Granted, I only took a few minutes to jot these thoughts down, but so far they seem to accurately reflect my current perspective on the immigration issue.
The United States of America has an illegal immigration-undocumented worker problem. There are many millions of non-United States citizens roaming inside our nation’s borders. While some are here through valid and legal means, many are here unbeknownst to our government.
On one hand, having 11 - 20 million extra people in the system taxes an infrastructure that is already weak. Schools, hospitals, roads, law enforcement, welfare benefits -- et al -- are being stretched past their limits and the entire country suffers. These non-citizens do not know our inherent law-abiding nature; most U.S. citizens actually respect the law and want law enforcement. WE know that a bribe attempt will get us in more trouble (except in the movies). Many non-U.S. citizens expect police to be violent and corrupt, so are not honest and open about their motives or "rights."
On the other hand, these workers help do the tough, back-breaking labor that is hard to find others to do. Roofing, farming, and landscaping work that simply needs a physical body can find those willing to do these low-paying, laborious jobs. Many new homes are built by undocumented workers. When they buy any product locally, they pay local taxes on that product.
There have been several “comprehensive” immigration proposals in recent years, none of which came close to actually passing. Protecting our borders is one of the preeminent functions of the Federal government yet it is currently failing miserably at this.
What should be done?
1) Most here are undocumented workers. We should first acknowledge that most of the “illegal immigrants” are actually not in the U.S. to immigrate here at all. They are here to earn money and to send that money back to their country of origin, which, for the most part, is Mexico.
Forget all the naysayers who claim that some are simply moving here for a better life. “Some” is correct; a small sum.
2) We should document these visitors who only desire to work, and not immigrate permanently. I believe most will come forward if all we insist on doing is documenting them and being able to contact them.
3) Guest Workers will be allowed to stay for a limited period, say ONE YEAR, and then return to their home country. Just as any guest of a hotel or home is treated, the guest must check out when it’s time. New Guest Workers will take their places. Previous GW’s can re-apply every 3-5 years, depending on how well they follow the rules. If we can keep track of these workers, and they are in this country legitimately, they will more likely play by the rules.
4) Undocumented workers who do not come forward will be forcibly sent to the U.S. border nearest their home country; these negligent workers will be penalized by extending their re-application to return period. This may seem like a massive undertaking but it has to start somewhere. 200 per week; 2000 per month; whatever amount that can be managed. It is time to take deportation seriously. But how is this going to work any differently than it does now? The difference is the following: a) it will benefit the Worker b/c he/she will be legal and legitimate with little effort -- kind of like calling in to file an unemployment claim; b)local law enforcement must be brought into the picture. Currently, local police have a tenuous arrangement with ICE officials (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Once we are on the same page, & we all agree something needs to be done, we can all work together.
5) Border security. As more of our armed service personnel are returning from overseas wars, they will provide border security, both on the North border as well as the South. Protecting our borders was a main purpose for the military (and the government) in the first place so that is where they belong.
6) For those foreign nationals who actually DO want to become citizens of the United States of America, the process should be easier. If a person has a clean criminal record and no history of terrorism, that person should be allowed to start proceedings to become a citizen, and not have to be wealthy to do so. Of course, there should be a valued scale to determine how important it is for you to join us. Those who offer highly valued skills should be given preference as are those who are fleeing from horrendous conditions inflicted by our enemies (Cuba, North Korea, etc.). People who simply try to buy their way in with cash should be automatically set back an extra year. The time expectancy for citizenship should be from 3- 5 years, NO MORE. All applicants must pass a legitimate and patriotic course on American History – not that anti-American crap now taught in schools. America has been an overall force for good, not evil. America has overcome great odds to become one of the most fair and prosperous countries on the planet – regardless what the revisionists want to tell us. Just ask the people fleeing their own countries.
That’s it. What do you think?
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Country Mice & City Mice in Modern Politics
Remember the children’s story about the Country Mouse and the City Mouse? I think today’s politics more accurately reflects this story than all the ideological rhetoric one hears. In the old story, the country mouse invites the city mouse to have dinner, but the city mouse is dissatisfied by the meager dish and boring – yet peaceful -- surroundings. The country mouse then visits the city mouse for dinner, and finds wondrous foods, but is attacked at every corner by dangers never seen in the country. The country mouse concludes that it would rather have simple fare, living in safety, than grand fare, living in fear.
Modern day conservatives are “country mice;” they tend to see themselves as pioneers in the wilderness. Being alone, they mostly value neighbors and old-fashioned, reliable family traditions. They would prefer to do things on their own, through their own labor and wits. The biggest obstacles are nature and the oppressive governmental overlords who want to overtax them and take away their freedoms. Local governments tend to be corrupt and vote to allow rich barons to raze the forests to create unwanted urban areas (rich barons who leave them alone are praised because country mice only want to be left alone).
Because they are on their own, country-dwellers need their guns for protection against invaders, passionately believe in the Bill of Rights for protection from the government, and realize that they are tiny, inconsequential fleas when it comes to the Big Bad World, so rely on the Biggest of Protectors, their God. Governmental help is desired only during the most disastrous of times, such as war or famine.
Modern day liberals tend to see the world as does the “town mouse;” they tend to see themselves as living the high life in a diverse yet dangerous and risky world. Being in a place crowded by strangers, they tend to distrust everyone since everyone is potentially trying to get their share of the goodies. They see a world of plenty all around and just want to get their fair share of it, by hook or by crook, and do their best to keep others from getting more than their fair share, since they know that they are in constant competition with their neighbors. The biggest obstacles to the city-dweller are rogue gangs, who threaten their lives, and bigwigs, who come to raze their neighborhoods to the ground to make some new building and eliminate the nooks and crannies where goodies are found. “Freedom” means chaos to the townie. The world has something for everyone and could never in a million years go bare; there are always goodies to acquire as long as the government restricts the bad guys from taking it all.
Because they live in a very dangerous place, city-dwellers need protections most of all. They believe in more-restrictive laws, stronger governments, and the freedom to be dependent because being self-reliant in the city will only get you dead from starvation or dead from the local hoodlums. City-dwellers need 100 times more support from the government to survive peacefully and happily...strike that; make that “to survive happily with great stimulations,” since most city-dwellers have very little peace and learn to love the constant “excitement.”
Aesop’s Fables noted this difference 2500 years ago and it still seems to drive society and politics today. I confess, I am a country mouse at heart, although I very much enjoyed my exciting time in the city during my young adulthood.
Modern day conservatives are “country mice;” they tend to see themselves as pioneers in the wilderness. Being alone, they mostly value neighbors and old-fashioned, reliable family traditions. They would prefer to do things on their own, through their own labor and wits. The biggest obstacles are nature and the oppressive governmental overlords who want to overtax them and take away their freedoms. Local governments tend to be corrupt and vote to allow rich barons to raze the forests to create unwanted urban areas (rich barons who leave them alone are praised because country mice only want to be left alone).
Because they are on their own, country-dwellers need their guns for protection against invaders, passionately believe in the Bill of Rights for protection from the government, and realize that they are tiny, inconsequential fleas when it comes to the Big Bad World, so rely on the Biggest of Protectors, their God. Governmental help is desired only during the most disastrous of times, such as war or famine.
Modern day liberals tend to see the world as does the “town mouse;” they tend to see themselves as living the high life in a diverse yet dangerous and risky world. Being in a place crowded by strangers, they tend to distrust everyone since everyone is potentially trying to get their share of the goodies. They see a world of plenty all around and just want to get their fair share of it, by hook or by crook, and do their best to keep others from getting more than their fair share, since they know that they are in constant competition with their neighbors. The biggest obstacles to the city-dweller are rogue gangs, who threaten their lives, and bigwigs, who come to raze their neighborhoods to the ground to make some new building and eliminate the nooks and crannies where goodies are found. “Freedom” means chaos to the townie. The world has something for everyone and could never in a million years go bare; there are always goodies to acquire as long as the government restricts the bad guys from taking it all.
Because they live in a very dangerous place, city-dwellers need protections most of all. They believe in more-restrictive laws, stronger governments, and the freedom to be dependent because being self-reliant in the city will only get you dead from starvation or dead from the local hoodlums. City-dwellers need 100 times more support from the government to survive peacefully and happily...strike that; make that “to survive happily with great stimulations,” since most city-dwellers have very little peace and learn to love the constant “excitement.”
Aesop’s Fables noted this difference 2500 years ago and it still seems to drive society and politics today. I confess, I am a country mouse at heart, although I very much enjoyed my exciting time in the city during my young adulthood.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
What is Philosophy? (reprised from last semester)
What is philosophy? That is the question.
Some of you have a general idea of what the word "philosophy" means, but most of you don't. The most common usage of the word is probably when someone expresses their “philosophy” of something; e.g. their “philosophy of life,” or their “philosophy of football,” or their “philosophy of using make-up.” This usage, however, does not explain what the concept of “philosophy” actual is. We will unpack the word philosophy here to find out what it really means. Philosophy is more of an activity than a field of study. In the above examples, it kind of means a person’s “conclusions about an issue AND their reasons for believing it to be that way” – so their philosophy of life might be to “take it easy” or “don’t sweat the small stuff” or “just do it,” and they can readily explain to you why they believe these things. But their conclusions, or opinions, do not make it philosophy – their rational attempts to discover their conclusions and opinions DO make it philosophy. So philosophy is more of a systematic approach to finding the truth about something.
