Politics (4th)

Vote Suppression—A Tactic Throughout History,

In ancient Rome the patricians, (aka rich political class), wanted their own way and, among other tactics, sought to get it by ensuring that voting occurred in summer months when many lower class people were out of town, (thus away from polling places), earning money as seasonal agricultural labor.

A different tactic was espoused by Joseph Stalin. He didn’t care who voted or how they voted, so long as he controlled the count.

A lesson of history is that politics of any kind are subject to ceaseless efforts at vote suppression/neutralization for the advantage of this or that group.

Recurrences are so numerous, so persistent, as to be almost boring.

Once again, in our time, people turn to a favorite page in a time-honored playbook of political skullduggery, once again running a belovéd play in happy anticipation of political advantages to be enjoyed by their group.

Be not upset at this. These people may, for a time, seem to be very powerful and difficult to stop.

Over time, (sometimes a lot of time), their misconduct always generates their defeat.

Why?

Because “reciprocity” is the universal moral law.

It can be expressed another way: “Put out what you want to take back.” Another way of saying the same thing: “It is impossible to serve someone something without serving oneself the exact same thing.” And the best known way, in our society: “Whatsoever you sow, that surely will you reap.”

It is commonly believed that this law operates as a final judgement in the next world.

Whether or not that’s true, it operates in the here and now.

The consequence is inherent in the deed.

Ultimately, regardless of caste or class, nobody gets away with anything. As stated in street language—”There’s no free lunch.”

So if your cause aligns harmoniously with the inflexible moral law of reciprocity, be in no doubt: there is no defeat so long as there is sustained moral effort.

Obviously, then, it’s better to lose a few rounds in a political contest that will inevitably be won, than to win a few rounds in a political contest that will inevitably be lost.

So let’s calmly, determinedly, shift into low gear, and recommit ourselves to the unending labor and vigilance that alone guarantee that “government of, by, and for (all) the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Ancestors (3rd)

Our Ancestors—Safe When They Walk The Streets Of Our Minds?

Most of us believe we’re much more “advanced” than our “crude” ancient ancestors.

In my opinion we’re quite unnecessarily self-congratulatory—consider this simple chart:

— Ancient Classical Elements

Fire Air Water Earth

— Modern Physics—States of Matter

Plasma Gas Liquid Solid

— Modern Earth Science

Magnetosphere Atmosphere Hydrosphere Geosphere

We’re quick to point out what we know that our ancient ancestors didn’t know.

Nevertheless, the above chart suggests that, while none of them would qualify for a job at NASA, they were far from ignorant and could be brought up to speed faster than we might think.

After they added our store of knowledge to theirs, (some of which we have lost, forgotten, disregarded, or mocked), would teaching then be strictly one-sided?

When considering the abilities and achievements of our forefathers and mothers, is it fitting to approach the subject predisposed to arrogance and smug self-assurance, or with respect and humility?

America

Land Of The Free—Home of the Brainwashed?

While researching a post I chanced upon comment posted by a reader responding to an editorial published in a British newspaper.

Despite its sarcastic conclusion, this comment is, in my view, worthy of sober consideration:

The average American is subject to endless brainwashing from many self-serving and contradictory sources, through their local newspapers, local TV and radio.

Their use of social media simply confirms their beliefs and prejudices.

They hear endless extreme religious propaganda from profit driven “churches”, advertising from companies desperate to make them addicted to fast food and the latest pointless products, political propaganda that’s way more extreme then anything experienced in the UK. This unregulated onslaught leaves them divorced from reality.

If the “American way of life” were a coin, this comment might well describe the tail.

Styrofoam—A Pain In The…Environment

“No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”—Edmund Burke

Stryofoam—

Its made with benzene, a known carcinogen, which is converted into styrene, which is then injected with gas to make it “foamy.”

Gases used are: CFC’s which damage Earth’s protective ozone layer, or HCFC’s, which, although 95% less harmful, still do damage. Alternatively, pentane or butane may be used. These are components of urban smog.

