With Easter coming along, I cannot resist commenting on some thoughts I always have when I see people wearing crosses.
What if Jesus had lived in France in the late 18th Century? Would women be wearing miniature guillotines around their necks? Would every Christian church along the 210 freeway have a huge pillar bearing a massive guillotine? What if Jesus had been stabbed to death or hung? Would we have daggers in our windows and large hangman's nooses above the alters?
The issue is why do we take the cross as the icon for Christ? The cross was a vicious and cruel device for putting people to death slowly. What, indeed, does it say about Christianity that this icon of suffering and death seems to be the only way we can remember the life of Jesus? People have largely forgotten what that life was about, in terms of rebellion against the powerful and service to the oppressed. Instead, we remember his ugly death for the narcissistic reason that we hang our own hopes for immortality on it. Clearly, we could care less for his real message.
So, Happy Easter to all you Christians out there.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Budget
Well, Congress almost closed down the Federal government this week. And this is just the first wave of arguments over the Federal budget. The whole experience has brought out a number of interesting points.
First, let's take the overall "theory" behind the Republican love of reducing Federal spending. The idea is that reduced spending will put more money in the hands of wealthy entrepreneurs who will then (of course) create jobs, thus stimulating the economy. No matter that this has never ever been demonstrated true to reality! The interesting thing about this theoretical vision is that it completely ignores the quality or character of the jobs that are involved. The Federal jobs that are mostly likely to be cut by Republicans are jobs in social services --- inspection of foods, protection of the environment, monitoring of fair labor practices, teaching children, giving aid to the poor and unhealthy. But when the entrepreneurs come forward with their new job opportunities, do they create jobs in the same fields? Of course not. We're talking about making new jobs in the manufacture of plastic buckets or new tanning sprays. The Federal government is good at creating jobs for the welfare of society; entrepreneurs are good at creating jobs for their own profit in popular consumer fields.
In the last few weeks, we've heard nothing but the Republican mantra that they only want to reduce Federal spending. We should ignore HOW they want to reduce spending. In fact, the Federal budget reflects the face of our government; it is how we spend our money. Any reduction in the budget, consequently, is an alteration of the government's face. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be surprised by that. So the last minute fight over women's health care and NPR and public television was no accident. These are Federal programs that Republicans want to destroy and they will continue to try to destroy them so long as they have the strength to do so.
So how do Republicans think the Federal government should look? That is, what should be left after they have successfully destroyed Federal programs for the social good? Basically, Republicans want to protect our borders and maintain a military presence around the world. They never consider lowering military spending. Too many of their buddies in the manufacture of military goodies would suffer. Yet that's where the real spending is. No other country maintains military bases all around the world. The United States is more militarist than the Third Reich but nobody complains about it, not even the Democrats. While we're throwing away lunches for under-privileged children and mammograms for women, we are waging three different wars in Africa and the Middle East. But nobody is talking about how these are the activities that have caused our huge deficits. Why? Because our militarism is not something we are willing to look at. We don't want to admit it as fact. Isn't that pretty much the same as the German people of the 1930s? No one wanted to admit the dark side of where they were going.
First, let's take the overall "theory" behind the Republican love of reducing Federal spending. The idea is that reduced spending will put more money in the hands of wealthy entrepreneurs who will then (of course) create jobs, thus stimulating the economy. No matter that this has never ever been demonstrated true to reality! The interesting thing about this theoretical vision is that it completely ignores the quality or character of the jobs that are involved. The Federal jobs that are mostly likely to be cut by Republicans are jobs in social services --- inspection of foods, protection of the environment, monitoring of fair labor practices, teaching children, giving aid to the poor and unhealthy. But when the entrepreneurs come forward with their new job opportunities, do they create jobs in the same fields? Of course not. We're talking about making new jobs in the manufacture of plastic buckets or new tanning sprays. The Federal government is good at creating jobs for the welfare of society; entrepreneurs are good at creating jobs for their own profit in popular consumer fields.
In the last few weeks, we've heard nothing but the Republican mantra that they only want to reduce Federal spending. We should ignore HOW they want to reduce spending. In fact, the Federal budget reflects the face of our government; it is how we spend our money. Any reduction in the budget, consequently, is an alteration of the government's face. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be surprised by that. So the last minute fight over women's health care and NPR and public television was no accident. These are Federal programs that Republicans want to destroy and they will continue to try to destroy them so long as they have the strength to do so.