“Philosophy” is even more than that; philosophy seeks the ultimate truth about things; it tackles BIG questions. These questions often seem simplistic at first: Why are we doing what we’re doing? What is important to us? What political type of government works best? What do we know? What is real? What's the purpose of living? We automatically tend to answer these questions with responses that we’ve been conditioned to give, such as, “I’m taking this class because it’s required by the school and once I finish school I can get a good job,” or, “Supporting my family is most important,” or “I know what my name is because it’s on my birth certificate,” or “The things around me are real because I can see them.” Philosophy encourages us to go beyond these quick-response answers.
Why do you want a good job? What is a “good” job? One that pays $75,000 per year? What if you hate the job? What if you’re required to work 90 hours per week and be away from home for two weeks out of each month? You might not like these responsibilities even though you are receiving $75k per year. Is it really the good job that you want or is it what the good job will provide for you, namely, an income and job experience? Why do you want money? Is it the money or what money will help you acquire? The point here is that there is more that meets the eye with these questions. Asking why you’re taking this class might seem simple until you really think about it – and that’s what the field of philosophy does – really tries to figure these BIG questions out.
Philosophy asks non-rhetorical questions like these then seeks the truest answer --yet does not rely solely on opinions, tradition, or authority. Philosophy relies on good reasons to support opinions. This is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp when first entering the world of philosophy. When a student makes a statement then I ask, “Yes, but how do you know that?” the student often interprets my question as if it were a statement. The student often thinks that I am saying “You don’t know that” but I am not. I am asking the question “How” do you know something. It’s important in philosophy to know how and why we believe to know things.
Philosophy is the field that questions assumptions people have in order to gain a better understanding of things -- of every thing. Why are you here? How do you know you're here? How do we know when something is true or false? Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you think one action is good and another bad? We try to answer these questions as best as possible.
Other fields teach you facts, histories, routines, and techniques -- established things. Philosophy itself doesn't really do this -- learning the history of philosophy in an academic setting does, but not philosophizing in itself -- it teaches you to question assumed facts, truths, & methods in order to understand the "facts" better.
Philosophy also demands that good reasons be presented for making conclusions. A philosopher asks: How so? Can you prove it? Can you show me? Are you sure? How do you know? And then listens closely to the answer. He or she does not simply accept a "truth" or "fact" except during informal socializing.
Philosophers make some people extremely annoyed and even furious. They make others bored to death. What is "death," by the way? What happens after death? What is "life"? When does life start? How do we know that "time" exists for us to live within? This is what philosophers do, they question everything – but with the purpose of understanding, not just to destroy assumptions. It's a difficult concept for many.
Some of the other issues Philosophy investigates are: What is love? knowledge? justice? morality? beauty? These are all abstract ideas -- beliefs, theories, assumptions -- very general conclusions we assume are real and sometimes true.
Philosophy is an activity, an active process; it asks questions that can't satisfactorily be answered by science or religion. You may ask: What is a Southern Baptist? or What is a Roman Catholic? or What is Atheism? and be able to arrive at a clear answer because those questions pertain to convention or agreed upon terminology. But what is "religion"? What is "God"? What does having a "belief" mean? Knowing the "truth"? These are more difficult topics that philosophy tackles; these are more philosophical questions.
The KEY in Philosophy: support your opinions with defensible statements. Opinions that have more weight to them, because they have more evidence or logical validity, are going to be considered more true than those opinions that cannot hold up to questioning.
So why do we do philosophy? Because it is what we are meant to do; philosophizing is what sets us apart from every other thing on Earth, and ultimately, it makes us happy. "To be happy," or “feeling satisfied,” or “experiencing pleasurable feelings” are often concluded as our ultimate purpose. To think about things; to think about ourselves; to think about others; to think about why we are the way we are; to think about the consequences of our actions and adapt; to think about ideal ways to live; to anticipate what might happen if we did such and such, so not do it if we conclude it would not be good.
Philosophy is all about a process of thinking, a certain manner of thinking, a method of thinking; it helps you think more clearly. It helps you recognize what you value. It helps you to understand yourself and your world better. Philosophy is not an alternative to other fields but can enhance any other field.
=================================================
What questions do philosophers ask" Questions such as these: What is a philosophical question? Is there a purpose to living? Why are we here? What makes something right or wrong? What is real? Is this just an illusion, a dream? Does God exist? How do we know? Why do so many people consider a certain painting beautiful?
These are the types of things philosophy tackles and what a student of philosophy will hope to understand better.
Some of you have a general idea of what the word "philosophy" means, but most of you don't. The most common usage of the word is probably when someone expresses their “philosophy” of something; e.g. their “philosophy of life,” or their “philosophy of football,” or their “philosophy of using make-up.” This usage, however, does not explain what the concept of “philosophy” actual is. We will unpack the word philosophy here to find out what it really means. Philosophy is more of an activity than a field of study. In the above examples, it kind of means a person’s “conclusions about an issue AND their reasons for believing it to be that way” – so their philosophy of life might be to “take it easy” or “don’t sweat the small stuff” or “just do it,” and they can readily explain to you why they believe these things. But their conclusions, or opinions, do not make it philosophy – their rational attempts to discover their conclusions and opinions DO make it philosophy. So philosophy is more of a systematic approach to finding the truth about something.
“Philosophy” is even more than that; philosophy seeks the ultimate truth about things; it tackles BIG questions. These questions often seem simplistic at first: Why are we doing what we’re doing? What is important to us? What political type of government works best? What do we know? What is real? What's the purpose of living? We automatically tend to answer these questions with responses that we’ve been conditioned to give, such as, “I’m taking this class because it’s required by the school and once I finish school I can get a good job,” or, “Supporting my family is most important,” or “I know what my name is because it’s on my birth certificate,” or “The things around me are real because I can see them.” Philosophy encourages us to go beyond these quick-response answers.
Why do you want a good job? What is a “good” job? One that pays $75,000 per year? What if you hate the job? What if you’re required to work 90 hours per week and be away from home for two weeks out of each month? You might not like these responsibilities even though you are receiving $75k per year. Is it really the good job that you want or is it what the good job will provide for you, namely, an income and job experience? Why do you want money? Is it the money or what money will help you acquire? The point here is that there is more that meets the eye with these questions. Asking why you’re taking this class might seem simple until you really think about it – and that’s what the field of philosophy does – really tries to figure these BIG questions out.
Philosophy asks non-rhetorical questions like these then seeks the truest answer --yet does not rely solely on opinions, tradition, or authority. Philosophy relies on good reasons to support opinions. This is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp when first entering the world of philosophy. When a student makes a statement then I ask, “Yes, but how do you know that?” the student often interprets my question as if it were a statement. The student often thinks that I am saying “You don’t know that” but I am not. I am asking the question “How” do you know something. It’s important in philosophy to know how and why we believe to know things.
Philosophy is the field that questions assumptions people have in order to gain a better understanding of things -- of every thing. Why are you here? How do you know you're here? How do we know when something is true or false? Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you think one action is good and another bad? We try to answer these questions as best as possible.
Other fields teach you facts, histories, routines, and techniques -- established things. Philosophy itself doesn't really do this -- learning the history of philosophy in an academic setting does, but not philosophizing in itself -- it teaches you to question assumed facts, truths, & methods in order to understand the "facts" better.
Philosophy also demands that good reasons be presented for making conclusions. A philosopher asks: How so? Can you prove it? Can you show me? Are you sure? How do you know? And then listens closely to the answer. He or she does not simply accept a "truth" or "fact" except during informal socializing.
Philosophers make some people extremely annoyed and even furious. They make others bored to death. What is "death," by the way? What happens after death? What is "life"? When does life start? How do we know that "time" exists for us to live within? This is what philosophers do, they question everything – but with the purpose of understanding, not just to destroy assumptions. It's a difficult concept for many.
Some of the other issues Philosophy investigates are: What is love? knowledge? justice? morality? beauty? These are all abstract ideas -- beliefs, theories, assumptions -- very general conclusions we assume are real and sometimes true.
Philosophy is an activity, an active process; it asks questions that can't satisfactorily be answered by science or religion. You may ask: What is a Southern Baptist? or What is a Roman Catholic? or What is Atheism? and be able to arrive at a clear answer because those questions pertain to convention or agreed upon terminology. But what is "religion"? What is "God"? What does having a "belief" mean? Knowing the "truth"? These are more difficult topics that philosophy tackles; these are more philosophical questions.
The KEY in Philosophy: support your opinions with defensible statements. Opinions that have more weight to them, because they have more evidence or logical validity, are going to be considered more true than those opinions that cannot hold up to questioning.