Styrofoam is completely non-biodegradable, so its possible the stuff will still be lying around in original form 1000 years from now.

Stryofoam is dangerous to marine life. Lots of styrofoam winds up in the ocean. Wave action breaks it into pieces that look like food. When eaten, it can clog an animal’s system.

Then it starves to death.

Paper cups, plates, egg cartons, etc. are biodegradable, and are therefore our products of choice. Whenever possible, lets politely insist on them.

Every earth-friendly choice slows or reduces pollution.

Its a mathematical certainty.

Capitalism (4th)

As a general principle of American law, people own their personal facts the same way they own their personal shirts—no one may make unauthorized use of either.

Enter surveillance capitalism—making money by selling our personal facts to advertisers, thus destroying our privacy.

One definition of privacy—the ability to control who knows what about us.

This must always be a qualified, not an absolute, right.

Public welfare sometimes demands intrusions, which, in my opinion, should always be strictly regulated by search warrant.

Another definition of privacy—self-selected aloneness—is essential for psychological health, and for cultivating a spiritual life.

Even regarding marriage an Arab poet once wrote, “…let there be a little apartness in your togetherness…”

Off by ourselves we can rest, refresh, become aware of inner guidance helping to solve our problems.

At such times, “heaven speaks.”

Heaven, (however you understand that term), never intended us to live lives devoid of privacy, locked into a technological fishbowl, constantly spied upon by plutocrat capitalists greedy to accumulate ever more money by selling our every discoverable personal fact to interested parties.

Add to this the government’s snooping and it’s plain we need to rethink our understanding of fourth amendment protection from “unreasonable search and seizure.”

It’s would seem that, to many in business and government, our precious the Bill of Rights has become rather inconvenient.

Regarding business, the profit motive does not justify literally anything.

Regarding government, The Constitution is not to be sidelined.

“I am a non-participant in social media. I’m not much attracted to anything that involves the willing forfeiture of privacy and the foregrounding of insignificance.”

—Billy Collins

“Facebook says ‘Privacy is theft’ because they’re selling your lack of privacy to the advertisers who might show up one day.”

—Jaron Lanier

“Saying you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

—Jean-Michel Jarre

“Once you’ve lost your privacy you realize you’ve lost an extremely valuable thing.”

—Billy Graham

Socialism (2nd)

In what passes for intelligent political discussion in America, socialism has no redeeming characteristics. It’s consistently slandered as a direct, unqualified, implacable threat to all we hold dear.

If that’s so, how does one explain that christian democrats and social democrats have functioned in coalition for years governing the German Federal Republic? ¹

Granted that no human system is or ever will be perfect, one has to admit that overall, Germany is a well-ordered, prosperous state, with national and local government maintaining mostly straightforward relationships with the electorate, including regular elections.

All socialists believe that capitalism is inherently unjust and unsustainable over the long haul, and should be replaced.

There are, however, differences in method.

Social democrat is a term for socialists who seek to reform capitalism bit by bit. As proved by years of modern German political history, social democrats affect change through German democratic processes, which include, don’t forget, risking their access to political power in legally mandated regular elections.

Democratic socialists,² on the other hand, point out flaws in capitalism in an effort to gin up support for an all-out change in the economic system, placing the means of production under public control, again using democratic methods.

These socialists are not communists. They don’t foment revolution.

When they lose at the ballot box, they do what other politicians do—conduct a postmortem and try again.

While we’re at it, lets briefly consider something critics of socialism seem to have forgotten—or perhaps like to ignore?—the direct influence of socialism on the American Democratic party during the Progressive Era, and on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Legislative results of that influence include the eight-hour work day, unemployment insurance, and Social Security.

How bad is that?

God help us if socialists ever get political power ?

Maybe not.

¹ Political parties active in The German Federal Republic include: Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU); their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU); their coalition socialist party partners, the Social Democrats (SPD); the opposition Greens; and the liberal Free Democrats (FDP).

