I have been thinking about the real reason Washington Politicians are way out of touch with the rest of us. Its simple tribe logic. People are tribal. I don't know why I never thought of it this way before. Many many cultures rely on the local people they interact with to set the standard for their lives. DC Pols are no different. Think about it. Congressman Kennedy & Congressman Frist are at complete opposite ends of our established political spectrum (which I think should be a lot broader - but that's for another discussion), but, at the end of the day, they have more in common with each other than they do with you or me. Think tribal. Their lives are similar. Both have specific, specialized scenarios that you really don't find anywhere else amongst Americans. These are:
1) They need to get re-elected. Their livelihoods, cultural connections, lifestyles, hopes and dreams are all dependent on their ability to get re-elected. How do you survive in a corporate world? You go to work and make sure everyone around you knows that you are valuable to the company. How do you survive in a blue collar world? You show up everyday (even if there is nothing to do), you keep yourself busy, you are eager to do whatever work shows up, you never complain about the pay or the conditions. The end result is the same, you tap into the vast resources of the economy and bring some of it home to take care of your family and your wants/needs. Totally different from someone who needs to get re-elected. They are constantly campaigning, making promises & compromises of their personal ethics to try to reach out to the voters. Often their might be other dirty little tasks that need to get done to make sure the end result of the election gives them the numbers they need to win. They have to suck up to anyone who has power over public opinion - even if they don't like them. If you or I don't like Oprah, we can tell our bosses that we don't like Oprah and that would not affect our ability to get a promotion (in most cases). Not so for Frist or Kennedy - don't like Oprah? Don't get re-elected.
2) They have to put up with powerful people trying to change their minds about issues, or bid for their support of certain issues over what they might think to be something more important. Probably threats too. 'If you don't support the ANWR drilling, we will become a third world country in 12 years, etc.' What powerful people are trying to get my support for ANWR? Nobody. There's no one asking me to meet their friends for a round of golf and implying that if I don't, they will pull all their companies out of the state and move to Mexico....
3) They have the power to change the USA and also (indirectly) the world. Wow. That's a lot of pressure. Do you have that kind of pressure on you ? Will history teach that because Jack Schmidt forgot to cap off the oil well last night, WWIII was started? Or because John forgot to specify a paint color that we were unable to keep the aliens from invading earth and enslaving us all?
My point is not at all to offer the DC Pols forgiveness or an excuse to hide behind, because lately (the last generation or so) they have not lived up to any standard of responsibility (personal or professional). My point is these people are not like us. There is no way for most of them to understand what I need or what you need. They have a totally different lifestyle than any other American who ever lived. DC Pols are a specialized group of people who have a specialized function and are trapped in that culture on the hill. We are all this way. We rely and depend on each other and naturally flock to other people who have similar needs and are surviving similar situations. Mostly for support. After the work is done on Capitol Hill, the Congressmen and women don't go back to their homes and talk to their neighbors about the weather. They can't. They have no common experiences with the rest of us. Anyway, they need to talk to other people who have their same experience. That's just what Human beings do. That's how we cope. I imagine that they feel ostracized by society anyway. There is no way for a person to serve the country like Ted Kennedy has and not have some cynicism and disdain for the rest of us.
Its not rocket science why DC Pols aren't actually able to do anything that effectively helps the rest of society. Its simple. They do not know what kind of help we need.
Ok, so how to fix the dilemma? To my first two points, I think there is a way to help keep these things from happening. Point number one (re-election)
- term limits. This is the way to make sure that the term they are in office, they focus on the task at hand and not get involved in campaigning. No future election to go to, no campaigning, no wasting of my time. The second point (government lobbyists) make this kind of thing illegal. Punish the lobbyists and encourage the Congresspeople to rat them out by making some kind of bonus or reward for each scumbag caught trying to influence the law making process. This would ostracize them even more, but with the term limits, it would only be for a little while. Basically turn the offices into more of a public servant position. For the third point, there is no real way to take away this responsibility and awesome power. But, we can limit access to the power.