So how do Republicans think the Federal government should look? That is, what should be left after they have successfully destroyed Federal programs for the social good? Basically, Republicans want to protect our borders and maintain a military presence around the world. They never consider lowering military spending. Too many of their buddies in the manufacture of military goodies would suffer. Yet that's where the real spending is. No other country maintains military bases all around the world. The United States is more militarist than the Third Reich but nobody complains about it, not even the Democrats. While we're throwing away lunches for under-privileged children and mammograms for women, we are waging three different wars in Africa and the Middle East. But nobody is talking about how these are the activities that have caused our huge deficits. Why? Because our militarism is not something we are willing to look at. We don't want to admit it as fact. Isn't that pretty much the same as the German people of the 1930s? No one wanted to admit the dark side of where they were going.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Republican Attack on NPR and Public Television
Republicans love to suggest that they are in a political contest with liberals. The notion of what constitutes a "liberal" is somewhat like a diseased soul --- morally degenerate, whimperingly sympathetic to the poor, employers of illegal immigrants, and probably drug addicts. To admit that you are a liberal is to emerge from the primal slime of the vegetative earth. How can anyone admit to it? I don't see how Republicans get away with this crap, frankly; except they do.
But nothing really highlights the center of this contest more than the present Republican attack against NPR and Public Television. What is the problem? NPR and Public Television are intelligent media. It is intelligence that offends the Republicans. Those liberal creeps all went to big public universities and took higher degrees. They want the media to be truly critical and to organize genuine discussions. Ridiculous! How can you make a decent buck in a world where people are actually able to ask real intelligent questions about what you are actually doing? Preposterous!
The sad truth of our world is that we are not locked in a two-party political conflict but rather in a vicious and uncompromising war between ignorance and intelligence. Major issues --- healthcare for example --- are fought out in almost complete ignorance, in terms of ridiculous notions and assumptions about death panels and loss of personal choice. No one will listen to an intelligent argument --- that is, to first understanding what the legislation provides and then asking why and what alternatives might be. You might find some of those discussions on NPR --- but not for long if the Republicans have their way.
Why are Republicans so afraid of intelligent discussion? Because it is in their interest to have an ignorant and impoverished population.
But nothing really highlights the center of this contest more than the present Republican attack against NPR and Public Television. What is the problem? NPR and Public Television are intelligent media. It is intelligence that offends the Republicans. Those liberal creeps all went to big public universities and took higher degrees. They want the media to be truly critical and to organize genuine discussions. Ridiculous! How can you make a decent buck in a world where people are actually able to ask real intelligent questions about what you are actually doing? Preposterous!
The sad truth of our world is that we are not locked in a two-party political conflict but rather in a vicious and uncompromising war between ignorance and intelligence. Major issues --- healthcare for example --- are fought out in almost complete ignorance, in terms of ridiculous notions and assumptions about death panels and loss of personal choice. No one will listen to an intelligent argument --- that is, to first understanding what the legislation provides and then asking why and what alternatives might be. You might find some of those discussions on NPR --- but not for long if the Republicans have their way.
Why are Republicans so afraid of intelligent discussion? Because it is in their interest to have an ignorant and impoverished population.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Internet and Democracy
Back in the '90s when the internet was just developing and way before the invention of Facebook and proliferation of incredibly compact and powerful cell phones, techies used to dream about what the internet would do for democracy. I participated in any number of discussions where the "democratizing power" of the internet was boasted upon. And some of that was actually true. The internet does put the power of information into people's hands. You don't even have to own a computer and have a DSL line; you can walk into the public library.
Of course, one of the costs of voluminous free public information is that not everything you find on the internet is true to facts, nor is everything as neutral of secret aims and motives as one might first like to assume. Nor is it always easy to track down the origin and authenticity of materials you'll find there. So what we have is the following problem. If you want intelligent inquiry and reporting, you have to educate and employ teachers and journalists; and that means that not everyone will have access to their wisdom because it will only be available in reputable institutions and publications with limited distribution or access. If you want free universal access to information regardless of origin, authenticity, etc., then the internet is what you want but you are left to decide in some way what is informative and worthy. That turns out to be a daunting task.
Now, we are witnessing a new feature of the democratizing power of the internet. Facebook and wireless communications are being used in Africa and the Middle East to rally masses of people into protests. Egyptians unseated their president, and Lybians have started a civil war. But if this is democracy, where is it leading? The rule of the whole is desirable so long as the whole (that is, everyone in a society) is well informed, intelligent, and responsible. But this is not always the case, as Rousseau observed in his "Social Contract." The ability of a society to be governed by a particular constitution will always depend upon the level of cultural maturity in the society. So we have to ask whether the Egyptians are ready for democracy or whether will simply lead to something worse. Ditto Tunisia, Lybia, etc.
But what if this were America? Would we be happy if mobs of Americans, spirited into action through the internet and wireless communications, succeeded in bringing down our government? The Tea Party and other extremist movements are already way too close to this. Is this democracy or mob rule? The political situation in this country today suggests an extreme lack of cultural maturity. The Republican Party is incapable of thinking about anything except winning elections, hence, winning power. They spent the entire eight years of Clinton's administration trying to unseat him and now they are clearly trying to do the same with Obama. It is not about ruling or governing or serving the people, with the Republicans, it is all about pure hunger for power. After the latest elections, the Republican leadership made it clear that they are only interested in closing off Obama to a single term. But what about the people, the economy, jobs, etc? Apparently they could care less. Is this democracy in action? Well, it's raw power expressed by the majority but there would seem to be other important criteria that ought to be in play to make democracy work well. And that, I think, is something that the internet has not dealt with effectively.