² A word or two about Bernie Sanders: He calls himself a democratic socialist. His policies much more closely resemble those of social democrats. I think he selected the title “democratic socialist” because it sounds better.

Additionally, it’s been said that, as a matter of election tactics, he should drop the “S” word because it freaks out politically naive voters, and instead, present himself as advocating “catch-up” with other nations whose people already enjoy the benefit of programs he consistently advocates.

Wall Street = Main Street ?

“The Economy” = “We, The People ?”

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin said the economy was doing very well.

At that same time, the following was true of the people:

yearly, almost half a million were going bankrupt, caused, in part, by medical bills
20% of grade school students were living below the poverty line
2.9 million grade school students were living in households where they are unsure when they might get their next meal
25% of workers got no paid sick leave
almost 60% of Americans had total savings of $1000 or less
48% of Americans had nothing saved for retirement in a 401(k) or similar instrument
no more than 35% of student loan debt holders were making regular repayment, and 25% had defaulted
I could continue…

No doubt the economy, (aka profitability of corporations), was doing very well.

But what did that have to do with the people?

Were they being ignored?

If so, was it regrettable oversight or deliberate policy?

To be clear, I do not advocate doing away with “free-market” capitalism.

I do advocate carefully considered changes to eliminate its more glaring flaws.

“The benefits of economic freedom are secured only within the context of a framework of rules designed to link the pursuit of private profit to the *public interest.”

*public interest = stabilizing or improving the quality of life for all citizens”—From writings of Niskanen Center (a center-right think tank)

Recycling (1st)

is what I intended to discuss, but somehow it became a written exercise in free association, chasing various rabbits round the meadow.

Why do we wait for information to be spoon-fed to us by “experts”?

Experts screw up. They’re human—they’re no better than all us non-experts.

A case in point: IBM was once convinced that random access memory, (RAM), would always be “scarce and expensive”—limited to 64 kilobytes. Talk about getting it wrong…

Another grim example: The Challenger disaster.

Also, we all know the Titanic was built by expert nautical engineers in a crack shipyard, while Noah’s ark was built in the middle of nowhere by nomads who had never built so much as a rickety raft in their entire lives.

Regarding experts telling us about recycling, (recycling….finally); What’s stopping Joe (or Josephine) average citizen from snooping in the Yellow Pages for recycling info?

Things they might want to know: Is there a local recycling center? Is it a drop-off site or do they collect? If the latter, what do they collect and when?

No local site? They could call 1-800-CALL-EDF. Ask the Environmental Defense Fund for help finding a nearby site.

And now, returning to the rabbit chase…

Calling city hall to ask about recycling, pointedly but politely asking “why not?” in case they’ve done nothing to promote recycling can serve notice that recycling is a matter of increasing concern to local voters.

Politicians set the political agenda only in the absence of our input.

The ultimate reason government gets away with ignoring voters except at election time is because we’ve let ourselves be reduced bit by bit to apathy and conformity.

We’ve come to wait for experts to decide something, and then to tell us what is to be done, assigning us our role(s). We’re not being compelled. We let this happen.

Politicians use these “experts” to lend credibility to their agendas, which may not square at all with our best interests.

This is not real democracy.

We should be setting the agenda(s).

By “We” I mean real people, born of a biological process, with souls, not legally constructed “pseudo-people”, whose “birth certificates” are really corporate charters.

A related post : Politics (3rd)

Ancestors (2nd)

Ancient Technology—Useful or Useless?

To the extent that we ignore ancient technology, we rob ourselves. Our ancestors’ motivation to avoid pain, sickness, poverty, old age, and death was at least as intense as ours.

There having been no structural change in the human brain in the last 100,000 years, its a statistical certainty that ancient human populations contained a number of outright geniuses.

Granted, their science database wasn’t as lush as that presently available to, say, a recent MIT graduate. On the other hand they generally possessed comprehensive awareness, acute and subtle ¹, of the natural world.

Add to that creativity and desire to survive and thrive and its likely they achieved much that’s lost to us without digging, (often literally), for it.