So why do we do philosophy? Because it is what we are meant to do; philosophizing is what sets us apart from every other thing on Earth, and ultimately, it makes us happy. "To be happy," or “feeling satisfied,” or “experiencing pleasurable feelings” are often concluded as our ultimate purpose. To think about things; to think about ourselves; to think about others; to think about why we are the way we are; to think about the consequences of our actions and adapt; to think about ideal ways to live; to anticipate what might happen if we did such and such, so not do it if we conclude it would not be good.
Philosophy is all about a process of thinking, a certain manner of thinking, a method of thinking; it helps you think more clearly. It helps you recognize what you value. It helps you to understand yourself and your world better. Philosophy is not an alternative to other fields but can enhance any other field.
=================================================
What questions do philosophers ask" Questions such as these: What is a philosophical question? Is there a purpose to living? Why are we here? What makes something right or wrong? What is real? Is this just an illusion, a dream? Does God exist? How do we know? Why do so many people consider a certain painting beautiful?
These are the types of things philosophy tackles and what a student of philosophy will hope to understand better.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Why Obama won Re-Election in 2012
Okay, I’ve been trying to understand why Barack Obama won re-election to the Presidency.
On one hand, it IS frustrating for us common people to watch the Warren Buffetts, Mitt Romneys, and Donald Trumps of the world live in luxury while our parents, grandparents, and own selves have slaved in some rathole of a job, training for this certification or that one, still barely able to make ends meet – not to mention actually try to save money for our children’s college or a real vacation – and failing to complete those goals year-after-year. There seems to be a perpetual unfairness about the American capitalistic system and many believe that this system keeps us down. That part is understandable even though it is probably an inaccurate perspective based on a misunderstanding of the capitalistic system, including its merits and pitfalls (more on that later). It is also based on a lack of appreciation for all we DO have compared to other countries. We are somewhat spoiled by our success and sometimes do not realize how fragile it is.
On the other end of the spectrum, Obama has promoted ideas that fly in the face of what many Americans live and die for. He has implied in one way or another, that America is not to be seen in the following manners: America the Beautiful; America the compassionate country that gives food, aid, and assistance to millions of needy peoples; America, land of opportunity; America, the strong, who will protect and fight against tyranny and oppression; and last-but-not-least, America, land of the free. "Freedom" seems to be considered a dirty word for Obama and his supporters. "Success" seems to be something bad and those who are successful are portrayed as greedy and heartless and immoral. In George Orwell’s book, 1984, images were flashed repeatedly to people in order to brainwash them. One of those images was, “Freedom is Slavery.” This belief is now a reality with the majority of our population.
Why do I say this? Am I making up these opinions about the President? No. I attempt to teach Social Ethics and also Political Philosophy to mostly twenty-something year-olds. I’ve created discussion forums that ask about how much freedom they need or want, how close the safety net should be under a person, and what should the extent of government be. I’ve had literally thousands of responses to these questions over the years. Out of any given class of about twenty students, only one or two expresses the opinion that government should just leave them alone unless there is some great threat, such as an invasion. All the rest of the students make comments such as, “Without government there would be chaos! Anarchy! Craziness!” I keep reminding them that we are not talking about NO government; we are talking about the extent and purpose of government. But I seem to have a difficult time getting through because they repeat their similar responses again and again, as if the question is about all or nothing – total nanny state or total anarchy. The nanny state wins every time.
Most of the students say they only want a simple life; they will be happy if: the government can give them a job; the government can give them a decent wage; the government can help them find a place to live and a loan for a car. For the most part, that’s all the modern young adult seems to want.
This is diametrically opposed to the Ellis Island immigrants who worked doing anything they could, including buying and selling hot dogs for a profit, buying cloth and sewing clothes then selling those clothes; and saving every nickel and dime to purchase a machine to create products for profit. The Asian “Boat People,” who escaped communist countries because they had little-to-no freedoms for upward mobility, speech, religion, or marriage, these people learned to take advantage of freedom. Immigrant after immigrant learned to ply a trade and create something from little. That kind of freedom has disappeared – not because of the super-rich folks oppressing them or under-bidding them out of the market -- but because of the governmental licensing, fees, certifications, and taxes now imposed on even the smallest of businesses. Even neighborhood child-lemonade stands are being shut down.
The Obama voters were angry because they seem to believe there is a fixed amount of wealth to be distributed out to everyone. Each time they see one rich old white man (such as Romney), this somehow contributes to another person being poor, usually some poor person of color. They describe wealth as if wealth was a cookie jar filled with a certain number of cookies; and cookies are taken or dispensed by individuals or groups. The rich must be “taking” more than their fair share of cookies, which leaves less for others. This view of economics is a complete misunderstanding of the system of capitalism; this perspective of economics comes from a socialistic/Marxism viewpoint. In fact, their opinions would be right on the money in a socialist/Communist country. Prices are fixed, amounts are fixed -- everything is standardized regardless of the market demands or value of a product.
Capitalism, on the other hand, CREATES wealth by someone or some group producing something that has value (or increasing the value of an existing thing). The more the rich person makes, the more everyone benefits; the more any person makes, the more taxes paid and the more governmental programs can be supported. The way a capitalist thinks is NOT to cheat others out of their fair share but to get as much value (profit) for their merchandise. The more other people want their stuff, the more profit is made; the more profit is made, the more taxes are paid; the more profit is made, the more people can be hired and paid salaries; the more people make, the more taxes they pay; the more people make, the more stuff they purchase – all of which grows the pie so everyone makes more, even though the people at the top can make ten to a million times more.
When liberal politicians pass laws that increase taxes (to pay for more government programs and employees), the capitalists tend to spend less, invest less, research less, and produce less. Liberal economists and politicians accuse Republicans and Libertarians as using "Trickle-down" economics,where the breaks are all given to the rich in hope that they will pass some of their breaks along to their employees. What these liberal thinkers are describing, however, is not the dirty-named trickle-down economics but CAPITALISM itself.
Capitalists find shortcuts and offshore accounts to save money and increase profits; in capitalism, that is considered smart; in Marxism, that is considered immoral -- and the liberal press has convinced people that we should look through a Marxist perspective. The capitalists do not produce wealth for the same reasons as a non-profit government entity; they are producing wealth because people want to make their own stuff and because they like having control over their own livelihoods. If the government is going to try and determine how much money they can make, how much is taken from them, and even what they can make – then why should the capitalists even dream of great things?
The Obama voters believe in other false – but understandable -- liberal perspectives, such as the GOP wanting to end abortions, end unions, end same-sex marriages, destroy the environment, and keep the poor down. Yet abortion is a Supreme Court issue not made by the President or his administration; most conservatives simply want to stop public/tax-payer-funded abortions. Most conservatives support unions, only not out-of-control, tax-payer funded public unions whose members make twice the market average salary. And finally, regarding same-sex marriage, only a few states even allow same-sex marriage; most GOP members want a states-decide referendum – not a “one size fits all” law mandated to those states that are mostly against it.
If you belong to the Sierra Club or GreenPeace, you are probably liberal and say you want to protect the environment. I've belonged to these clubs and they do very little to really help. If you go to a "Beautification Day" to volunteer and pick up trash, you'll find most of the people who show up to be conservatives. Isn't that odd? The media portrays conservatives as environment killers because of "Drill-baby-drill" proposals yet conservatives want to protect the parks and natural beauty of the world -- but in a practical sense, knowing that we need energy to run the economy and protect our way of life. Liberals seem to lose rational thinking and run on ideology. OF COURSE we want clean energy! But don't ruin the country hoping that money will create it out of thin air. Provide incentives for companies to develop it -- not demands that oppress companies. If companies know they will benefit in the long run, they will invest more and we'll all benefit from their "greed."
In other words, if my students and the general blogosphere are any indication, they have misconstrued almost every perspective that a Mitt Romney kind-of-person believes. What about the misconstrued notions about President Obama? Some believe he is a Muslim; some believe he is a communist; some believe he is deliberately destroying the American economy in order to declare martial law and create a new government; some believe Obama is not an American citizen, was not raised as an American, and does not understand what it means to be an American.
The facts about Obama are mostly clear: his mother was for the most part an Atheist and believer in Marxism; his original father (Barack, Sr.) was an Atheist; his step-father was a Muslim; Obama was raised in a Muslim environment in Indonesia for a very short period then came back to America; Obama was then raised by his grandmother in Hawaii in an elite environment (Punahou High school, while she was a bank vice-president); then off to college on the mainland. In his two books, most of the people mentioned as his great influences were anti-white or anti-capitalist Marxists. He states this repeatedly, in his own words. He began to identify himself with Black-America in Hawaii, and later as a globalist, rather than as an American. Frank Marshall Davis and others were some of his early influences. Obama himself describes his dilemma about his dual race and makes it clear that he identifies with his African/black side. Davis and others that he admired were proud Marxists. Why would Obama himself praise and even claim to be a student of numerous avowed Marxists unless he was at least a little sympathetic to the cause of Marxism and its manifestations: Communism and Socialism? These are not my opinions; these are all things Obama openly writes about.
