Hello,
I ran across this article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and thought it would be appropriate to re-post it here. Most of us know this already, it's pretty basic capitalist economics, but I think many of us seldom think about it. Perhaps, when we exercise our right to vote, we can cast it in such a way that it will have some impact on the way things are - I don't suppose they'll put "Reshape our foreign and environmental policies in such a way as to foster peace among men and sanity in our treatment of the planet" on the ballot in 2008, but... well, do what you can.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
When war is on the horizon, follow the money
GARY FERDMAN AND MYRIAM MIEDZIAN
GUEST COLUMNISTS
Pop quiz: Who founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?
A. A prominent Iraqi political exile.
B. Bruce Jackson, former Lockheed Martin vice president
C. Neoconservatives William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz.
Answer: b.
What does this mean? To understand our nation's foreign policy, including military interventions, follow the money.
This should come as no surprise. Our country is built on the profit motive; we proved its effectiveness by outlasting the Soviet Union.
While Americans understand that making money motivates McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and some are concerned about businesses donating large sums to influence politicians, most are unaware of how the profit motive helps shape U.S. foreign policy.
This is caused in part by our leaders draping decisions, especially wars, in patriotism. Take Iraq; President Bush leads Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, has weapons of mass destruction, and threatens our national security. Once he invades Iraq, any questioning is portrayed as endangering our troops and homeland.
By the time most Americans realize that none of it is true, thousands of young soldiers are killed or maimed and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to often incompetent, politically connected Pentagon contractors.
For most decent, caring Americans it is almost unthinkable that the profit motive played a significant role in putting our soldiers in harm's way. It is painful to acknowledge that we have been lied to, and to ask, why? Why was this war started? What role did our president's, vice president's, and secretary of state's close ties to the oil industry play? Which powerful American companies stood to profit?
Bruce Jackson founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, a few months after retiring from Lockheed Martin. In 2001, he and other members of the neocon Project for a New American Century wrote to President Bush stating that "American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means." A year earlier, Jackson had chaired the subcommittee that produced the Republican Party's foreign policy plank that George Bush ran on in 2000.
Any chance that the views Jackson promoted had something to do with the billions that Lockheed Martin pockets thanks to the war?
For war profiteers, soldiers returning maimed or in caskets, and a $500 billion Pentagon budget paid for by the taxes of ordinary citizens, are externalities -- costs and consequences borne by others.
There is nothing new about weapons manufacturers encouraging wars and profiteering from them.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln stated that those profiteering from defective weapons "ought to have their devilish heads shot off."
The role of weapons manufacturers in creating the tensions that led to World War I is well documented, and no doubt influenced President Roosevelt's 1934 message to Congress that "the uncontrolled activities of the manufacturers, and merchants of engines of destruction," were a menace to world peace.
Profiteering was so common during WWII that then-Sen. Harry Truman became a national hero by bringing to heel war contractors whose waste and inefficiency threatened the war effort.
In his famous farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the nation of the "undue influence" of the military-industrial complex, and the need to control it.
As the war in Iraq grinds on at a cost of more than $250 million per day, and another contractor-heavy organization, the Iran Policy Committee, calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, there is a dire need to act on his warning.
Just as government food inspection and child labor laws were enacted to protect us against the worst excesses of capitalist exploitation, our government must assure that corporate interests do not trump the national interest in foreign policy.
Pentagon contractors' congressional allies routinely defeat or bury in committee initiatives that could curtail war profiteering. This June, for example, all 55 Senate Republicans voted to kill an amendment strengthening laws governing waste, fraud and abuse in defense (43 of 45 Democrats voted for it).
In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to stand up to the military industrial complex. Isn't it time to heed his call and demand that our representatives rein in the war profiteers?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
The Israeli-Palestinian Thing
Okay, so this is my understanding of this whole Israeli-Palestinian thing. IF the facts are as I believe them to be, and have concluded them to be after reading the news about the middle east for some thirty-odd years. There are roughly two distinct viewpoints on this matter, as evidenced most glaringly if one reads several publications from both sides of the political spectrum, the 'left' and the 'right.' Leftist sources would repeatedly blame Israel for being heavy-handed, right-wing publications consistently insist Israel is only defending itself against terrorist attacks, and trying earnestly to avoid 'collateral damage.' In my humble and perhaps uninformed opinion (always open to new information that might change it), The truth is probably more accurately represented (though still perhaps not very objective) in the right-wing publications, because of one glaring omission from most of the more liberal articles: the undeniable and insurmountable fact that the 'terrorists' target civilians with their suicide bombings and their rockets, refusing to participate in political solutions. This fact alone (and there are many others, such as the fact that they have no legitimacy in negotiations as they are not governments and can't control their own factions anyway...) renders whatever arguments they might have rhetorical. So...