Researching ancient ways has already revealed that our ancestors were sometimes better than us moderns at solving certain problems, performing certain tasks. We should keep digging, and put to good use as much as possible.

¹ That we moderns have been divorced for quite a while from an “acute and subtle” awareness of the natural world is well illustrated by the following:

North American white hunters were after wolves. They were assisted by an Eskimo tracker, who at one point casually informed the hunters that one of the wolves was rabid.

The white hunters asked how he knew this.

His answer: Rabies caused tension in the wolf’s body, which caused change in the way it placed its feet, which the tracker detected by noticing subtle differences between the rabid wolf’s paw prints and those of its healthy pack members.

Not bad for a supposedly “ignorant native.”

Socialism (1st)

Separating Wheat From Chaff

To be useful, any discussion of socialism and communism must amount to more than parroting right- or left-wing talking points. As intellectual activity, such parroting ranks just a bit higher than digesting ones breakfast while mistaking that process for thought.

A simple exercise in logic: All dogs are four-footed animals, but not all four-footed animals are dogs.

Equally true: All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

What’s the difference? And does the difference make any difference?

Let’s talk.

A common misunderstanding—There are no real varieties of socialism. Any apparent differences are mere window dressing. In the end, they’ll all resolve into Marxism-Leninism—A Russian-style communist revolution, with concomitant destruction of capitalism, private property, markets, democracy and religion.

At the opposite end of the nonsense spectrum we find socialism touted as a panacea for all of life’s ills.

So the truth is..?

In 1919 communists split with all other socialists over the question of democracy. Communists reject democracy in favor of destroying capitalism “by all available means”, pointedly including military force, to be accompanied by imposition of a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

That other socialists have strongly supported democracy is not commonly understood. Critics of socialism don’t seem too eager to remind us of this—quite the contrary.

“(Democracy)…is both a means and an end. It is the weapon in the struggle for socialism and the form in which socialism will be realized.” ¹ (my italics.) Socialist and democratic socialist parties gave and give strong support to democratic forms of government, particularly in Europe following WWII.

Communism is incompatible with democracy.

Socialism is not.

Incidentally, these names, “socialist”, “democratic socialist”, “social democrat”, etc., are not mere sloppy word salad. They are labels for varieties of socialism indiscriminately lumped together in what passes for intelligent political discussion.

Please consider that the next time a pollster reports high levels of support for “socialism”.

For the most part, I think it fair to say that neither the pollsters nor those they poll know what they’re talking about.

More on socialism shortly.

¹ Eduard Bernstein (01/06/1850 – 12/18/1932) one of the fathers of democratic socialism.

Ancestors (1st)

Their “Toolbox” Contains Useful Surprises

A while ago western scientists and Tibetan Buddhist monks somehow found themselves in discussion of quantum physics.

Though dealing with a considerable communications problem they got down to business.

The physicists thought they would be bringing backward monks up to speed.

They were astounded to realize the monks, who had never attended a modern university, and had no other access to training in modern math or science, nevertheless had a grasp of quantum physics and thought it no big deal that they did.

Well, how?

Intuitively.

The knowledge came from within—through meditation. All faiths have a meditation tradition, but a specific religious orientation isn’t prerequisite to practice.

Our ancestors, it seems, learned much by “going inside”. Through the centuries it has been said repeatedly that within each of us there exists a “living book of revelation”, constantly available.

All we have to do is learn to quiet the mind. ¹

The possibilities are endless.

¹ For a simple, non-sectarian introduction to one type of meditation, check out 8 Minute Meditation, by Victor Davich, listed on my Reading List page.

Politics (3rd)

“One of the best arguments against a democratic form of government is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” —Sir Winston Churchill

Talk relieves our tension. We feel so much better. We’re even self-deluded into believing we’ve achieved something.

From the viewpoint of self-serving politicians, that’s just fine because we’ve done nothing to disturb their daily activities.