Are the conservatives being irrational by bringing up these issues? Why are Obama supporters convinced that Obama is a true-blue American who believes in capitalism and “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”? They must since they praise his realness and authenticity, and his looking out for them. What evidence do they have, other than his words?
Can we conclude that Obama himself is a racial activist, hating white people? Probably not, even though he makes a number of disturbing anti-white comments in his books. Can we conclude that Obama is a Muslim because of his background in and around Muslim countries and his own relatives being Muslim? Probably not, since he describes his spiritual journey and claims to be Christian, which is all a person can really do. His allegiance with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an anti-white, Black Liberation Theology pastor, whom Obama listened to for 23 years and called his spiritual mentor, is disturbing – at least it should be for any white person. To be preached that the white European culture is evil year-after-year can have a powerful effect on a person’s psyche and world view. I attended a few similar gatherings in Hawaii, thinking we were all fighting against racism but instead, each meeting was simply an anti-white, anti-European, anti-capitalism tirade.
Whenever a conservative person says that they are for or against something, the liberal seems to interpret that as meaning the conservative will impose those beliefs upon the liberals as well. Why would a liberal believe this? Maybe it is because that is what liberals do when they are in power so they project their own behavior onto conservatives. The idea behind liberalism is to protect some people from other evil, greedy people. The reason government gets large when liberals are in power is because the liberal government is trying to manage everything possible, making sure that people play fair, that rules are being followed, that the rich and powerful are not polluting the environment and exploiting the masses. What this means is that the mindset of a liberal is to control others; whereas the mindset of a conservative is to release control over others and empower the individual.
But what about things such as abortion, same-sex marriage, women and minority rights? Don’t republicans want to control other people’s choices and freedoms regarding these issues? No, actually, they don’t. Republicans have been one of the most active parties in ensuring those rights, contrary to popular belief. The Republican party was created just before Abraham Lincoln’s election mainly as an anti-slavery party. All one has to do is look up who proposed which laws (banning slavery, civil rights, etc.). Republicans proposed and sought equal rights much more often than Democrats; however, nowadays, since Democrats propose more benefits to women and minorities, they have become the party of choice for liberals. Liberals believe that these benefits are necessary for the normal decency of life. Liberals believe that the Democrats are the party of compassion. Lincoln was a Republican for the reasons of freedom and limited government and the goodness – not the evil – that resides in all people: black; white; male; female.
The abortion issue has to do with life, as in Life, Liberty…. Conservatives revere innocent life and abhor evil life. They want to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, who choose to do bad. What about same-sex marriage? They want to preserve the institution of marriage, based on Natural Law. What’s natural law? The implied law of nature that says it takes one man and one woman to bond and make a family so that is the natural marriage. Even if people cannot or will not have children; even if a couple divorces; even if there have been occasional multi-person examples, it does not affect the natural law of marriage. Liberals can argue about fairness and equality of love until the cows come home but natural law will always be considered the same for a conservative – one man, one woman. I suspect this will be an even trickier moral dilemma in the future.
Foreign affairs differences between Obama and Romney are interesting. Obama projected a traditionally Democratic position of defense: smile and Kowtow to the real bullies in the world, then sneakily bomb those same bullies with drones (Clinton’s preference was Tomahawk missiles). Democratic presidents have been brutally murderous via our military but always try to project an anti-military position to the American population. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson all pushed for massive attacks on usually-undeclared enemies. The GOP, on the other hand, chooses to have a Big-Dog military with big sticks approach. The GOP idea is to prevent aggressive behavior by our enemies by threats of slapping the aggressor upside the head if they get out of line (e.g., Iraq after they invaded Kuwait). The world and liberals promote the idea of the U.S. as being the bully, the wolf – but we have more often been the strong sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves, not the wolf. We could have taken oil, countries, goods, and many other things if we wanted – but that is not who we are. Most modern History books, and history teachers, focus on the evil that the United States has done, and include only token lessons about the good we've done. Contrarily, most of us who've studied history from a different perspective see the U.S. as a hugely positive force in the world, with some embarrassing and negative moments.
The recent Benghazi incident in Libya, on the anniversary of the 9-11 attack, was something new. I suspect the White House action was a uniquely Obama-esque, modern liberal, technique. They seem to fear offending the new Muslim Brotherhood governments so apparently wanted to stay out of the way once the attack on our Ambassador began. The fighting went on for seven hours, with our people pleading for assistance or evacuation as they valiantly fought. The President and his Cabinet insisted that an anti-Islamic video was the cause – now we know that it was a planned attack by Al-Qaida. Regardless the reason for the attack, in the past we had a, “No man left behind,” policy. We are all still waiting for the explanation why these Americans were not saved. During the election season, the Network television stations and other mainstream media outlets either rarely mentioned the deadly event or twisted it up into bizarre, pretzel stories – so the public rarely knew about the inept – if not criminal – behavior of the Administration.
So why did Barack Obama win not only the Presidency but the majority of people’s confidence and the hearts of the non-rich minorities? I can only think that most people have gross misperceptions of Mitt Romney and the Republicans and equally gross misperceptions of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The comments read and interviews listened to from liberal voters shows a lack of knowledge about history, economics, and politics. Of course, there are pockets of racism, arrogance, and ignorance on the right but it is not systemic throughout the party -- as is the ignorance promoted by the left. On the other hand, based on what liberals see on television, what they’ve learned in public anti-American History classes, and what they are reading from the mainstream media, none of us should be surprised. They make rational decisions based on the bits of information they have received. It makes sense that President Obama is looking out for the common American while mean-old Republican Mitt Romney is only thinking about himself and the rich -- who want to cut all the benefits for the poor and women while lining their own pockets. This is what is pushed by the media day-in and day-out. So it is not surprising that people buy the liberal agenda even if it flies in the face of facts or most people's personal beliefs.
Many Americans do NOT know where wealth comes from; they do NOT know why our founders created a republic based on enumerated freedoms; and they certainly do NOT know when they are being bamboozled by those who wish to create a weakened United States and what dangers that weakening will attract from our enemies. Our enemies are clearly waiting in the wings, loving ever moment we self-implode.
These are some of my thoughts about why Barack Obama won the election.
On one hand, it IS frustrating for us common people to watch the Warren Buffetts, Mitt Romneys, and Donald Trumps of the world live in luxury while our parents, grandparents, and own selves have slaved in some rathole of a job, training for this certification or that one, still barely able to make ends meet – not to mention actually try to save money for our children’s college or a real vacation – and failing to complete those goals year-after-year. There seems to be a perpetual unfairness about the American capitalistic system and many believe that this system keeps us down. That part is understandable even though it is probably an inaccurate perspective based on a misunderstanding of the capitalistic system, including its merits and pitfalls (more on that later). It is also based on a lack of appreciation for all we DO have compared to other countries. We are somewhat spoiled by our success and sometimes do not realize how fragile it is.
On the other end of the spectrum, Obama has promoted ideas that fly in the face of what many Americans live and die for. He has implied in one way or another, that America is not to be seen in the following manners: America the Beautiful; America the compassionate country that gives food, aid, and assistance to millions of needy peoples; America, land of opportunity; America, the strong, who will protect and fight against tyranny and oppression; and last-but-not-least, America, land of the free. "Freedom" seems to be considered a dirty word for Obama and his supporters. "Success" seems to be something bad and those who are successful are portrayed as greedy and heartless and immoral. In George Orwell’s book, 1984, images were flashed repeatedly to people in order to brainwash them. One of those images was, “Freedom is Slavery.” This belief is now a reality with the majority of our population.
Why do I say this? Am I making up these opinions about the President? No. I attempt to teach Social Ethics and also Political Philosophy to mostly twenty-something year-olds. I’ve created discussion forums that ask about how much freedom they need or want, how close the safety net should be under a person, and what should the extent of government be. I’ve had literally thousands of responses to these questions over the years. Out of any given class of about twenty students, only one or two expresses the opinion that government should just leave them alone unless there is some great threat, such as an invasion. All the rest of the students make comments such as, “Without government there would be chaos! Anarchy! Craziness!” I keep reminding them that we are not talking about NO government; we are talking about the extent and purpose of government. But I seem to have a difficult time getting through because they repeat their similar responses again and again, as if the question is about all or nothing – total nanny state or total anarchy. The nanny state wins every time.
Most of the students say they only want a simple life; they will be happy if: the government can give them a job; the government can give them a decent wage; the government can help them find a place to live and a loan for a car. For the most part, that’s all the modern young adult seems to want.
This is diametrically opposed to the Ellis Island immigrants who worked doing anything they could, including buying and selling hot dogs for a profit, buying cloth and sewing clothes then selling those clothes; and saving every nickel and dime to purchase a machine to create products for profit. The Asian “Boat People,” who escaped communist countries because they had little-to-no freedoms for upward mobility, speech, religion, or marriage, these people learned to take advantage of freedom. Immigrant after immigrant learned to ply a trade and create something from little. That kind of freedom has disappeared – not because of the super-rich folks oppressing them or under-bidding them out of the market -- but because of the governmental licensing, fees, certifications, and taxes now imposed on even the smallest of businesses. Even neighborhood child-lemonade stands are being shut down.
