving and delusional. They have represented themselves as champions of the American family and the American way, while in fact, they have always represented monied interests of economic royalty who fear having their fortunes taken from them by inferiorcommoners. Although I have never been privy to the thoughts of Republican leaders, nor the wealthy persons who move them around like puppets on a string, it is hard for me to imagine that they are not lying. Ronald Reagan seems to me the consummate liar, emblematic of politicians who have sold their souls for political gain. Modern conservatives have taken their cues from him. Together with the media, lobbyists, and those Democrats who cannot resist the temptation, Republicans have managed to assassinate the truth in America, leaving the average citizen puzzled, and haplessly trying to understand what is going on amidst a sea of misinformation.
Let us insist on those in the news media and politics who broadcast their messages, live according the ethic of honesty which they presumably learned as children. If not, they should be banished from the business of attempting to wield influence over others through the use of words. While hate talk, with its delusions, misinformation and lies, still predominates the airwaves, at least people are starting to find more and more refreshingly honest, forward looking, progressive voices. We are also finding that the internet is a good way to communicate with other citizens, of our own nation or of others, and find out what others are really thinking. May honesty prevail. If it does, we cannot fail to progress.