Have you ever heard the proverb: “Talk is cheap. Deeds are dear?” Or the ancient warning of metaphysicians, to the effect that unless we put wheels under our beliefs they profit us nothing? More recently, Thomas Carlyle said, “Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.”

Blah, blah, blah. We rant, rave, scream, and decry.

After which, what changes?

Nothing.

With some exceptions, we are detached from a practice of “civic virtue.”

Simply defined, civic virtue = taking a gentlemanly / gentlewomanly interest in the conduct of government officers, making sure we’re knowledgeable about their conduct, public utterances, voting history, and the like, and making sure, politely, that they know we’re knowledgeable.

Here’s a pop quiz on civic virtue: How many of us know, (without first being pointed toward a preferred target of lobbyists, or of TV talking heads), the names of our state representatives, state senators, anything whatsoever of their voting histories, the addresses of their hometown offices, their yearly salaries, email addresses / telephone numbers of their hometown or state government offices?

More on our general competence as citizens / voters: How many voters can name six of the ten amendments composing the Bill of Rights? While we’re at it, how many of us have read the complete text of The United States Constitution even once in our entire lives?

Is it fair to say, (once again with some exceptions), that we are mentally lazy couch potatoes who prefer to “veg out” before a TV or telephone screen allowing talking heads or internet scribes to stuff our minds with their preferred propaganda, in preference to doing our own homework to learn what’s really happening?

Regarding the latter, how many of us believe doing our own homework is even possible?

How many of us prefer our favorite TV programs, favorite video games, or even favorite drugs to a minimal practice of civic virtue?

Democracy won’t give us what we confidently expect to receive as sons/daughters of “The Almighty”, (however we understand that latter phrase).

Democracy is like farming. Cultivate carefully or shut up about the weeds.

Said more crudely, we receive from democracy only that for which we get off our dead lead butts and work—(in the process of which, let us remember this tidbit of wisdom from the pen of St. Thomas Aquinas: “We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject, for both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in finding it.”

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

—Various sources, among them Andrew Jackson

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by an elite.”

—Thomas Jefferson

“The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

—Plato

“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

—Lord Acton

“The only limit to the oppression of government is the power with which people show themselves capable of opposing it.”

—Enrico Malatesta

“Only power can check power.”

—Montesquieu

Politics (2nd)

” Why, of course, the people don’t want war…That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ”

Herman Goering

“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purposes…and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”

“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great thing is to bring them the real facts.”

“We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts, not to overthrow The Constitution, but to overthrow (those) who pervert The Constitution.”

—Abraham Lincoln

Technology (2nd)

Have you ever been told that technology per se is politically neutral?

Lets think about that.

If a huge commercial solar power generation plant burned up completely, the total damage to the environment, and to public health and safety would relate to the damage done by a meltdown at a nuclear reactor as a loud lit fart relates to a volcanic eruption.

The difference between solar power generation and nuclear power generation is more than the danger to public safety in the event of malfunction.

Solar power plants, being far less dangerous to operate than nuclear power plants, make possible smaller government presence in the economy. Nuclear power plants mandate larger government presence. (More bureaucracy and regulation.)

The former is consistent with the “small state” position of some present day politicians. The latter with the “big state” position favored by others.

But “small state” politicians seem beholden to the coal and oil industries and so won’t advocate for solar power. “Big state” politicians won’t advocate for anything so “un-green” as nuclear power plants.

Technology is politically neutral?

Permit me to be skeptical.

Siblings

Young people, note well…

Your relationships with your brothers and sisters are among the most durable you’ll ever have.

They will outlast your relationship with your parents.

You may never marry, or your marriage may end early by divorce, disease, or other calamity.

In old age, your relationships with siblings may be all you have left of relationships.

Therefore, don’t neglect these relationships.

Now, in the days of youth, “while life flows fresh and free”, cultivate good relationships with brothers and sisters.