The Obama voters were angry because they seem to believe there is a fixed amount of wealth to be distributed out to everyone. Each time they see one rich old white man (such as Romney), this somehow contributes to another person being poor, usually some poor person of color. They describe wealth as if wealth was a cookie jar filled with a certain number of cookies; and cookies are taken or dispensed by individuals or groups. The rich must be “taking” more than their fair share of cookies, which leaves less for others. This view of economics is a complete misunderstanding of the system of capitalism; this perspective of economics comes from a socialistic/Marxism viewpoint. In fact, their opinions would be right on the money in a socialist/Communist country. Prices are fixed, amounts are fixed -- everything is standardized regardless of the market demands or value of a product.
Capitalism, on the other hand, CREATES wealth by someone or some group producing something that has value (or increasing the value of an existing thing). The more the rich person makes, the more everyone benefits; the more any person makes, the more taxes paid and the more governmental programs can be supported. The way a capitalist thinks is NOT to cheat others out of their fair share but to get as much value (profit) for their merchandise. The more other people want their stuff, the more profit is made; the more profit is made, the more taxes are paid; the more profit is made, the more people can be hired and paid salaries; the more people make, the more taxes they pay; the more people make, the more stuff they purchase – all of which grows the pie so everyone makes more, even though the people at the top can make ten to a million times more.
When liberal politicians pass laws that increase taxes (to pay for more government programs and employees), the capitalists tend to spend less, invest less, research less, and produce less. Liberal economists and politicians accuse Republicans and Libertarians as using "Trickle-down" economics,where the breaks are all given to the rich in hope that they will pass some of their breaks along to their employees. What these liberal thinkers are describing, however, is not the dirty-named trickle-down economics but CAPITALISM itself.
Capitalists find shortcuts and offshore accounts to save money and increase profits; in capitalism, that is considered smart; in Marxism, that is considered immoral -- and the liberal press has convinced people that we should look through a Marxist perspective. The capitalists do not produce wealth for the same reasons as a non-profit government entity; they are producing wealth because people want to make their own stuff and because they like having control over their own livelihoods. If the government is going to try and determine how much money they can make, how much is taken from them, and even what they can make – then why should the capitalists even dream of great things?
The Obama voters believe in other false – but understandable -- liberal perspectives, such as the GOP wanting to end abortions, end unions, end same-sex marriages, destroy the environment, and keep the poor down. Yet abortion is a Supreme Court issue not made by the President or his administration; most conservatives simply want to stop public/tax-payer-funded abortions. Most conservatives support unions, only not out-of-control, tax-payer funded public unions whose members make twice the market average salary. And finally, regarding same-sex marriage, only a few states even allow same-sex marriage; most GOP members want a states-decide referendum – not a “one size fits all” law mandated to those states that are mostly against it.
If you belong to the Sierra Club or GreenPeace, you are probably liberal and say you want to protect the environment. I've belonged to these clubs and they do very little to really help. If you go to a "Beautification Day" to volunteer and pick up trash, you'll find most of the people who show up to be conservatives. Isn't that odd? The media portrays conservatives as environment killers because of "Drill-baby-drill" proposals yet conservatives want to protect the parks and natural beauty of the world -- but in a practical sense, knowing that we need energy to run the economy and protect our way of life. Liberals seem to lose rational thinking and run on ideology. OF COURSE we want clean energy! But don't ruin the country hoping that money will create it out of thin air. Provide incentives for companies to develop it -- not demands that oppress companies. If companies know they will benefit in the long run, they will invest more and we'll all benefit from their "greed."
In other words, if my students and the general blogosphere are any indication, they have misconstrued almost every perspective that a Mitt Romney kind-of-person believes. What about the misconstrued notions about President Obama? Some believe he is a Muslim; some believe he is a communist; some believe he is deliberately destroying the American economy in order to declare martial law and create a new government; some believe Obama is not an American citizen, was not raised as an American, and does not understand what it means to be an American.
The facts about Obama are mostly clear: his mother was for the most part an Atheist and believer in Marxism; his original father (Barack, Sr.) was an Atheist; his step-father was a Muslim; Obama was raised in a Muslim environment in Indonesia for a very short period then came back to America; Obama was then raised by his grandmother in Hawaii in an elite environment (Punahou High school, while she was a bank vice-president); then off to college on the mainland. In his two books, most of the people mentioned as his great influences were anti-white or anti-capitalist Marxists. He states this repeatedly, in his own words. He began to identify himself with Black-America in Hawaii, and later as a globalist, rather than as an American. Frank Marshall Davis and others were some of his early influences. Obama himself describes his dilemma about his dual race and makes it clear that he identifies with his African/black side. Davis and others that he admired were proud Marxists. Why would Obama himself praise and even claim to be a student of numerous avowed Marxists unless he was at least a little sympathetic to the cause of Marxism and its manifestations: Communism and Socialism? These are not my opinions; these are all things Obama openly writes about.
Are the conservatives being irrational by bringing up these issues? Why are Obama supporters convinced that Obama is a true-blue American who believes in capitalism and “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”? They must since they praise his realness and authenticity, and his looking out for them. What evidence do they have, other than his words?
Can we conclude that Obama himself is a racial activist, hating white people? Probably not, even though he makes a number of disturbing anti-white comments in his books. Can we conclude that Obama is a Muslim because of his background in and around Muslim countries and his own relatives being Muslim? Probably not, since he describes his spiritual journey and claims to be Christian, which is all a person can really do. His allegiance with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an anti-white, Black Liberation Theology pastor, whom Obama listened to for 23 years and called his spiritual mentor, is disturbing – at least it should be for any white person. To be preached that the white European culture is evil year-after-year can have a powerful effect on a person’s psyche and world view. I attended a few similar gatherings in Hawaii, thinking we were all fighting against racism but instead, each meeting was simply an anti-white, anti-European, anti-capitalism tirade.
Whenever a conservative person says that they are for or against something, the liberal seems to interpret that as meaning the conservative will impose those beliefs upon the liberals as well. Why would a liberal believe this? Maybe it is because that is what liberals do when they are in power so they project their own behavior onto conservatives. The idea behind liberalism is to protect some people from other evil, greedy people. The reason government gets large when liberals are in power is because the liberal government is trying to manage everything possible, making sure that people play fair, that rules are being followed, that the rich and powerful are not polluting the environment and exploiting the masses. What this means is that the mindset of a liberal is to control others; whereas the mindset of a conservative is to release control over others and empower the individual.
But what about things such as abortion, same-sex marriage, women and minority rights? Don’t republicans want to control other people’s choices and freedoms regarding these issues? No, actually, they don’t. Republicans have been one of the most active parties in ensuring those rights, contrary to popular belief. The Republican party was created just before Abraham Lincoln’s election mainly as an anti-slavery party. All one has to do is look up who proposed which laws (banning slavery, civil rights, etc.). Republicans proposed and sought equal rights much more often than Democrats; however, nowadays, since Democrats propose more benefits to women and minorities, they have become the party of choice for liberals. Liberals believe that these benefits are necessary for the normal decency of life. Liberals believe that the Democrats are the party of compassion. Lincoln was a Republican for the reasons of freedom and limited government and the goodness – not the evil – that resides in all people: black; white; male; female.
The abortion issue has to do with life, as in Life, Liberty…. Conservatives revere innocent life and abhor evil life. They want to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, who choose to do bad. What about same-sex marriage? They want to preserve the institution of marriage, based on Natural Law. What’s natural law? The implied law of nature that says it takes one man and one woman to bond and make a family so that is the natural marriage. Even if people cannot or will not have children; even if a couple divorces; even if there have been occasional multi-person examples, it does not affect the natural law of marriage. Liberals can argue about fairness and equality of love until the cows come home but natural law will always be considered the same for a conservative – one man, one woman. I suspect this will be an even trickier moral dilemma in the future.
Foreign affairs differences between Obama and Romney are interesting. Obama projected a traditionally Democratic position of defense: smile and Kowtow to the real bullies in the world, then sneakily bomb those same bullies with drones (Clinton’s preference was Tomahawk missiles). Democratic presidents have been brutally murderous via our military but always try to project an anti-military position to the American population. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson all pushed for massive attacks on usually-undeclared enemies. The GOP, on the other hand, chooses to have a Big-Dog military with big sticks approach. The GOP idea is to prevent aggressive behavior by our enemies by threats of slapping the aggressor upside the head if they get out of line (e.g., Iraq after they invaded Kuwait). The world and liberals promote the idea of the U.S. as being the bully, the wolf – but we have more often been the strong sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves, not the wolf. We could have taken oil, countries, goods, and many other things if we wanted – but that is not who we are. Most modern History books, and history teachers, focus on the evil that the United States has done, and include only token lessons about the good we've done. Contrarily, most of us who've studied history from a different perspective see the U.S. as a hugely positive force in the world, with some embarrassing and negative moments.