A World Court, or some such international body, granted Israel a homeland in 1948 by dividing up some land in Palestine. This same international body apparently made no provisions, or at least not any adequate or viable ones, about what was to happen to the displaced "Palestinians," and the nations of the Arab community didn't invite them into their various countries, so they were in effect relegated to some smaller areas within their original lands. A situation ripe for revolution. Then there was this big dispute between religious groups about who got to have control over some religious sites, too. That didn't help. Religion rarely does.
Hostility grew, and in 1967 Israel was attacked by most of their neighbors. They kicked ass, and occupied some of the surrounding territory in order to prevent further attacks. The defeated people, the Palestinians, have apparently refused to accept either the partitioning of their land or their subsequent defeat in '67, and continue attacking Israel. Having little in the way of resources, and no plan, or even thought, for mutual peaceful coexistence, they resort to sending suicide bombers and launching crude rockets to kill Israeli civilians. For years various Palestinian groups espoused terrorism against civilians as a valid path to accomplishing their goals - they meant it, too, and suited actions to words by conducting a seemingly endless string of atrocities. Israel then continues in its efforts to prevent the attacks on its citizens, eventually becoming a rather onerous burden to the Palestinian people - who unfortunately, and for some unfathomable reason, are unwilling to curb the more violent elements in their society. I avoid saying unable, as such groups couldn't exist without the support, tacit or overt, of the people.
International outcry over the inevitable civilian casualties caused by Israel's aggressive campaign to stop the bombing (where was the outcry over the terrorist bombings?...) eventually pressures Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank in an effort to loosen the tensions, and as an indication of their intentions to seek a negotiated two-state solution - but the attacks don't stop. Note here that the civilian casualties caused by Israel were collateral damage (I know, that's politically incorrect, but that never stopped me from telling it like it is) that occurred in spite of efforts to minimize it, and in spite of the fact that the various terrorist groups embed themselves in areas with high civilian populations, or in mosques or other religious sites, using them as shields, and their deaths or destruction as anti-Israeli propoganda, while the innocent civilians killed by the Palestinians were targeted.
In the final analysis it all seems pretty cut and dried, to me. Though there are almost certainly some very valid complaints about the way Israel has treated the Palestinians, these complaints need to be pursued through normal political channels, negotiation, appeals to international bodies, communication, education, illumination, and other peaceful means, to the fullest extent possible. Cripes, hire a Madison Avenue advertising firm to pitch your cause, they can sell darn near anything! If, however, at some point, the level of frustration with the situation and the lack of progress becomes too much to bear, and the Palestinians and their various factions decide they must resort to violence to achieve their ends, then so be it. They have chosen war, and they must be prepared to pay the price. I guess that's the case - they did, after all, elect Hamas, a violent terrorist group, to run their country. What were they thinking?
What, Israel is supposed to sit there while people blow up on the streets and rockets come raining in a few times a day? Uh uh. I'm not saying Israel hasn't made its share of mistakes, I'm just saying that by employing terrorist tactics as the Palestinian groups have done countless times, targeting innocent civilians, is completely unacceptable. It not only renders any legitimate argument they might have had moot or irrelevant, but also invites severe retribution - and the hellish cost of war will be paid by innocent civilians on both sides. It's about time the Palestinian people woke up and realized that they must turn away from the violence promoted by their radical elements, and convince each other that they must pursue peaceful strategies to accomplish their objectives.
In the end it's their choice, though - and if they choose violence, then it's pretty inevitable that they're going to reap what they sow. If that sounds callous, it's not. It isn't as if I don't sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, I do, conditions are so bad there I can't even imagine living like they do, under occupation, with a collapsed economy, a history of massive corruption in their various "governments," and so on. But I also sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Israelis... and they're the ones who've been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks for decades, and certainly have a right to defend themselves. There are many nuances and subtleties to all of this, I realize that it's really not quite as cut and dried as this, but I maintain my opinion that it's up to the Palestinians and the other elements that support terrorism (attacking civilians to instill terror in a populace in order to achieve your political goals) to put a stop to this insanity. Then, AFTER the killing stops, we can talk about what Israel needs to do to be a good neighbor to its Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Your thoughts?
P.S. (7/30/2006): Just found an article in the Washington Post that explains the legal basis for Israel's response.
