Don't laugh (Mando).
Because yesterday I looked at a Yahoo article (a particularly lame one) and then even scrolled down far enough to see the first comment.
The comment basically was a long, single sentence rant of epic racism, telling 'ethnics' to wake up and start behaving like the good part of the world. It pointed out how in Africa and the Middle East its just kill, kill, kill, but here in the white west, we are peaceful, and our 'oppressiveness' is nothing compared to the oppression that 'ethnics' heap upon one another.
I don't want to talk about the comment itself. But it got me thinking. Why would a person go to the trouble of leaving such an unconvincing rant? Why do people have such strong beliefs about the superiority of their race that they actually write such things and even act upon them?
I thought for a moment, and the answer came to me that it is like Nietzsche said. We aren't in it to be happy; a search for happiness does not motivate us. We just want power. When I 'oppress' you for your color, or at the least, extol my own race, it is my own petty way of giving myself a power.
I pursued this train of thought, and I remembered how the night before a friend of mine, cornered by the majority opinion of my other friends, actually began to exhibit a 'fight or flight' response. I think we have all felt it. When our beliefs are attacked, we get a tightness in our chests, our breathing increases, our minds close. Sometimes we even react violently to hear our strong beliefs challenged.
It may be as simple as that we interpret such attacks somehow as physical attacks; certainly, having several people around you telling you you are wrong about something is not unlike being attacked or provoked; one can imagine monkeys in a forest hooting at each other before violence ensues.
When somebody challenges your beliefs, they are also challenging your identity. When we are talking about racial groups, and our place in them, we are also talking about identity. What is this thing about identity which is so touchy that merely questioning it can send us into a rage? From a behavioral anthropological point of view, I would guess it has something to do with group dynamics. You gain power through your associations, so naturally you wish to empower those same associations.
But we're talking about belief here, right?
Serendipitously, I stumbled upon this interesting RSA animation on empathy. According to this we are 'soft wired' not for selfish survival, but for empathic responses, for being sociable, friendly. We desire to preserve and support the group; when our beliefs are challenged, the belief in our group is therefore challenged, albeit indirectly. Could it be that through sub-conscious intellection we make that connection, and that this is what leads to such a visceral response?
As I was watching the video, I also could not help but think of flaws in his position. If we all have empathic responses, then how come we can joyously watch an execution? But, of course, we have learned not to, at least in some parts of the world. There is also the objectification of the person who has committed crimes; it is as though we remove them from our social group, and therefore feel no more empathy toward them. Thus, whatever we do to them, it is not as though we are doing it to a 'person'.
There is also the obvious divisiveness of religion and other broader social groups. Suddenly, though before I would have empathized with my family and neighbor, now I see those with the same religion as my kin at the exclusion of my blood relations and neighbors.
This is no doubt why politicians spend so much time talking about who they are, and what they purportedly represent rather than about real issues or the actual changes they intend to make. We trust them because they have the same beliefs as us, and therefore we see them as being in the same group as we are; so we give them unearned trust. What is this awful belief that is so mingled with the primitive parts of our brain that makes us act so irrationally? Why would we trust a stranger based, not on how he acts, but on what he believes? Why is belief and not the proper application of belief the measure by which we judge others? Its not enough to just say it is wrong, or that people who do so are dumb, we 'all' do it! It seems to be something deeply wired into us, and yet our intellect creates the beliefs, supposedly understands us, so what is the tie between the intellect and our bestial minds?
Even Jesus excoriated us for this sort of behavior and told us that we would be judged based on what we do. Remember the sheep and the goats? Remember the Samaritan? Its supposed to be all about how we act, how we empathize, not what we believe. But why does the other come so naturally, when it seems like the less natural thing to do?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
8/17/10
I spent some time in the Travis County Commissioner's court this morning.
Of greatest import was a justified complaint from a woman who owns and operates a farm in West Travis County along with several other families. At present, plans are in the works to surround their property on three sides with privately owned solar farms.