The recent Benghazi incident in Libya, on the anniversary of the 9-11 attack, was something new. I suspect the White House action was a uniquely Obama-esque, modern liberal, technique. They seem to fear offending the new Muslim Brotherhood governments so apparently wanted to stay out of the way once the attack on our Ambassador began. The fighting went on for seven hours, with our people pleading for assistance or evacuation as they valiantly fought. The President and his Cabinet insisted that an anti-Islamic video was the cause – now we know that it was a planned attack by Al-Qaida. Regardless the reason for the attack, in the past we had a, “No man left behind,” policy. We are all still waiting for the explanation why these Americans were not saved. During the election season, the Network television stations and other mainstream media outlets either rarely mentioned the deadly event or twisted it up into bizarre, pretzel stories – so the public rarely knew about the inept – if not criminal – behavior of the Administration.
So why did Barack Obama win not only the Presidency but the majority of people’s confidence and the hearts of the non-rich minorities? I can only think that most people have gross misperceptions of Mitt Romney and the Republicans and equally gross misperceptions of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The comments read and interviews listened to from liberal voters shows a lack of knowledge about history, economics, and politics. Of course, there are pockets of racism, arrogance, and ignorance on the right but it is not systemic throughout the party -- as is the ignorance promoted by the left. On the other hand, based on what liberals see on television, what they’ve learned in public anti-American History classes, and what they are reading from the mainstream media, none of us should be surprised. They make rational decisions based on the bits of information they have received. It makes sense that President Obama is looking out for the common American while mean-old Republican Mitt Romney is only thinking about himself and the rich -- who want to cut all the benefits for the poor and women while lining their own pockets. This is what is pushed by the media day-in and day-out. So it is not surprising that people buy the liberal agenda even if it flies in the face of facts or most people's personal beliefs.
Many Americans do NOT know where wealth comes from; they do NOT know why our founders created a republic based on enumerated freedoms; and they certainly do NOT know when they are being bamboozled by those who wish to create a weakened United States and what dangers that weakening will attract from our enemies. Our enemies are clearly waiting in the wings, loving ever moment we self-implode.
These are some of my thoughts about why Barack Obama won the election.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Society in Silent Chaos
Do we care about which laws are passed and how our taxes are spent if we don’t really expect to follow the laws or pay the taxes? Today, there is an under-the-table kind of debate going on in our society: Should we allow non-violent criminals to go unpunished and enforce only “serious” laws or should we enforce the laws as written even if the jails are expensive and recidivism is rampant? Should we enforce immigration laws when millions of illegal/undocumented immigrants are living and working in our neighborhoods? Should we enforce drug laws when 70% of local inmates are in jail for marijuana possession or distribution, and most people don’t think pot is that as bad as alcohol? Should we respect law enforcement when we see a steady stream of stories about corrupt law enforcers?
The media presents a story to its public that goes like this: Leaders and police are not to be trusted; marijuana is not so bad but tobacco cigarettes are evil; illegal immigrants should be given compassion, not a one-way ticket home; and lastly, we should not cut any “essentially helpful” government program, regardless of how ineffective it may be or how much tax money is taken from the rich people to pay for it.
Looking at just these three issues, one might justify an argument that concludes a future collapse of the United States. The United States, it’s Constitution, and its success was based on several ideal premises. It is a “republic” form of government, meaning that people elect other people to represent them to enact and enforce laws. There were ideals put forth by the founders that has strengthened our nation. People were assumed to possess inalienable rights, such as life, liberty (autonomy), and the pursuit of happiness. People were assumed to have equal rights under the law.
People were assumed to be self-sufficient but could not fend off an invading country or be at the voting table making laws when there were crops to tend to. Therefore a government infrastructure must be there to protect people and taxes must be paid to establish an infrastructure for roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Today, many people do not follow nor respect the laws. Stand on any street long enough and you’ll see cars speeding, people littering, pot smoke wafting in the air, and jaywalking.
Personal responsibility is considered a joke. Today, it is typical for a sports-championship city to get trashed by revelers who destroy cars, throw bricks through windows, and burn police vehicles. Today, many people do not pay any taxes to pay for governmental infrastructure programs, yet we expect these people to care about taxes imposed.
Today, people do not consider autonomy as important as they do personal safety, and consider the term “freedom” a codeword for allowing the rich to abuse the poor. The important decisions, such as defense of our borders or foreign wars, are assumed to be made by others. The trivial decisions, like personal appearance or television shows watched, are considered important protected rights. Personal responsibility, as before, is considered someone else’s issue.
Today, people expect free public services, such as education, hospitalization, legal defense, and decent wages. Yet those services are not held accountable for their success, tend to be wasteful and inefficient, and are not free (someone is paying for these unproductive services).
If a society gives everyone the same opportunities, of course the strong and the smart will tend to rise to the top and become the movers and shakers, the land-owners and leaders. But we all know that not everyone starts from the same socio-economic status in society. Some people start life already rich, with parents who already have great educations and jobs. These children will become the leaders of tomorrow. It seems awfully unfair.
The deck is already stacked against most people, some more than others. A 20th-century philosopher named John Rawls proposed a kind of lottery where people draw lots and are randomly assigned stations in life – mayor, garbage collector, rich, poor. He concluded that our station in life determines to a great extent our future success. But what about the grandparents who saved, worked three jobs, and sent their children to college versus the ones who sat around watching reality shows all day?
The children of hard-working, sacrificing people grow up to be successful and established in the elite positions of society and their children will be raised in privileged households. They will go to music and dance classes, golf weekends, robotics and NASA camps.
How can a child from a poor background, with alcoholic or drug-addicted parents, expect to succeed against these other children? There is a way but it will take a complete effort and possibly several generations. Very few people born with “silver spoons” in their mouths become people of great character – unless their parents taught them some of life’s hard lessons.
Studies show that some people succeed regardless their background circumstances. In Transpersonal Psychology, we studied “self-actualizing” people. In other words, people who seemed to transcend themselves, people who seemed to be the happiest and seemed to be more satisfied with their lives than others. They tended to focus on the effort, not the outcome. They set goals then focused on the present moment, doing the best they can, not wishing they were somewhere else, and never regretting their past choices because they knew that they did they best they could at the time. The only choices they regretted were those where they did not think to choose and just blindly did something.
Self-actualizing people think beyond themselves to their entire sphere of influence. They are open-minded but make sound decisions; they learn about diverse topics but develop foundations to stand on; they take calculated risks but accept the inevitable setbacks. They are disciplined but not dogmatic. Why am I mentioning these people? Because when it comes to raising children or developing a society, we should be conscious of how our politics and the media are shaping people. Are we encouraging people to make tough decisions or do we expect others to make tough decisions for us?
Do we expect to be held accountable for our choices or do we expect a pass whenever we make a bad decision so we don’t really think much about it? Whenever a percent of the funding for a governmental program is cut, there is an outcry from the public. “Education cuts? You are hurting our children!” “Medicaid cuts? You are hurting the poor!” “Social Security cuts? You are hurting the elderly!” Yet each of these governmental programs has been thoroughly analyzed and determined to be bloated, inefficient, and generally unsustainable.
How are we so idiotic that we stick our heads in the sand rather than propose serious changes? People exclaim, simplistically, “But we need to educate the children!” “We need to care for the poor!” “We need to care for the elderly who have put into the system all their lives!”
OF COURSE we need to do these things – but do we need to manage them so badly? Because that is what we are doing. These programs are terribly managed and heading for a fall off a steep cliff yet all we do is blame each other, wring our hands, and pass the buck. Big ideas, hard choices, and media responsibility must be part of the equation to save our society.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
We Need A New Type of Science (part 1)
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
--Albert Einstein
=====================================================
Introduction to the problem
My book, Metaphysics for the Commoner, ended with a list of “eternal rules.” I am not exactly sure what is meant by the term “eternal rules,” maybe “perennial issues” or recurring themes would be more accurate. What I do know is that people have been experiencing particular types of experiences throughout human history and those feelings, thoughts, and impressions have a particular gist to them yet are almost universally brushed aside by the scientific community. Religious beliefs, mythologies, spirituality, even archetypes, and other invisible, non-empirical based concepts are seemingly thought of as products of a second-class mentality by the elite intelligencia.
======================================================
Here, I would like to pursue a better understanding of those eternal rules in a common, non-scientific manner. I do believe we should be investigating evidence of these “eternal rules” with rigorous philosophical and scientific methodologies – only not the stogy, closed-minded current guard.
======================================================
Philosophers tend to ignore these perennial patterns of experience because they have adopted a phenomenological approach to “knowing” reality – yet they ignore repeatedly-claimed phenomena. Scientists tend to shy away from “religious,” “spiritual,” and other “meaning”-based claims because these claims are too philosophical or psychological; arguments given by realists generally avoid these topics because they do not seem accessible to empirical testing. How can one perform a repeatable experiment about “God” or “karma” or claims of predestination? These ideas do not fit into current scientific models of reality therefore are often considered superstitious fiction, the domain of the ignorant, or obsolete primitive thinking. At best, these “supernatural” claims are not considered applicable to scientific investigation; at worst, these topics are considered beneath serious thinkers.