A World Court, or some such international body, granted Israel a homeland in 1948 by dividing up some land in Palestine. This same international body apparently made no provisions, or at least not any adequate or viable ones, about what was to happen to the displaced "Palestinians," and the nations of the Arab community didn't invite them into their various countries, so they were in effect relegated to some smaller areas within their original lands. A situation ripe for revolution. Then there was this big dispute between religious groups about who got to have control over some religious sites, too. That didn't help. Religion rarely does.
Hostility grew, and in 1967 Israel was attacked by most of their neighbors. They kicked ass, and occupied some of the surrounding territory in order to prevent further attacks. The defeated people, the Palestinians, have apparently refused to accept either the partitioning of their land or their subsequent defeat in '67, and continue attacking Israel. Having little in the way of resources, and no plan, or even thought, for mutual peaceful coexistence, they resort to sending suicide bombers and launching crude rockets to kill Israeli civilians. For years various Palestinian groups espoused terrorism against civilians as a valid path to accomplishing their goals - they meant it, too, and suited actions to words by conducting a seemingly endless string of atrocities. Israel then continues in its efforts to prevent the attacks on its citizens, eventually becoming a rather onerous burden to the Palestinian people - who unfortunately, and for some unfathomable reason, are unwilling to curb the more violent elements in their society. I avoid saying unable, as such groups couldn't exist without the support, tacit or overt, of the people.
International outcry over the inevitable civilian casualties caused by Israel's aggressive campaign to stop the bombing (where was the outcry over the terrorist bombings?...) eventually pressures Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank in an effort to loosen the tensions, and as an indication of their intentions to seek a negotiated two-state solution - but the attacks don't stop. Note here that the civilian casualties caused by Israel were collateral damage (I know, that's politically incorrect, but that never stopped me from telling it like it is) that occurred in spite of efforts to minimize it, and in spite of the fact that the various terrorist groups embed themselves in areas with high civilian populations, or in mosques or other religious sites, using them as shields, and their deaths or destruction as anti-Israeli propoganda, while the innocent civilians killed by the Palestinians were targeted.
In the final analysis it all seems pretty cut and dried, to me. Though there are almost certainly some very valid complaints about the way Israel has treated the Palestinians, these complaints need to be pursued through normal political channels, negotiation, appeals to international bodies, communication, education, illumination, and other peaceful means, to the fullest extent possible. Cripes, hire a Madison Avenue advertising firm to pitch your cause, they can sell darn near anything! If, however, at some point, the level of frustration with the situation and the lack of progress becomes too much to bear, and the Palestinians and their various factions decide they must resort to violence to achieve their ends, then so be it. They have chosen war, and they must be prepared to pay the price. I guess that's the case - they did, after all, elect Hamas, a violent terrorist group, to run their country. What were they thinking?
What, Israel is supposed to sit there while people blow up on the streets and rockets come raining in a few times a day? Uh uh. I'm not saying Israel hasn't made its share of mistakes, I'm just saying that by employing terrorist tactics as the Palestinian groups have done countless times, targeting innocent civilians, is completely unacceptable. It not only renders any legitimate argument they might have had moot or irrelevant, but also invites severe retribution - and the hellish cost of war will be paid by innocent civilians on both sides. It's about time the Palestinian people woke up and realized that they must turn away from the violence promoted by their radical elements, and convince each other that they must pursue peaceful strategies to accomplish their objectives.
In the end it's their choice, though - and if they choose violence, then it's pretty inevitable that they're going to reap what they sow. If that sounds callous, it's not. It isn't as if I don't sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, I do, conditions are so bad there I can't even imagine living like they do, under occupation, with a collapsed economy, a history of massive corruption in their various "governments," and so on. But I also sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Israelis... and they're the ones who've been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks for decades, and certainly have a right to defend themselves. There are many nuances and subtleties to all of this, I realize that it's really not quite as cut and dried as this, but I maintain my opinion that it's up to the Palestinians and the other elements that support terrorism (attacking civilians to instill terror in a populace in order to achieve your political goals) to put a stop to this insanity. Then, AFTER the killing stops, we can talk about what Israel needs to do to be a good neighbor to its Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Your thoughts?
P.S. (7/30/2006): Just found an article in the Washington Post that explains the legal basis for Israel's response.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Illegal Aliens - America's 21st Century Slave Class
My buddy Rose just sent me a link to this article, which really got my attention and made me think about the implications of this ugly situation. The "corporate mindset" of our nation has allowed us to fail to see, or worse, ignore and do nothing about, the existence of this slave class of people in our culture, and it's causes and effects. Frosty Woodridge, the author of this article (published at Rense.com), examines the phenomenon with relentless logic, and draws some ominous conclusions.