To be true to the ideals which have revolutionized human interactions, forged our Constitution and other documents/laws directed by our founding fathers, we need to limit any single person's access to raw power. That's why democracy works so well, even when it is perverted into a republic such as ours. With more power, we need to institute more limitation with regards to any single person's access to this power. We have to do this because we are all human and none of us can control ourselves in the face of raw power, and we know what happens when someone abuses power. The idea of reducing the concentration of power (true socialism/communism) is a real fantasy. It makes a false assumption that people can work together for mutual benefit. We are not capable of that. It has actually been proven many times over the last half century. The only time people work together is to repel a common threat. That's it. Otherwise, we might form up into groups and work with each other for short periods of time, but each of us still has our own individual goals and agendas.
On to how this applies to terrorism. Ok, so I am on a roll here, but this is also a simple thing. Who can disagree that terrorism is an insane, desperate, horrible, and disturbing form of social dissent? No one. This is a simple truth. Should we waste a bunch of time trying to understand terrorists? Absolutely not. Total waste of time. Terrorism is a reaction of a small minority of people with limited resources and undeveloped beliefs who have given up hope in a situation and come to the conclusion that the situation would be better off if they killed or damaged others. When human beings have done a poor job of managing power, terrorism begins to emerge (there are many, many other signs of poor management before terrorism emerges, if we just want to look, but that's another story). Simple. This is repeated throughout history and is also a Human trait. It is in our programming to ask the questions who what why how and when. It is also in our programming to act before examining the consequences - most of us outgrow this programming, but some whackos are determined to ignore reality. When the people who are managing power become unable (or refuse) to have any meaningful conversation with the rest of us, some whackos will eventually turn to terrorism (of course the dichotomy of terrorism is that it is a non-communicative form of expression that results in a lot of damage and death). Do you think Radical Muslim Leaders are just sitting around thinking 'How can we kill Christians?' If that was the main goal, there would be a lot more dead Christians. There are many ways to kill Christians without bombs and air planes and subways and IEDs, etc. Many ways which would cause much worse terror - like poisoning the water supply or disabling the power grid or dirty bombs, etc. I am not sure what the radical Muslim leaders are thinking, but it is more complicated than 'Lets go kill Christians'. The thing to recognize is that having a healthy awareness/fear of terrorism and developing a strong resistance to and protection from terrorism is not going to solve the issues. The issues are not bigger or smaller than terrorism, but they are important and revolve around making sure people properly manage power or at least are creating the illusion that they are properly managing power. I have always postulated that if we could solve the gang problem in East LA, we could solve the terrorist problem in the world. Even if we figured out a magic way to protect everyone's life from any harm, terrorism would still exist in situations where the management of power becomes abuse of power. Our value system would shift and whackos would attack whatever we value most. Should we monitor all the whackos to see if we are managing power properly? Absolutely not. No reason to give the psychos any more power than they already have. The psychos won't organize, band together and start killing random people just because they are psycho. Typically, the whackos will kill each other and leave the rest of us alone (Re: Mobsters). Its when the whackos join together under a common thread to commit organized acts of violence on random innocents that you know the power has been mismanaged and something is really wrong with the direction of your culture. Remember, our culture no longer extends to the borders of the continental US, it extends all over the world and to the stratosphere. We are responsible to get the management of that power back under control just as much as we are responsible for protecting ourselves and our allies from terrorism.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Thoughts on Bushco
It is interesting to me that this administration has no real desire to exact consequences for misdeeds. There have been multiple instances of lying, taking bribes, nepotism, ethical breaches at all levels that have been exposed and yet gone unpunished. I would like to get together a list of punishable offenses of only the Bush Administration officials and appointees who have been proven to have done something unethical and have been punished to compare it to a list who have been proven to have done something unethical and have actually been punished.
I would like to make the point that the class war in America starts with this attitude that if we get caught, there is no consequences, but if we catch you, there are dire consequences. Extending this attitude to our Foreign policy would not be much of a stretch, explaining many quizzical and seemingly unneeded bad decisions.