The immediate, primary material concern is the rising of ambient temperatures surrounding the solar farm by around 20 degrees. The deleterious effects of this temperature change on farming and on general livability cannot be overstated.
Of yet more pressing import is the fact that the County Commissioners, the proper representative body of these unincorporated citizens, have no rights over land use. Thus, the primary political right, the right over the lands within your political community, is withheld from citizens in unincorporated sections of Texas.
Of greatest import was a justified complaint from a woman who owns and operates a farm in West Travis County along with several other families. At present, plans are in the works to surround their property on three sides with privately owned solar farms.
The immediate, primary material concern is the rising of ambient temperatures surrounding the solar farm by around 20 degrees. The deleterious effects of this temperature change on farming and on general livability cannot be overstated.
Of yet more pressing import is the fact that the County Commissioners, the proper representative body of these unincorporated citizens, have no rights over land use. Thus, the primary political right, the right over the lands within your political community, is withheld from citizens in unincorporated sections of Texas.
Monday, August 16, 2010
The End of the Economic Age
Ladies and gentlemen, we have hope that finally we might be nearing the end of the 'economic age', that era in which the masses and the intellectuals had hope that by describing all things in economic terms, world peace and prosperity would at last be in reach. To accomplish this, we gave up our citizenship and embraced our roles as mere 'consumers.'
Nearly all the conversation effecting the citizenry is expressed in this way. We think not of 'what is good for citizens', but what is good for the economy, what is good for the consumer, the two being (supposedly) connected at the hip.
It was Coolidge who first said, "The business of the United States is business," and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. in recent years have said the same. Teddy Roosevelt would not approve. But not only the politicians but the people have jumped on that band wagon, nearly to the destruction of us all, as our dollar declines, our ecology is faltering, and a possible 'double dip' recession threatening just on the other side of the horizon. Let us hope it comes soon, before the damage it will do becomes worse, just as the larger floods remind us not to build on the floodplains.
Marx pointed to the strangeness of commodity fetishism in capitalism, capital itself which has become the fetish, the economic forecasters who have become the priests, the schools of economy the doctrine. Dogmatists abound; when we started to worry about the costs of war in Iraq, what did President G. W. Bush tell us to do? Spend more money; keep the economy going. Instead of addressing problems directly, we try to do everything the same way. Spend more! Buy more! Consume! The way out of this hole is to keep digging! The economists decided we could have our cake and eat it too, provided we ate it fast enough, deciding that modern economic principles could also overturn the axiom "You reap what you sow."
Nearly all the conversation effecting the citizenry is expressed in this way. We think not of 'what is good for citizens', but what is good for the economy, what is good for the consumer, the two being (supposedly) connected at the hip.
It was Coolidge who first said, "The business of the United States is business," and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. in recent years have said the same. Teddy Roosevelt would not approve. But not only the politicians but the people have jumped on that band wagon, nearly to the destruction of us all, as our dollar declines, our ecology is faltering, and a possible 'double dip' recession threatening just on the other side of the horizon. Let us hope it comes soon, before the damage it will do becomes worse, just as the larger floods remind us not to build on the floodplains.
Marx pointed to the strangeness of commodity fetishism in capitalism, capital itself which has become the fetish, the economic forecasters who have become the priests, the schools of economy the doctrine. Dogmatists abound; when we started to worry about the costs of war in Iraq, what did President G. W. Bush tell us to do? Spend more money; keep the economy going. Instead of addressing problems directly, we try to do everything the same way. Spend more! Buy more! Consume! The way out of this hole is to keep digging! The economists decided we could have our cake and eat it too, provided we ate it fast enough, deciding that modern economic principles could also overturn the axiom "You reap what you sow."
Friday, August 6, 2010
Violence
I wonder, what would it take for people to resort to violence, and for the others not to think they have reacted somehow beyond reason.