I'm for my buddy Dave's solution - just do away with borders and national identity, let's just all be "people" together on the planet who care about ourselves and each other and live in harmony (well, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea - "Can't we all just get along?"). Well, things seem to be going to hell in a handbasket all over our nice little planet here, so apparently the answer to that is "No, sorry, we can't. We have to act like immature hormonal teenagers for a little while longer, hurt each other some more, and ourselves... maybe after we get tired of killing each other, and being killed, and using each other, and being used (etc.), and have some epiphany that shows us how childishly we're behaving, we'll stop the hatred and the killing and learn how to get along, but for now, we're just not ready yet. But thanks for asking"
God, how I wish the people with real power on this planet would "get it." Okay, I'll keep praying.
:~)
I'm for my buddy Dave's solution - just do away with borders and national identity, let's just all be "people" together on the planet who care about ourselves and each other and live in harmony (well, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea - "Can't we all just get along?"). Well, things seem to be going to hell in a handbasket all over our nice little planet here, so apparently the answer to that is "No, sorry, we can't. We have to act like immature hormonal teenagers for a little while longer, hurt each other some more, and ourselves... maybe after we get tired of killing each other, and being killed, and using each other, and being used (etc.), and have some epiphany that shows us how childishly we're behaving, we'll stop the hatred and the killing and learn how to get along, but for now, we're just not ready yet. But thanks for asking"
God, how I wish the people with real power on this planet would "get it." Okay, I'll keep praying.
:~)
Thursday, June 08, 2006
A Blog Around the Clock...
Hi!
My greatly admired and erudite friend Bora Zivkovic has started a science blog! It's called A Blog Around the Clock... you should check it out, explore. Bora has a broad perspective and a penetrating mind, he'll no doubt make you think. Check out his other older blogs, too (they're linked to on A Blog Around the Clock).
Have a fine day...
My greatly admired and erudite friend Bora Zivkovic has started a science blog! It's called A Blog Around the Clock... you should check it out, explore. Bora has a broad perspective and a penetrating mind, he'll no doubt make you think. Check out his other older blogs, too (they're linked to on A Blog Around the Clock).
Have a fine day...
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
In Search of Balance
Hi!
I haven't written anything in here for a while... it's not because I haven't had anything to say, it's more that I've had too much to say! I get overwhelmed by current events and can't decide where to start, what to include in my rant, what to leave out, what's relevant or superfluous, and so on. I find myself in awe of both the complexity and the simultaneous simplicity of many of the issues that face us today. It's that old paradox thing again.
On immigration, for instance, it seems so obvious that we should secure our borders immediately and effectively, work out some viable immigration policy that allows honest people to come here and work, figure out a humane way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here, and institute policies that prevent employers from taking unfair advantage of people by paying them substandard wages and denying them what we consider to be the basic rights of employees (social security, some form of health insurance, and so on). Each one of these seemingly simple concepts, though, is incredibly complicated when one considers the details of implementing them. As with so many other issues, extremists on both sides of the argument stretch their credibility far beyond the cracking point and incur our comtempt for their narrow-mindedness. In their attempts to make their point they exaggerate, twist, ignore or deny conflicting evidence or facts, muddy the waters with unfounded assumptions and conclusions, and obfuscate things until we've lost sight of the big picture. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could break out of our adversarial paradigm and learn to cooperate in sincere efforts to address problems.
It's the same with almost every dillema that faces us - we polarize the issues, separating one 'side' from the other, building walls where none need exist and knocking down any bridges that might contaminate the pure fundamentalist vision of one group with that of the other, frustrating any efforts at compromise, and insuring our continued imprisonment in the cages we've created for ouselves.
Of course I'm doing the same thing right now... trying to oversimplify a very complex situation (different people have different perceptions of what's best for all, for starters), and complicating what is essentially a simple issue (that we should just try our best to work together for the benefit of all, rather than a select few).
Okay, I'll shut up now...
Big sigh. Well, life's a constant balancing act, isn't it? And that's the way it should be, I imagine. May your search for the balance go well.
:~)aniel
I haven't written anything in here for a while... it's not because I haven't had anything to say, it's more that I've had too much to say! I get overwhelmed by current events and can't decide where to start, what to include in my rant, what to leave out, what's relevant or superfluous, and so on. I find myself in awe of both the complexity and the simultaneous simplicity of many of the issues that face us today. It's that old paradox thing again.