Unfortunately a leader has the responsibility to police their own people and have the guts to punish anyone who does something unethical. Otherwise, that leader will send the message that it is ok to stretch the boundaries of ethics as long as you don't get caught. When you are the leader of America, this tacit approval extends to the people of the country as well and they will try to get away with all kinds of stuff. It becomes systemic (which we now have proof - look at our banking system or professional sports or our criminal justice system or the media. We live in a world where 24 hours is the shelf life of any lie or news or information. People don't care if you wore a yellow dress yesterday and then came out today saying that yellow is unpatriotic. All they hear is today's message. Why? Because there are no benefits / rewards for remembering what happened yesterday. Only consequences for going against what is happening today.
I would like to make the point that the class war in America starts with this attitude that if we get caught, there is no consequences, but if we catch you, there are dire consequences. Extending this attitude to our Foreign policy would not be much of a stretch, explaining many quizzical and seemingly unneeded bad decisions.
Unfortunately a leader has the responsibility to police their own people and have the guts to punish anyone who does something unethical. Otherwise, that leader will send the message that it is ok to stretch the boundaries of ethics as long as you don't get caught. When you are the leader of America, this tacit approval extends to the people of the country as well and they will try to get away with all kinds of stuff. It becomes systemic (which we now have proof - look at our banking system or professional sports or our criminal justice system or the media. We live in a world where 24 hours is the shelf life of any lie or news or information. People don't care if you wore a yellow dress yesterday and then came out today saying that yellow is unpatriotic. All they hear is today's message. Why? Because there are no benefits / rewards for remembering what happened yesterday. Only consequences for going against what is happening today.
Islamic Extremism?
The world we live in now broadcasts injustice 24-7. So much injustice that thereis no way to effectively deal with it all. So much so that we even have disagreements about which things are unjust and which are not.What's funny/ironic is that the same islamic extremism that is attributed to knocking down the towers on 9/11 is also trying to keep people fromowning/walking their dogs in public in one of the more liberated places ofthe islamic world (seems crazy to us, but we have a different culture, valuesystem, etc). Not only funny, but gives us a glimpse into the insanity behind behind the belief system. Also, as you are pointing out, shows some parallels with the fascism which is in the west's past (I hope).What is amazing to me is that it also gives us a glimpse into how that insanity might be losing momentum - especially if dudes with dogs are walking up to chicks in burkas and trying to get their phone number (police be damned). And, more to the point, we have a chance to observe this and process it from our uniquely american perspective. One of my observations is that the people of Riyadh aren't that different from us - especially if the walking dog trick works there too - but that their governing structure is quite different from ours. All of which should serve to lower our fears of this islamic extremism taking over our country where a man could order a beer, hamburger, and a lapdance from the same chair while dressed up in a burka (which to me would also be a funny image, btw). I'm sure the Saudis think we are just as insane, as you pointed out. I betthey laugh at the idea of a spaghetti monster as the creator of all the world being discussed in a high court of law (Kansas). They probably alsowonder about/ridicule our obsessions with wealth and fame, which are'ungodly' pursuits (even by our own christian standards).It is a very different world now with global access to information/misinformation. I have hope that it will begin to progress more rapidlytowards the end of injustice because of this shared access to each otherslives ('hello people!'). Rather than a progression to more paranoia andfascism ('say hello to my little friend').
Save Money on School Design?
Could we save money on school design by limiting the space the instructor has to teach? Does every classroom need a giant presentation space for teaching (blackboard/projector screen)? Seems like the students should be the focus of the design, not the instructor. Especially a giant lecture hall seems to be a total waste of space and we don't have any indication that a 300 person lecture is a better way of teaching than a 20 person classroom. All that wasted space...
Maybe instructors could teach from a 'teaching booth' with an interactive screen on the wall in the classroom. The booths could be banked up together, limiting the space available. This would also create a hierarchy of environment where the students would be the important part of the classroom, not the professors. This might work especially well in high schools where teacher security is a factor, maybe allowing very good teachers who would otherwise shy away from these schools because of the violence to be able to participate in the education of the students. Theoretically, if done properly, the teachers could work from home. This would also take away the babysitting factor of the teaching profession and you could have a disciplinarian check on multiple classes at a time. If your school was basically non-violent, this would be like a hall monitor position. If the school had a high rate of violence, you could bring in local law enforcement - I mean the local law enforcement would have to deal with these people at some point anyway.