==============================================
I would like to remind those realists that all or nearly all of our current knowledge already comes from “meaning”-based inferences. Each word you are now reading can only be understood because we have mentally associated a meaning to the group of shapes we call written words. We do the same with the groups of sounds we call spoken words. If we simply discover intricate details of, for example, letter shapes, via empirical testing, this does not imply knowledge of the meanings of those letters.
===============================================
Similarly, the important truths discovered throughout scientific, philosophical, and theological pursuits were truths of meaning, not of the mechanical – illusory – shell that surrounded the meaning. Theological pursuits tend to be interpretations of “revealed truth”; philosophical pursuits tend to be discovering a more accurate and rational meaning of everything – “How can that be?” “Why is it that way?” and scientific pursuits tend to explain the practical, mechanistic-shells (observable principles) that surround an underlying truth – the how and empirical why -- but not the meanings. Theology looks at grand declarations; philosophy looks at grand meanings; science looks at grand descriptions. Each perspective has its worth but none possess exclusive access to reality.
=====================================================================
Science in the maze:
===========================================================
I would like to give an example of how people, well-intentioned, smart-as-whips people, might be led astray. Applied Science has seemingly contributed amazing benefits to people around the world for over 150 years (medicines, cell phones, materials technology, and so forth). Scientists seem to be learning more about the world and the way it works year after year. They are learning to understand the inner workings of the atom, the workings of the DNA molecule, and the larger cosmos (Black Holes, String Theory, etc.).
============================================================
What if, however, it is the scientist’s methodology itself that leads them to those conclusions? What if scientists’ assumed axiomatic premises can only lead to the conclusions that they are gradually concluding? In other words, the scientist is looking in a mirror and not discovering the truth about reality but only seeing him-or-herself (and his-or-her particular limitations) more and more clearly. Bear with me.
==============================================================
Suppose our physical reality is like a maze. We make our way through the passageways by using our own “free will,” but the walls do exist – they are not illusions. At least, our senses tell us they exist. By using the scientific method, we can investigate the world of our senses (in this analogy, the walls of the maze) and gradually develop a picture of the empirical world. We have clear evidence that can be cited and tested.
==============================================================
Science can move us forward through the maze. It can help us find the corners, the passageways, the right ways and the ways that lead us to dead ends. Science helps us discover the “true” path through the maze. What if, however, that regardless how closely we look at the walls and measure the hallways like a blind man through a funhouse, the maze is a very limited reality. What if we could climb up a ladder, above the entire maze, and look down at the intricate passages?
===============================================================
What if we climb up to one of the watchtowers and peer down on the maze from above and can see the people struggling to find their way through. From above, we can see where the various branches lead and also see which branch leads to the exit (or pot of gold or a Heaven-like place or a Hellish place).
===============================================================
Then what? We look down and see the scientists testing the walls and making their conclusions but it is clear that their conclusions are based upon a limited perspective. They are in the maze and their activities seem somewhat petty from this new perspective. Are they wrong? No, not exactly. They are clearly discovering the details of the maze. How do we explain our point of view to the people within the maze? What words and ideas do we use to explain things that are not within the 3-D physical maze, words and ideas that do not fit within the parameters of the maze? Words and ideas that include new dimensions?
===============================================================
How do we explain our point of view to the scientists, who study the maze itself and are not geared for phenomena outside the range of the maze? How do we describe what is all around the maze without people thinking you are imagining things, making up things, or being deceived?
(end of part 1)
Saturday, February 18, 2012
How Do You Know?
A Philosophical Video Short
Cast of Characters:
Mr. Carter = Philosophy Professor
Ashley Smith = White student
Lakisha = African American office worker
Mrs. Thompson = Office supervisor
Johnson = Soldier
Sergeant = Voice of sergeant
Bill = AC Technician Helper
Matt = AC Technician
Couple = Young couple in car
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theme:
Who knows, we might be living in parallel worlds at this very moment, say the Quantum physicists. Philosophers ponder these issues and more through the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science. Who knows what is really real or who we really are?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSROOM SCENE I:
In a typical college classroom, a philosophy teacher (Mr. Carter) is addressing the students:
CARTER:
“What do you know with absolute certainty?”
A white student raises her hand.
ASHLEY:
“I know that I’m Ashley Smith.”
CARTER:
How do you know that?
ASHLEY:
Because that’s what everyone calls me; that’s what I’ve always been called; that’s what is on my birth certificate; that’s what my Mom calls me. I’m sure that I am Ashley Smith.
CARTER:
Birth certificates can have mistakes on them or even be forged; babies can be accidentally switched in the hospital nursery; people can call you lots of things but that doesn’t make it your real name.
ASHLEY:
But, regardless what they call me, I’m still the same physical person, so I am me. I’m certain of that.
CARTER:
So, you know that you exist right now, at this moment? How do you know this.
ASHLEY:
I can see what’s around me. I have memories of doing things through the years. I can remember when I was ten years old and playing with my cousins. I remember going to work yesterday and driving to school this morning. I DO exist – I remember the things that happened in my life!
CARTER:
So you’re saying that because you seem to remember things, images and impressions that make up a consistent story in a convincing way, even though they are not happening right now, then you are absolutely sure that all those things really happened the way you remember them, so your memories are really the key to you knowing with absolute certainty that you are who you think you are and that your life has really occurred the way you remember it occurring? Is that what you’re basing your certainty on?
ASHLEY:
Not just my memories. My memories were made up of present moments like right now. I can see you; I can hear you. I can feel myself breathing and talking. I definitely exist right now (a little frustrated).
CARTER:
How do you know that you can see me and hear me? How do you know you feel yourself breathing? How do you know you have memories, these memories that you are basing your whole life on? How do you know they are accurate or actually even represent real events that happened?
ASHLEY:
Wha…..?? (confused & disbelieving look)
????
I…just…know….
CARTER:
HOW do you know that you’re really here at this moment? That you are who you think you are? That you live the life you think you’re living? HOW do you know these things? Our senses, our minds, our beliefs, are easily manipulated. A magician, a hypnotist, a sales person…heck, even a late night comedian can manipulate you into believing things that are not really true. Yet you are absolutely sure that what you’re experiencing right now is real and true and getting sent to your “memories” to accurately record?
ASHLEY:
So, Mr. Carter, what are you saying…that I don’t exist? That this is not real?
CARTER:
No, I’m trying to make you aware of your assumptions, things that we assume are true but we never really think about or question. We just buy into it. Here, let’s do an exercise. Relax…relaaxxxx. Be awake in this moment; what are you really feeling? Who are you, really? Relax and pay attention. Just sense this moment, right now…relax…relaaxxxx. What do you feel? What’s really going on?
Zoom to Close up on her eyes; eyes turn inward, reflective; blur then squiggly lines.
-------------------------------------
OFFICE SCENE:Close up on new eyes, pull out.
Scene is a busy office. Ashley is now an African-American office worker sitting at a messy desk full of papers. An older woman is standing next to the desk, talking to her:
MRS. THOMPSON:
“Lakisha? Lakisha? Are you with me? We need to get those Accounts Payables out today. You can do that, right?”
Lakisha goes from being confused to quickly gathering herself.
LAKISHA:
“Oh…oh…right, Mrs. Thompson. I’m on it.”
MRS. THOMPSON:
Mrs. Thompson heads out the door; “I’m counting on you.”
LAKISHA:
Lakisha looks down at her desk. “Now, what was I doing? That was a weird feeling….”
Words on screen: TWO HOURS LATER.
Desk looks neatly organized.
LAKISHA:
“There! All done. Now where was I? (slowly) Where was I?” Looking inward, reflective.
Zoom to close up on the eyes; blur then squiggly lines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGHTTIME BATTLE SCENE:
It’s dark. Gunshots are heard in the background. Flashes of light, almost like lightning come and go, then thunderous sounds.
JOHNSON:
“Where am I? Where are we?” A man’s voice, where was previously Lakisha’s, asks.
SERGEANT:
A second voice tensely whispers: “Johnson! Johnson! You still with me!?”
Johnson tries to gather himself. A flashlight snaps on and awkwardly illuminates the face of Johnson, who is clearly a soldier. He has camos on, a helmet, and black smudges on his face. He’s lying face-first on the ground with a rifle next to him.
JOHNSON:
“Uhh…uhh…I’m with you Sergeant! I just lost my bearings for a second. What’s going on?!”
SERGEANT:
“We’ve walked into an ambush, that’s what’s going on! They were waiting for us. We gotta retreat; we already lost McDonald and Kozinsky. You ready? It’s just you and me left, Johnson. Here we go: Ready…Go… go… go!”
(barely visible in the low light, Johnson grunts and breathes hard, as if struggling and running.)
A brilliant flash of light then a boom. Johnson’s voice groans. All is dark.
------------------------------------------------------------
CAR SCENE:
Close up on a man’s pair of eyes. Pull out to show a young couple sitting in a car together.
YOUNG WOMAN:
“Are you even listening to me?” the young woman asks.
The man has a far-away look in his eyes, then snaps it to the here-and-now.
YOUNG MAN:
“Wha…? I’m sorry, sweety. What were you saying?”