By our standards today, the uprising of the American colonists against England would have been thought petulant, brutish, and almost certainly as rank terrorism with a blatant disregard for life. Now, the colonial people were not of immediate threat to their lives, nor to their property; they revolted for remarkably little as far as material reasons are concerned, much less than what we put up with from both out government and our corporations.
I saw a video the other day disputing claims that we are the most violent peoples on earth ever, that older societies had much more of a balance, their warfare being more for show than intending actual slaughter. Rather, says the video, as time has passed, war and cruelty have decreased steadily and significantly. It wears the assumption on its sleeve that this is a good thing.
What are you suggesting, Mr. Jacob? Blasphemy. Heresy. Am I suggesting violence is a good thing?
No. Not hardly. Though one must wonder about our propensity to sell ourselves for peace; to avoid confrontation not out of love, but out of fear. And most of all, to claim to be a self governed people, and yet vilify any and everyone who acts violently outside of the law, while at the same time upholding the rights of the state to not only use violence, but to provoke violence against it, that the victims might be called murderers themselves.
Nonsense. How it rules us. We are ruled by the letter of the law, not the intent, but we are afraid of ourselves and each other to such a great extent, that we dare not trust interpretation of the law, of its intentions, to the public at large. An FDA official attacks a small business, something so small as a child's lemonade stand, and we uphold the law? If we react the only way we can, with violence, we will be vilified. But what other way is there, besides a slow, strangling death of freedom, which leaves the body fully alive, to witness morosely its lacking of a soul. To have strangled that official, even to have ridden her out of town on a railroad tie, would have been considered a punishment in excess of her crime, for of course, she did not commit one, because it is not written.
Perhaps it is our fiction, the popular myths of the theater, of modern literature, which says we must wait...wait until it is in fact too late to sue for justice through violence? All too often, the hero is the one who waits, sees the 'foolish hotheads' do something stupid, which inevitably causes the death of the hero's own wife...then, and only then, when something personal has been taken away from you, is it reasonable to strike out. Strike for an ideal, for freedom, for others, and you are evil, forever tainted, branded a sinner, a traitor. Unless, of course, you wear the badge of the state, for we have given all the authority for justice up, not wishing it for ourselves.
By our standards today, the uprising of the American colonists against England would have been thought petulant, brutish, and almost certainly as rank terrorism with a blatant disregard for life. Now, the colonial people were not of immediate threat to their lives, nor to their property; they revolted for remarkably little as far as material reasons are concerned, much less than what we put up with from both out government and our corporations.
I saw a video the other day disputing claims that we are the most violent peoples on earth ever, that older societies had much more of a balance, their warfare being more for show than intending actual slaughter. Rather, says the video, as time has passed, war and cruelty have decreased steadily and significantly. It wears the assumption on its sleeve that this is a good thing.
What are you suggesting, Mr. Jacob? Blasphemy. Heresy. Am I suggesting violence is a good thing?
No. Not hardly. Though one must wonder about our propensity to sell ourselves for peace; to avoid confrontation not out of love, but out of fear. And most of all, to claim to be a self governed people, and yet vilify any and everyone who acts violently outside of the law, while at the same time upholding the rights of the state to not only use violence, but to provoke violence against it, that the victims might be called murderers themselves.
Nonsense. How it rules us. We are ruled by the letter of the law, not the intent, but we are afraid of ourselves and each other to such a great extent, that we dare not trust interpretation of the law, of its intentions, to the public at large. An FDA official attacks a small business, something so small as a child's lemonade stand, and we uphold the law? If we react the only way we can, with violence, we will be vilified. But what other way is there, besides a slow, strangling death of freedom, which leaves the body fully alive, to witness morosely its lacking of a soul. To have strangled that official, even to have ridden her out of town on a railroad tie, would have been considered a punishment in excess of her crime, for of course, she did not commit one, because it is not written.