On immigration, for instance, it seems so obvious that we should secure our borders immediately and effectively, work out some viable immigration policy that allows honest people to come here and work, figure out a humane way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here, and institute policies that prevent employers from taking unfair advantage of people by paying them substandard wages and denying them what we consider to be the basic rights of employees (social security, some form of health insurance, and so on). Each one of these seemingly simple concepts, though, is incredibly complicated when one considers the details of implementing them. As with so many other issues, extremists on both sides of the argument stretch their credibility far beyond the cracking point and incur our comtempt for their narrow-mindedness. In their attempts to make their point they exaggerate, twist, ignore or deny conflicting evidence or facts, muddy the waters with unfounded assumptions and conclusions, and obfuscate things until we've lost sight of the big picture. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could break out of our adversarial paradigm and learn to cooperate in sincere efforts to address problems.
It's the same with almost every dillema that faces us - we polarize the issues, separating one 'side' from the other, building walls where none need exist and knocking down any bridges that might contaminate the pure fundamentalist vision of one group with that of the other, frustrating any efforts at compromise, and insuring our continued imprisonment in the cages we've created for ouselves.
Of course I'm doing the same thing right now... trying to oversimplify a very complex situation (different people have different perceptions of what's best for all, for starters), and complicating what is essentially a simple issue (that we should just try our best to work together for the benefit of all, rather than a select few).
Okay, I'll shut up now...
Big sigh. Well, life's a constant balancing act, isn't it? And that's the way it should be, I imagine. May your search for the balance go well.
:~)aniel
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Indigo Children - Hope for the future?
In the post below titled "The Adversarial Mindset vs. Impartiality and Objectivity," I ended by expressing the hope that "Perhaps we can help find the balance between the realistic skepticism required for self-preservation and the optimistic hope of open-mindedness, objectivity and cooperation required... also for our self-preservation. Let's wish ourselves good fortune and do what we can." This was written in the context of our work at JRE Grassroots, a politically oriented website and community where I'm a site administrator. I used to loathe politics, but learned long ago that, as Pericles said in 430 BC, "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Our political process, flawed as it is, is still one of the ways we can work for positive change on a national and global scale, so I 'got involved.' There are many other ways, however, people can work to promote tolerance, understanding, peace, and respect for each other and the planet.
Please read that post for context, if you haven't already.
I've just become aware of a phenomenon. Well, I've been aware of the phenomenon itself for many years, but I just learned that others have also become aware of it, and it now has a name. In the last decade or two, more and more children have been discovered to have some unique and impressive traits. Unusual intelligence, and perceptive and analytical abilities, a maturity and wisdom far beyond their years, remarkable musical or other artistic talents, psychic or metaphysical potential or ability, and other characteristics that seem to indicate that something unusual is going on. Their gifts come at a price, however - society isn't really geared to nurturing prodigies who are more often than not non-conformists, impatient with dysfunctional systems, and otherwise frustrated by the way things are in the world today. They don't fit in very well, and they suffer because of it, feeling isolated and unable to relate to current cultural mindsets. They are often misdiagnosed with attention deficit disorder, or hyperactivity, or autisim, or some other mental aberration, and all too often medicated with drugs that may do more harm than good. This phenomenon has been noticed, researched, measured and studied in depth by professionals in the mental health and educational fields. They are known as the Indigo Children, and many believe they may actually be the vanguard of a new stage in human evolution. You can learn more about Indigo Children here. I've also added a link to that site (Metagifted.Org) to the sidebar. Anyway, learning about this has been very interesting, and has given me not only explanations for some of the anomalies in my own life, and a feeling of understanding and connection, but also the hope that there might be enough of these children with the wisdom and power to help guide us through the major changes we'll need to make to restore some balance to our lives, our cultures, and the planet.
I think we're going to be hearing more about these kids.
Peace...
Please read that post for context, if you haven't already.
I've just become aware of a phenomenon. Well, I've been aware of the phenomenon itself for many years, but I just learned that others have also become aware of it, and it now has a name. In the last decade or two, more and more children have been discovered to have some unique and impressive traits. Unusual intelligence, and perceptive and analytical abilities, a maturity and wisdom far beyond their years, remarkable musical or other artistic talents, psychic or metaphysical potential or ability, and other characteristics that seem to indicate that something unusual is going on. Their gifts come at a price, however - society isn't really geared to nurturing prodigies who are more often than not non-conformists, impatient with dysfunctional systems, and otherwise frustrated by the way things are in the world today. They don't fit in very well, and they suffer because of it, feeling isolated and unable to relate to current cultural mindsets. They are often misdiagnosed with attention deficit disorder, or hyperactivity, or autisim, or some other mental aberration, and all too often medicated with drugs that may do more harm than good. This phenomenon has been noticed, researched, measured and studied in depth by professionals in the mental health and educational fields. They are known as the Indigo Children, and many believe they may actually be the vanguard of a new stage in human evolution. You can learn more about Indigo Children here. I've also added a link to that site (Metagifted.Org) to the sidebar. Anyway, learning about this has been very interesting, and has given me not only explanations for some of the anomalies in my own life, and a feeling of understanding and connection, but also the hope that there might be enough of these children with the wisdom and power to help guide us through the major changes we'll need to make to restore some balance to our lives, our cultures, and the planet.