YOUNG WOMAN:
“Whenever you have something to say, it’s all ‘end-of-the-world’ important, but I want to vent a little about my work, and you don’t even pay attention. Forget it! I’m going home.” She gets out of the car and slams the door.
The man looks bewildered.
Zoom to Close up to blurr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINTENANCE WORKERS SCENE:
Close up on eyes, then pull out.
Two construction workers with hard hats are outside working on air-conditioning equipment behind a building. One is up on a ladder. Another confused-looking one is on the ground; takes a drag from a cigarette.
MATT:
“Billy! Give me that socket again. It’s not tight enough.”
BILLY:
“Huh? Oh…oh! Okay, Matt, what size was that again?” leaning down to the toolbox.
MATT:
“Are you day-dreaming down there? The 13 millimeter, you dumbass!”
Close up on eyes, then Blurr & squiggly lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSROOM SCENE II:
Close up on eyes, then pull out to show Ashley Smith in the classroom.
Ashley looks confused.
CARTER:
“So, Ashley, the question is HOW do you know who you really are? Doesn’t it have something to do with what we are consciously aware of at the moment? That whatever you’re aware of in the here-and-now, especially if you suddenly have memories of how you got there that support your beliefs, then you’ll think it’s real. You’ll be convinced that wherever you are IS the real world.”
“Ashley? Are you following me?”
Ashley shakes her head and gives a wave, as if to say ‘forget it’.
CARTER:
“Anyway, class, that’s a taste of Metaphysics with a little Epistemology thrown in for good measure. See ya’ll next week. Have a nice day.”
Weary class gets up and walks out.
Mr. Carter smiles mischievously as he watches them file out the classroom, knowing that he might have gotten them to reflect a little about existence this day.
END
Cast of Characters:
Mr. Carter = Philosophy Professor
Ashley Smith = White student
Lakisha = African American office worker
Mrs. Thompson = Office supervisor
Johnson = Soldier
Sergeant = Voice of sergeant
Bill = AC Technician Helper
Matt = AC Technician
Couple = Young couple in car
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theme:
Who knows, we might be living in parallel worlds at this very moment, say the Quantum physicists. Philosophers ponder these issues and more through the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science. Who knows what is really real or who we really are?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSROOM SCENE I:
In a typical college classroom, a philosophy teacher (Mr. Carter) is addressing the students:
CARTER:
“What do you know with absolute certainty?”
A white student raises her hand.
ASHLEY:
“I know that I’m Ashley Smith.”
CARTER:
How do you know that?
ASHLEY:
Because that’s what everyone calls me; that’s what I’ve always been called; that’s what is on my birth certificate; that’s what my Mom calls me. I’m sure that I am Ashley Smith.
CARTER:
Birth certificates can have mistakes on them or even be forged; babies can be accidentally switched in the hospital nursery; people can call you lots of things but that doesn’t make it your real name.
ASHLEY:
But, regardless what they call me, I’m still the same physical person, so I am me. I’m certain of that.
CARTER:
So, you know that you exist right now, at this moment? How do you know this.
ASHLEY:
I can see what’s around me. I have memories of doing things through the years. I can remember when I was ten years old and playing with my cousins. I remember going to work yesterday and driving to school this morning. I DO exist – I remember the things that happened in my life!
CARTER:
So you’re saying that because you seem to remember things, images and impressions that make up a consistent story in a convincing way, even though they are not happening right now, then you are absolutely sure that all those things really happened the way you remember them, so your memories are really the key to you knowing with absolute certainty that you are who you think you are and that your life has really occurred the way you remember it occurring? Is that what you’re basing your certainty on?
ASHLEY:
Not just my memories. My memories were made up of present moments like right now. I can see you; I can hear you. I can feel myself breathing and talking. I definitely exist right now (a little frustrated).
CARTER:
How do you know that you can see me and hear me? How do you know you feel yourself breathing? How do you know you have memories, these memories that you are basing your whole life on? How do you know they are accurate or actually even represent real events that happened?
ASHLEY:
Wha…..?? (confused & disbelieving look)
????
I…just…know….
CARTER:
HOW do you know that you’re really here at this moment? That you are who you think you are? That you live the life you think you’re living? HOW do you know these things? Our senses, our minds, our beliefs, are easily manipulated. A magician, a hypnotist, a sales person…heck, even a late night comedian can manipulate you into believing things that are not really true. Yet you are absolutely sure that what you’re experiencing right now is real and true and getting sent to your “memories” to accurately record?
ASHLEY:
So, Mr. Carter, what are you saying…that I don’t exist? That this is not real?
CARTER:
No, I’m trying to make you aware of your assumptions, things that we assume are true but we never really think about or question. We just buy into it. Here, let’s do an exercise. Relax…relaaxxxx. Be awake in this moment; what are you really feeling? Who are you, really? Relax and pay attention. Just sense this moment, right now…relax…relaaxxxx. What do you feel? What’s really going on?
Zoom to Close up on her eyes; eyes turn inward, reflective; blur then squiggly lines.
-------------------------------------
OFFICE SCENE:Close up on new eyes, pull out.
Scene is a busy office. Ashley is now an African-American office worker sitting at a messy desk full of papers. An older woman is standing next to the desk, talking to her:
MRS. THOMPSON:
“Lakisha? Lakisha? Are you with me? We need to get those Accounts Payables out today. You can do that, right?”
Lakisha goes from being confused to quickly gathering herself.
LAKISHA:
“Oh…oh…right, Mrs. Thompson. I’m on it.”
MRS. THOMPSON:
Mrs. Thompson heads out the door; “I’m counting on you.”
LAKISHA:
Lakisha looks down at her desk. “Now, what was I doing? That was a weird feeling….”
Words on screen: TWO HOURS LATER.
Desk looks neatly organized.
LAKISHA:
“There! All done. Now where was I? (slowly) Where was I?” Looking inward, reflective.
Zoom to close up on the eyes; blur then squiggly lines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGHTTIME BATTLE SCENE:
It’s dark. Gunshots are heard in the background. Flashes of light, almost like lightning come and go, then thunderous sounds.
JOHNSON:
“Where am I? Where are we?” A man’s voice, where was previously Lakisha’s, asks.
SERGEANT:
A second voice tensely whispers: “Johnson! Johnson! You still with me!?”
Johnson tries to gather himself. A flashlight snaps on and awkwardly illuminates the face of Johnson, who is clearly a soldier. He has camos on, a helmet, and black smudges on his face. He’s lying face-first on the ground with a rifle next to him.
JOHNSON:
“Uhh…uhh…I’m with you Sergeant! I just lost my bearings for a second. What’s going on?!”
SERGEANT:
“We’ve walked into an ambush, that’s what’s going on! They were waiting for us. We gotta retreat; we already lost McDonald and Kozinsky. You ready? It’s just you and me left, Johnson. Here we go: Ready…Go… go… go!”
(barely visible in the low light, Johnson grunts and breathes hard, as if struggling and running.)
A brilliant flash of light then a boom. Johnson’s voice groans. All is dark.
------------------------------------------------------------
CAR SCENE:
Close up on a man’s pair of eyes. Pull out to show a young couple sitting in a car together.
YOUNG WOMAN:
“Are you even listening to me?” the young woman asks.
The man has a far-away look in his eyes, then snaps it to the here-and-now.
YOUNG MAN:
“Wha…? I’m sorry, sweety. What were you saying?”
YOUNG WOMAN:
“Whenever you have something to say, it’s all ‘end-of-the-world’ important, but I want to vent a little about my work, and you don’t even pay attention. Forget it! I’m going home.” She gets out of the car and slams the door.
The man looks bewildered.
Zoom to Close up to blurr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINTENANCE WORKERS SCENE:
Close up on eyes, then pull out.
Two construction workers with hard hats are outside working on air-conditioning equipment behind a building. One is up on a ladder. Another confused-looking one is on the ground; takes a drag from a cigarette.
MATT:
“Billy! Give me that socket again. It’s not tight enough.”
BILLY:
“Huh? Oh…oh! Okay, Matt, what size was that again?” leaning down to the toolbox.
MATT:
“Are you day-dreaming down there? The 13 millimeter, you dumbass!”
Close up on eyes, then Blurr & squiggly lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSROOM SCENE II:
Close up on eyes, then pull out to show Ashley Smith in the classroom.
Ashley looks confused.
CARTER:
“So, Ashley, the question is HOW do you know who you really are? Doesn’t it have something to do with what we are consciously aware of at the moment? That whatever you’re aware of in the here-and-now, especially if you suddenly have memories of how you got there that support your beliefs, then you’ll think it’s real. You’ll be convinced that wherever you are IS the real world.”
“Ashley? Are you following me?”
Ashley shakes her head and gives a wave, as if to say ‘forget it’.
CARTER:
“Anyway, class, that’s a taste of Metaphysics with a little Epistemology thrown in for good measure. See ya’ll next week. Have a nice day.”
Weary class gets up and walks out.
Mr. Carter smiles mischievously as he watches them file out the classroom, knowing that he might have gotten them to reflect a little about existence this day.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)