Perhaps it is our fiction, the popular myths of the theater, of modern literature, which says we must wait...wait until it is in fact too late to sue for justice through violence? All too often, the hero is the one who waits, sees the 'foolish hotheads' do something stupid, which inevitably causes the death of the hero's own wife...then, and only then, when something personal has been taken away from you, is it reasonable to strike out. Strike for an ideal, for freedom, for others, and you are evil, forever tainted, branded a sinner, a traitor. Unless, of course, you wear the badge of the state, for we have given all the authority for justice up, not wishing it for ourselves.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A Problem of Mobiilty
Our ability to travel easily and freely about the country has created significant economic and ethical problems and will continue to do so. When a person or people are not attached to a place, either physically, economically or emotionally, they are less likely to consider the long term effects of their behavior on that place.
The most obvious modern example of this is California. Southern California, with its sprawling metroplexes, became a sucking vortex for tax money. Referenda after referenda to create more and more social programs while decreasing taxes put the government in a black hole of debt.
Once there, the government has few real options other than cutting the social programs and shrinking the size of government via layoffs and wage cuts. If they attempt to tax business or the wealthier citizens more, those groups will simply move away. Relocation is easily done for these groups, from this state, for while the working class is the root of the state's wealth (no wealth would accrue without them, despite what apologists for big business and our particular brand of capitalism would boast), the well to do and big business hold all the capital which has been created. Since they have made a temporary powerhouse out of their economy, their money is significantly inflated compared to other parts of the country. Thus, they can freely uproot themselves and move to greener pastures cheaply, ready to repeat the cycle once again, siphoning money from state and lower and middle class while engorging themselves like ticks.
Given our societal lack of ideals which decry this sort of behavior, we condone, if not promote it.
Suffice it to say, given California's seemingly unsolvable problems, the best option is the least likely to happen: Revolution. The state, as a whole, will do better without the elitist classes; taxes should be raised to inordinate levels, forcing the rich from their homes and businesses. Once this is done, it leaves a necessary political hole for the middle and lower class to fill, for while these classes have, in recent history, been very willing to work long hours for relatively meager pay, they have not been willing to truly take responsibility for the well being of their state. This must change; they must see their state as an extension of themselves and their business and cease to hide behind the dual, destructive aphoristic premises of our modern culture which say man has absolute right over his "property" while also saying everybody must be taken care of.
Another way, even less likely to happen, is for the rich to actually take the reigns of government directly, rather than indirectly, as now, and force us into a true, rather than de facto, oligarchy. If this were the case, then the wealthy would become directly attached to the place in which they lived, for all responsibility for debt accrued would legally rest with them. Thus, they could not simply pack their bags and leave the failing state; they would be forced to take a vested interest in the goings on of their state, for better or worse, because the state's fortunes would be their own, thus limiting even tyrannical rule to a generation or two. Since our working classes are already rather pathetically peasantish in their mind sets, this could work fairly seamlessly.
Considering oligarchy is closer to what we already have, one might wonder why it is even less likely than a sort of 'worker's revolution'. The reason is because, in our de facto oligarchy, the elite have the best of both worlds: complete control of the economy and government without being tied to the fortunes of said economy or government.
Of course, we know neither of these revolutions will take place, for the US still has land to exploit, and therefore no incentive toward revolution, particularly since our culture has become so weak in these regards, unwilling to sacrifice our own flesh, or even time and effort, since we have professionals to do this for us. What will happen is our somewhat workable system will end up chugging on, making worse and worse the inevitable decline and fall.
The most obvious modern example of this is California. Southern California, with its sprawling metroplexes, became a sucking vortex for tax money. Referenda after referenda to create more and more social programs while decreasing taxes put the government in a black hole of debt.
Once there, the government has few real options other than cutting the social programs and shrinking the size of government via layoffs and wage cuts. If they attempt to tax business or the wealthier citizens more, those groups will simply move away. Relocation is easily done for these groups, from this state, for while the working class is the root of the state's wealth (no wealth would accrue without them, despite what apologists for big business and our particular brand of capitalism would boast), the well to do and big business hold all the capital which has been created. Since they have made a temporary powerhouse out of their economy, their money is significantly inflated compared to other parts of the country. Thus, they can freely uproot themselves and move to greener pastures cheaply, ready to repeat the cycle once again, siphoning money from state and lower and middle class while engorging themselves like ticks.