I think we're going to be hearing more about these kids.
Peace...
Monday, September 26, 2005
Alternative Creation Theories?
If the government wants to allow schools to expand their 'science' cirriculum beyond scientifically based creation theories, and teach religion-based theories, shouldn't they include theories taught by other religious groups (such as Native American and other indiginous peoples) as well as Judeo-Christian based creation stories? Shouldn't we learn how one tribe's ancestors crawled out of a hole in the earth, or another tribe emerged from the womb of a turtle? I'm sure there are a great diversity of creation stories and myths that could be presented as viable theories - probably enough to completely fill a student's schedule for several semesters, anyway. Or should we just stick to science in the schools, and leave religion to the churches, mosques, tabernacles, synagogues, dioceses, and other religious institutions or organizations?
Thursday, August 18, 2005
The Adversarial Mindset vs. Impartiality and Objectivity
The Adversarial Mindset vs. Impartiality and Objectivity:
Oxymoron? Paradox? Catch 22? A Balance to be Found?
A while ago I made an entry comparing the definitions of patriotism and nationalism, noting that nationalism is anathema to the concepts of freedom and tolerance. A psychological prerequisite to the cultural phenomena of nationalism is an adversarial mindset. Without a predisposition to render all issues into a linear, two-dimensional context - and further, mistakenly assume that the two perspectives, the two perceived realities, being at opposite ends of the continuum, must be incompatible - nationalism, and other manifestations of a narrow, confrontational mindset, would be virtually impossible.
This urge to polarize everything, to break things down into simple black and white, is deeply ingrained - it's a fundamental instinct that enables us to survive in a world filled with conflicts of all sorts. Competition with other species - and, as homo sapiens evolved and developed social structures, between tribes and nations - for land, food, and other resources has been a fact of life since the pre-dawn of our history. There has always been an "I and you," and an "us and them" in our reality, from the individual level up through the family, tribe, neighborhood, city, county, state, national, political, religious, ethnic, and other social and cultural distinctions that define and often separate us from each other.
Where we draw the line between "us" and "them" depends entirely on the nature and context of the issue - and sometimes it's not up to us, it's drawn by circumstances beyond our control. And it's rarely a static line, nor a clear one, it expands and contracts according to situations, and our objectivity or subjectivity, blurring and sharpening as we learn more, constantly causing us to redefine our perceptions of reality according to the latest context and data. This need to define and divine our boundaries and allegiances, to draw and perceive the lines tween "us" and "them," is a survival mechanism, without which we wouldn't be able to make critical decisions.
It is not enough, however, to simply draw a line blindly wherever it may seem to suit us at the moment; nor is it safe to mistake someone else's imaginary line for a real one and base our decisions on it - we must separate ourselves from our fellow man with great care, and accept those separations imposed upon us by others with great reluctance and skepticism. The importance of doing so cannot be overstated. To fail in this endeavor to always strive for harmony over discord, to expand the boundaries of the inclusive circle of "us," will tip the delicate balance and spill out all our hopes for peace in the world. To fail to perceive a genuine threat from a legitimate "them" brings disaster - but to create a division where none really exists is equally foolhardy, and will also result in dire consequences. This attempt to find and maintain a balanced and realistic perspective on which to base our decisions is an endless dance.
There are a few tools we'll need to achieve this goal, though:
1. brutal honesty, both with ourselves and with each other;
2. a genuine recognition of our essential human commonality, and an understanding that we are collectively entrusted with the care and stewardship of the planet and all that is upon it, and that if we blow it we're screwed;
3. the genuine deep-seated respect for each other that must arise from recognizing our essential oneness, and our essential individual autonomy and rights;
4. a deep and abiding faith that, just as none of us are perfect, each of us making wrong and hurtful choices based on ignorance or selfishness from time to time, each also frequently acts with great compassion and goodness;
5. ...and time to adjust to this new reality, to get over the shock of paradigm shift. This might be the most difficult hurdle of all, to overcome the inertia of a billion systems seemingly hell-bent on self-destruction.
But the hard part is, this is a world-game that won't work right unless everybody plays... and by the same basic rules, of honesty, compassion and respect for our many differences. So how do we get from where we are now to that place?