School administration could be split up into two separate entities where the teachers would be administered/evaluated by one group and the discipline would be monitored/evaluated by another group. Possibly could begin some real discussions about whether or not the teachers aren't keeping the students attention (ineffective), causing the discipline problems. Or if the students are unwieldy and therefore are to distracted to be taught properly. I assume there would be components of both.
Maybe instructors could teach from a 'teaching booth' with an interactive screen on the wall in the classroom. The booths could be banked up together, limiting the space available. This would also create a hierarchy of environment where the students would be the important part of the classroom, not the professors. This might work especially well in high schools where teacher security is a factor, maybe allowing very good teachers who would otherwise shy away from these schools because of the violence to be able to participate in the education of the students. Theoretically, if done properly, the teachers could work from home. This would also take away the babysitting factor of the teaching profession and you could have a disciplinarian check on multiple classes at a time. If your school was basically non-violent, this would be like a hall monitor position. If the school had a high rate of violence, you could bring in local law enforcement - I mean the local law enforcement would have to deal with these people at some point anyway.
School administration could be split up into two separate entities where the teachers would be administered/evaluated by one group and the discipline would be monitored/evaluated by another group. Possibly could begin some real discussions about whether or not the teachers aren't keeping the students attention (ineffective), causing the discipline problems. Or if the students are unwieldy and therefore are to distracted to be taught properly. I assume there would be components of both.
Thinking of something new
I have been thinking for the last few days about how the ultimate reality of human thought is inherent its level of flaw. We need a determiner or a normalizer or an adjustment factor to all accepted "truths".
I propose something like this:
Take any accepted "truth" and add a modifier for the following:
Assumptions
Decisions
Known Communication Method
Acceptance
I have been thinking of a numbering system as the modifier, but that leads back to a math based description and I am hoping to 'rethink' thinking or at least come up with some indicator as to how much stock one should put into each accepted "truth". IE, is it valid.
Example:
Accepted Truth: The Earth revolves around the Sun.
Assumptions:
The Earth & the Sun exist.
The Earth is in motion.
Decisions:
The Earth & the Sun are related spatially.
This spatial relationship has a specific, describable pattern.
Communication Method:
Verbal
Written
Pictorial
Demonstrative
Electronic
Acceptance:
Generally accepted
This truth would have a high level of validity based on its low level of assumptions and decisions, coupled with its ease of communication and overall acceptance.
I guess what I would like to create with this is a web page or resource that people can use as a bullshit detector. Maybe this is already too complicated and could be pared back to just assumptions and decisions. Dunno. I think if we could make this somehow work, it could help a lot of things, like research for instance. Researchers could have a weekly meeting to go over the validity of the work they are doing, and keep themselves going towards the information they seek, rather than off in random directions. I also think it could help government. If Laws had to comply with the bullshit detector, they would ultimately do more harm than good. We could have discussions about the validity of ideas, rather than the practicality of the ideas. Ultimately, forging ideas for practicality only is mental masturbation. Ideas need validity too.
I propose something like this:
Take any accepted "truth" and add a modifier for the following:
Assumptions
Decisions
Known Communication Method
Acceptance
I have been thinking of a numbering system as the modifier, but that leads back to a math based description and I am hoping to 'rethink' thinking or at least come up with some indicator as to how much stock one should put into each accepted "truth". IE, is it valid.
Example:
Accepted Truth: The Earth revolves around the Sun.
Assumptions:
The Earth & the Sun exist.
The Earth is in motion.
Decisions:
The Earth & the Sun are related spatially.
This spatial relationship has a specific, describable pattern.
Communication Method:
Verbal
Written
Pictorial
Demonstrative
Electronic
Acceptance:
Generally accepted
This truth would have a high level of validity based on its low level of assumptions and decisions, coupled with its ease of communication and overall acceptance.
I guess what I would like to create with this is a web page or resource that people can use as a bullshit detector. Maybe this is already too complicated and could be pared back to just assumptions and decisions. Dunno. I think if we could make this somehow work, it could help a lot of things, like research for instance. Researchers could have a weekly meeting to go over the validity of the work they are doing, and keep themselves going towards the information they seek, rather than off in random directions. I also think it could help government. If Laws had to comply with the bullshit detector, they would ultimately do more harm than good. We could have discussions about the validity of ideas, rather than the practicality of the ideas. Ultimately, forging ideas for practicality only is mental masturbation. Ideas need validity too.