Given our societal lack of ideals which decry this sort of behavior, we condone, if not promote it.
Suffice it to say, given California's seemingly unsolvable problems, the best option is the least likely to happen: Revolution. The state, as a whole, will do better without the elitist classes; taxes should be raised to inordinate levels, forcing the rich from their homes and businesses. Once this is done, it leaves a necessary political hole for the middle and lower class to fill, for while these classes have, in recent history, been very willing to work long hours for relatively meager pay, they have not been willing to truly take responsibility for the well being of their state. This must change; they must see their state as an extension of themselves and their business and cease to hide behind the dual, destructive aphoristic premises of our modern culture which say man has absolute right over his "property" while also saying everybody must be taken care of.
Another way, even less likely to happen, is for the rich to actually take the reigns of government directly, rather than indirectly, as now, and force us into a true, rather than de facto, oligarchy. If this were the case, then the wealthy would become directly attached to the place in which they lived, for all responsibility for debt accrued would legally rest with them. Thus, they could not simply pack their bags and leave the failing state; they would be forced to take a vested interest in the goings on of their state, for better or worse, because the state's fortunes would be their own, thus limiting even tyrannical rule to a generation or two. Since our working classes are already rather pathetically peasantish in their mind sets, this could work fairly seamlessly.
Considering oligarchy is closer to what we already have, one might wonder why it is even less likely than a sort of 'worker's revolution'. The reason is because, in our de facto oligarchy, the elite have the best of both worlds: complete control of the economy and government without being tied to the fortunes of said economy or government.
Of course, we know neither of these revolutions will take place, for the US still has land to exploit, and therefore no incentive toward revolution, particularly since our culture has become so weak in these regards, unwilling to sacrifice our own flesh, or even time and effort, since we have professionals to do this for us. What will happen is our somewhat workable system will end up chugging on, making worse and worse the inevitable decline and fall.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Rampant Communism, part 1
Let us understand that there is a difference between a "welfare state" and a "communist" or "socialist state."
Communism and socialism are systems in which there is little or no free market exchange, meaning the government (or community) controls prices and production, redistributing wealth as it sees fit. It is a "post-monetary" system of economics, in which a person gains wealth determined by their merit or simply by their labor/time output.
A welfare state, or welfare society, is one in which money is redistributed by the government (community) or in which services (like healthcare and education) are shared in kind, publicly. In a welfare state, the economy is not necessarily controlled by the government/community, unless it is also a communist state.
In this manner, any state with a public education system shares in a sort of welfare state. Likewise, the existence of libraries and public swimming pools, etc. can be considered as such. The important thing to realize is that making certain useful things publicly owned and run does not necessarily mean that the economy is moving toward socialism or communism, as there are still large portions of the economy which operate on free market principals.
In my next blog, I will speak more rhetorically of our propensity to label things communist or socialist and why we should narrow our definition while broadening our field for inclusion.
Communism and socialism are systems in which there is little or no free market exchange, meaning the government (or community) controls prices and production, redistributing wealth as it sees fit. It is a "post-monetary" system of economics, in which a person gains wealth determined by their merit or simply by their labor/time output.
A welfare state, or welfare society, is one in which money is redistributed by the government (community) or in which services (like healthcare and education) are shared in kind, publicly. In a welfare state, the economy is not necessarily controlled by the government/community, unless it is also a communist state.
In this manner, any state with a public education system shares in a sort of welfare state. Likewise, the existence of libraries and public swimming pools, etc. can be considered as such. The important thing to realize is that making certain useful things publicly owned and run does not necessarily mean that the economy is moving toward socialism or communism, as there are still large portions of the economy which operate on free market principals.
In my next blog, I will speak more rhetorically of our propensity to label things communist or socialist and why we should narrow our definition while broadening our field for inclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)