I don't know the answer to that. I imagine it will take some sort of universal and transforming set of circumstances, a global epiphany, if you will, that catalyzes our collective consciousness (and conscience) and causes the seeds of reason to take root and grow. But I do know that in the meantime we must continue to have faith in the essential goodness of men - and, while discerning and guarding against erroneous information, lies, and fraud, we must sow seeds of peace and understanding, and support others who are also driven by the same desire for harmony.
I also know that those who spend their time sowing seeds of suspicion and fear, whose efforts serve to divide and alienate us from our brothers and sisters, are not themselves our enemy - they are merely wandering in their own darkness, blind to the opportunities that open before them and pass unnoticed. They are slaves to the real enemy: Ignorance. This is the enemy we must do battle with. We must find and root out the ignorance and resulting fear that lives within ourselves and within each other - and at the same time find, recognize and nurture the goodness that also lives within each of us.
Unfortunately, this is a seemingly endless process of spiritual growth and evolution, not something that can be rushed through, any more than one can expect adult behavior from a ten-year-old, or a house to be built in an hour. Lessons must be thoroughly learned, some several times over, foundations must be laid and built upon, before we finally "get it." Shortcuts result in poor workmanship and a shoddy product, and cost much more than they're worth in the time (we only imagine) we save.
Nonetheless, this seemingly monumental and impossible task, of educating ourselves and each other about the consequences of self-righteousness and disrespect for others, and the benefits of practicing and promoting mutual tolerance, understanding and respect, is one that demands our time and energy. Some would have you believe this dedication to open-mindedness is something they like to call "moral relativism," an affliction that renders one incapable of determining what one thinks might be right from what one thinks might be wrong. That's pure-dee bullcrap. Real moral relativism is a long way down the road from open-mindedness - let's use a little common sense here.
Ironically enough, the only thing we shouldn't be open-minded about is being narrow-minded... there's no room for it in any workable plan to help bring peace and prosperity to the planet. Self-righteous people who talk a lot but don't listen much make me extremely nervous. I instinctively distrust them, as they're entirely too sure of their own assumptions, too committed to their own little paradigms, to grow and evolve. They exist in a state of waking death, like zombie spiders, luring others into their petrified doctrinal webs of ignorance, fear and denial.
Peace to you and yours...
:~)aniel
Oxymoron? Paradox? Catch 22? A Balance to be Found?
A while ago I made an entry comparing the definitions of patriotism and nationalism, noting that nationalism is anathema to the concepts of freedom and tolerance. A psychological prerequisite to the cultural phenomena of nationalism is an adversarial mindset. Without a predisposition to render all issues into a linear, two-dimensional context - and further, mistakenly assume that the two perspectives, the two perceived realities, being at opposite ends of the continuum, must be incompatible - nationalism, and other manifestations of a narrow, confrontational mindset, would be virtually impossible.
This urge to polarize everything, to break things down into simple black and white, is deeply ingrained - it's a fundamental instinct that enables us to survive in a world filled with conflicts of all sorts. Competition with other species - and, as homo sapiens evolved and developed social structures, between tribes and nations - for land, food, and other resources has been a fact of life since the pre-dawn of our history. There has always been an "I and you," and an "us and them" in our reality, from the individual level up through the family, tribe, neighborhood, city, county, state, national, political, religious, ethnic, and other social and cultural distinctions that define and often separate us from each other.
Where we draw the line between "us" and "them" depends entirely on the nature and context of the issue - and sometimes it's not up to us, it's drawn by circumstances beyond our control. And it's rarely a static line, nor a clear one, it expands and contracts according to situations, and our objectivity or subjectivity, blurring and sharpening as we learn more, constantly causing us to redefine our perceptions of reality according to the latest context and data. This need to define and divine our boundaries and allegiances, to draw and perceive the lines tween "us" and "them," is a survival mechanism, without which we wouldn't be able to make critical decisions.
It is not enough, however, to simply draw a line blindly wherever it may seem to suit us at the moment; nor is it safe to mistake someone else's imaginary line for a real one and base our decisions on it - we must separate ourselves from our fellow man with great care, and accept those separations imposed upon us by others with great reluctance and skepticism. The importance of doing so cannot be overstated. To fail in this endeavor to always strive for harmony over discord, to expand the boundaries of the inclusive circle of "us," will tip the delicate balance and spill out all our hopes for peace in the world. To fail to perceive a genuine threat from a legitimate "them" brings disaster - but to create a division where none really exists is equally foolhardy, and will also result in dire consequences. This attempt to find and maintain a balanced and realistic perspective on which to base our decisions is an endless dance.