Capitalism (3rd)

A prominent dogma of capitalism is that companies should be run in the interests of the owners, (shareholders). Supporting discussion runs something like this: Whereas all other stakeholders get paid fixed wages for work, fixed prices for supplies, fixed interest payments for monies lent, etc., the shareholders get no fixed returns on their investment in the company. Therefore their risk is greatest. If the company fails they lose everything. But all the other stakeholders get at least a bit. So the company should be run for the shareholders’ benefit.

This line of reasoning ignores the fact that, (primarily small), shareholders are the least committed of all stakeholders. A shareholder can simply sell shares and buy others. They prefer management strategies that maximize short term profits over long term survivability. On the other hand, employees, who stand to lose pay/pensions/other benefits should the company fail, are much more firmly committed to the company’s long term survivability, likewise suppliers who may have fine tuned their businesses to meet the company’s specific needs, and also bankers who obviously want their money back.

To keep shareholders happy, ruthless cost cutting of labor, inventories, managers, investments, (for example R&D, new technology to keep the company competitive), anything else possible, is the play of the day—anything to maximize short term profits.

Stock buybacks, another way of maximizing profits of shareholders, drain retained profits which could help the company to weather an economic downturn, (2008 for example), further damaging a company’s long term survivability.

Conclusion: Companies should be managed in the interests of the long term survivability of the company, not the shortsighted $hort term interests of fickle shareholders.

Recent experience proves the two are not synonymous.

Technology (1st)

The potential offered to young students by libraries of printed books is the ability to select a bookshelf at random, to open any book found thereon to any page, and to be astounded by the life-changing discovery of a totally new branch of knowledge, a new teacher, or a new world.

Neither web nor hyperlinks can offer such an experience.

With such potential being lost with the electrification of libraries, its obvious that technology is no unalloyed blessing.

Really?

According to a poll, 12% of Americans think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.

Capitalism (2nd)

Federal law requires that corporation officers function in the financial interests of the owners, (shareholders).

A prominent economist, (Milton Friedman, I believe), once declared that the whole “social duty” of a corporation is to make as much money as possible for the owners.

It would seem that this combination of law and “social duty” has produced a pattern of conduct, a portion of which may be described thus:

• The corporation will pollute the environment whenever doing so is deemed to be cheaper than installing and maintaining pollution controls. Is there ever a time when dumping pollutants into the environment is more expensive than installing and maintaining pollution controls? Perhaps—if the offending corporation is caught at it and is penalized by the government or loses in a court of law.

• Weak or nonexistent labor unions enable corporations to offer fewer benefits and to pay lower wages. Therefore “union busting” is to be accomplished by any means possible.

• Government regulation inconsistent with maximizing a corporation’s profits is to be defeated by lobbying, also by contributions to reelection campaigns, in exchange for favorable legislation. The same benefit may also be obtained by means of carefully concealed bribery.

• Human beings are to be replaced by machinery whenever possible, because machinery will do a job much more cheaply than a human being, (no pay, no benefits, no paid breaks.)

• Conclusions of scientific research militating against a corporation doing anything at all to maximize profits are to be discredited by means of covert, well-funded disinformation campaigns, also by reminding purchased politicians who paid the bills for their last reelection campaigns—continue to vote the “right” way and $$$ will continue to flow into your next reelection campaign treasure chest.

• In relentless pursuit of maximum profits, corporations have all too often abandoned any shred of loyalty to the government / society that gave them birth, (gave them their charters), outsourcing jobs to any country providing cheaper labor, even including the “parent” nation’s most implacable political enemy.

This has the treble effect of strengthening the enemy’s economy, while depriving the “parent” nation of a certain amount of tax revenue, as well as depriving its citizens of jobs.

“Profit motive”, touted as justification (!) for all such conduct, does not justify literally anything.

To be clear, I don’t advocate abandoning “free market” capitalism.

I do advocate carefully considered changes to eliminate its more glaring flaws.

Taxes (2nd)

Government can distinguish itself from leeches and other parasites only by financial symbiosis, i.e.,what it takes is balanced by the quality and quantity of what it gives in return.

Otherwise, concerning taxes, the difference between a government and a parasite is nil.