McCain Thoughts
We know who McCain is now and what he is running for – how else would he be able to get the money to run? Maverick McCain never would have been able to get the funding or support of the party. He’s been siding with big corporate and special interests ever since Bush beat him in 2000. He realized that the public will wasn’t strong enough to beat the will of the corporate masters and he really really wants to be president. Will he keep siding with the corporate masters after elected? Who knows? Will he try to divide the country up and cheat his way in like the Bushies? As long as the public looks the other way, there will be no change – McCain is betting on the laziness and apathy of the American public. That’s a pretty damn good bet. Obama is still a long shot in my opinion. The only reason Obama will get the nomination is because the Demo party is so beaten down that they are desperate. They have tried just about everything they can think of to get the public’s and the media’s attention, but our attention span is too short. Think about it – the Repubs have a plan. McCain was next in line. He is the guy. No worries. People expect him to be the nominee. Its his turn. He’s a good guy. He would make a great president. The Demos have wild contests full of energy, but at the end of the day, they can’t show any kind of leadership, strategy, or planning. Every election cycle its some new program, they are all over the map. Who is Obama? I never heard of him until this year. How do the Dems expect the country to rally around a party that is so confused and convoluted?If it weren’t for the triple whammy of the credit/housing scandal, the price of gas and low consumer confidence, we would all be rolling our eyes and arguing about how Hillary or McBush is the lesser of two evils. Americans don’t want or expect the government to do anything for them unless there is a national disaster or a recession/depression. Americans want to ride around in style on drugs. That’s what we spend most of our lives doing. Next to sleep, driving in cars is the thing we spend most of our time doing. Probably an average of 10% of the American life is spent driving around. What makes driving around in cars better? Pharmaceuticals. As long as we have nice comfy rides, drugs, roads, and places to stop and sleep, what do we care what happens in Washington? We don’t. The only reason we care right now is because our rides and our sleeping places are threatened. By the time the election comes, gas will be back to $2.75 a gallon, McBush will somehow take the credit for it, and Obama will look like the kid in the school yard who got picked last for kickball. I hate to predict it, but we have seen it before so many times now. Somewhere around mid July, things will start to get ‘better.’ It is proven that Americans only have about a 1-3 month attention span for big elections. The Republicans will make their move in the beginning of August, which will cause there to be a bunch of controversy at the DNC Convention. Fun for us here in Denver, but ultimately bad for the Dems who will fail to take care of business. Their party has a critical flaw which has been exploited many times lately. The flaw is they have rule by committee (IE they are more democratic than the Repubs). Committees take time to digest information and react – this is always the Dems downfall in the elections. Exception: Bill C got elected, and I still am amazed. Although, he got elected by making a bunch of enemies over on the Repub/big corporate side. He used negative campaigning, which has now been incorporated into the Repubs strategy. Now they do it better that the Clintons ever did (John Kerry anyone? Anyone? Buehler?) How else could a draft dodging drunken son of an oil family (who also controlled the CIA) get re-elected over a purple heart decorated Vietnam veteran during a time when the country was in a quagmire so much like Vietnam?People who have seen the pattern are getting their bets in right now – when it seems that Obama can do no wrong. The conventional wisdom is saying Obama can win, but watch where the money goes. People aren’t pulling hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their Exxon stock to invest in Capital Solar. No one is liquidating their 10,000 shares of Kaiser, in anticipation of a universal health care system. Who is selling their Blackwater stock? Believe me, if the corporate masters thought we were going to elect Obama, go green, pull out of Iraq, change to universal health care, etc., you would see big money shifting. I don’t believe it until I see the money move. Last month, McBush raised a bunch of money. Obama will not be able to keep raising money, because the people cannot afford to give him 100 bucks anymore. Food, gas, housing costs are up. Now that he is the nominee, people will stop giving money and go back to their lives – I doubt if most of them will even bother to vote. It will be a big surprise to everyone in November when Obama loses – but not to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