There are a few tools we'll need to achieve this goal, though:
1. brutal honesty, both with ourselves and with each other;
2. a genuine recognition of our essential human commonality, and an understanding that we are collectively entrusted with the care and stewardship of the planet and all that is upon it, and that if we blow it we're screwed;
3. the genuine deep-seated respect for each other that must arise from recognizing our essential oneness, and our essential individual autonomy and rights;
4. a deep and abiding faith that, just as none of us are perfect, each of us making wrong and hurtful choices based on ignorance or selfishness from time to time, each also frequently acts with great compassion and goodness;
5. ...and time to adjust to this new reality, to get over the shock of paradigm shift. This might be the most difficult hurdle of all, to overcome the inertia of a billion systems seemingly hell-bent on self-destruction.
But the hard part is, this is a world-game that won't work right unless everybody plays... and by the same basic rules, of honesty, compassion and respect for our many differences. So how do we get from where we are now to that place?
I don't know the answer to that. I imagine it will take some sort of universal and transforming set of circumstances, a global epiphany, if you will, that catalyzes our collective consciousness (and conscience) and causes the seeds of reason to take root and grow. But I do know that in the meantime we must continue to have faith in the essential goodness of men - and, while discerning and guarding against erroneous information, lies, and fraud, we must sow seeds of peace and understanding, and support others who are also driven by the same desire for harmony.
I also know that those who spend their time sowing seeds of suspicion and fear, whose efforts serve to divide and alienate us from our brothers and sisters, are not themselves our enemy - they are merely wandering in their own darkness, blind to the opportunities that open before them and pass unnoticed. They are slaves to the real enemy: Ignorance. This is the enemy we must do battle with. We must find and root out the ignorance and resulting fear that lives within ourselves and within each other - and at the same time find, recognize and nurture the goodness that also lives within each of us.
Unfortunately, this is a seemingly endless process of spiritual growth and evolution, not something that can be rushed through, any more than one can expect adult behavior from a ten-year-old, or a house to be built in an hour. Lessons must be thoroughly learned, some several times over, foundations must be laid and built upon, before we finally "get it." Shortcuts result in poor workmanship and a shoddy product, and cost much more than they're worth in the time (we only imagine) we save.
Nonetheless, this seemingly monumental and impossible task, of educating ourselves and each other about the consequences of self-righteousness and disrespect for others, and the benefits of practicing and promoting mutual tolerance, understanding and respect, is one that demands our time and energy. Some would have you believe this dedication to open-mindedness is something they like to call "moral relativism," an affliction that renders one incapable of determining what one thinks might be right from what one thinks might be wrong. That's pure-dee bullcrap. Real moral relativism is a long way down the road from open-mindedness - let's use a little common sense here.
Ironically enough, the only thing we shouldn't be open-minded about is being narrow-minded... there's no room for it in any workable plan to help bring peace and prosperity to the planet. Self-righteous people who talk a lot but don't listen much make me extremely nervous. I instinctively distrust them, as they're entirely too sure of their own assumptions, too committed to their own little paradigms, to grow and evolve. They exist in a state of waking death, like zombie spiders, luring others into their petrified doctrinal webs of ignorance, fear and denial.
Peace to you and yours...
:~)aniel
Monday, July 04, 2005
Patriotism vs. Nationalism
Merriam Webster defines these as:
Patriotism:
Function: noun: love for or devotion to one's country
Nationalism:
Function: noun: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.
Ignorance of the essential difference between these two attributes has apparently allowed many to slip across the divide unaware of their own narrow-mindedness. A couple of the fundamental things about America that inspire patriotism are it's dedication to and promotion of freedom and tolerance. While nationalism is a violation of these very prinicples, patriotism embodies and upholds them.
:~)
Patriotism:
Function: noun: love for or devotion to one's country
Nationalism:
Function: noun: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.
Ignorance of the essential difference between these two attributes has apparently allowed many to slip across the divide unaware of their own narrow-mindedness. A couple of the fundamental things about America that inspire patriotism are it's dedication to and promotion of freedom and tolerance. While nationalism is a violation of these very prinicples, patriotism embodies and upholds them.
:~)
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Eminent Domain
The Supreme Court's decision to allow the Eminent Domain ruling to be used to transfer property from individual property owners to other private parties and corporations to "serve the public interest" is a travesty. Using this logic, any property could be transferred by government edict to another owner if it was thought (by someone) that such transfer would serve the public interest (whatever that's determined to be). Let's see... Bill Gates' house would make a great community recreation center or library, so we can start there. George Bush's ranch would make a wonderful Boy's Ranch, and that would certainly serve the public interest, so let's turn that over to some government agency or corporation, too. I'm sure many properties, all over the country, could be better used to "serve the public interest" under new ownership... or at least it could be so argued in any court of law. Where do you think this will this lead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