Of course, one of the costs of voluminous free public information is that not everything you find on the internet is true to facts, nor is everything as neutral of secret aims and motives as one might first like to assume. Nor is it always easy to track down the origin and authenticity of materials you'll find there. So what we have is the following problem. If you want intelligent inquiry and reporting, you have to educate and employ teachers and journalists; and that means that not everyone will have access to their wisdom because it will only be available in reputable institutions and publications with limited distribution or access. If you want free universal access to information regardless of origin, authenticity, etc., then the internet is what you want but you are left to decide in some way what is informative and worthy. That turns out to be a daunting task.
Now, we are witnessing a new feature of the democratizing power of the internet. Facebook and wireless communications are being used in Africa and the Middle East to rally masses of people into protests. Egyptians unseated their president, and Lybians have started a civil war. But if this is democracy, where is it leading? The rule of the whole is desirable so long as the whole (that is, everyone in a society) is well informed, intelligent, and responsible. But this is not always the case, as Rousseau observed in his "Social Contract." The ability of a society to be governed by a particular constitution will always depend upon the level of cultural maturity in the society. So we have to ask whether the Egyptians are ready for democracy or whether will simply lead to something worse. Ditto Tunisia, Lybia, etc.
But what if this were America? Would we be happy if mobs of Americans, spirited into action through the internet and wireless communications, succeeded in bringing down our government? The Tea Party and other extremist movements are already way too close to this. Is this democracy or mob rule? The political situation in this country today suggests an extreme lack of cultural maturity. The Republican Party is incapable of thinking about anything except winning elections, hence, winning power. They spent the entire eight years of Clinton's administration trying to unseat him and now they are clearly trying to do the same with Obama. It is not about ruling or governing or serving the people, with the Republicans, it is all about pure hunger for power. After the latest elections, the Republican leadership made it clear that they are only interested in closing off Obama to a single term. But what about the people, the economy, jobs, etc? Apparently they could care less. Is this democracy in action? Well, it's raw power expressed by the majority but there would seem to be other important criteria that ought to be in play to make democracy work well. And that, I think, is something that the internet has not dealt with effectively.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Middle East and Democracy
George Bush supposedly wanted to build democracies all over the Middle East and that's something that Americans love to hear. I suppose that we love to hear the people's cry for democracy because we assume, naively, that they will turn into something very much like us. That, of course, is never obvious. Consider, for example, the Palestinian elections in which people freely chose to be represented by the extreme --- Hamas. Also, consider where democracy in Iraq is likely to go. "Oh, no, that's not what we had in mind!"
The most recent event, of course, is the 18-day victory of Egyptians in removing Mubarak from office. But are they on their way to democracy or what else? And, after all, is it really democracy that people are after or something else?
If you mean by "democracy" that people make all the decisions with regard to their collective problems, then America is no democracy and never has been. What we have is a so-called "representative democracy" or "democratic republic." We follow a general rule of majority decision in choosing those who will represent us, and they follow a general rule of majority decision in acting and making law. But the great stabilizing feature of our government is its anchorage in a constitution, held as "fundamental law" and protected by a system of "checks and balances." If that is what Egyptians aspire to, more power to them, and good luck. Even in America, it is not at all clear that the system works well.
Why is America not exactly a great example? Mainly because wealth always seems to come to the forefront and take command. It has an ingenious way of using the law to advance its own interests. So America is actually more like an "oligarchic republic" --- that is, a constitutionally sanctioned rule of wealth. Consider the great difficulty that we have had in providing health care to Americans. We have been trying for decades without any success whatsoever. Now, for the first time, the Obama administration has succeeded in providing something. But, wait. The first business of the new Republican House is to vote to demolish it. Why? In whose interest is our government working? In the interests of wealthy insurance companies and over-priced physicians and hospitals, of course. Health care is BIG business. We can't let the government interfere in that. Of course, that's not the end of it. Republicans also want to demolish National Public Radio, the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Oh, and by the way, isn't it obvious that "global warming" is just a fraud concocted by money-hungry scientists? Do Republicans ever look outside their little world of profit and greed to see what the rest of the world is thinking and doing?
Well, back to the Middle East. Like others, I am thrilled by their desire to free themselves from the rule of dictators. But they will need more than 18 days and crowds of young people to turn their governments into systems that work for freedom and justice and that avoid immediate collapse into corruption.
The most recent event, of course, is the 18-day victory of Egyptians in removing Mubarak from office. But are they on their way to democracy or what else? And, after all, is it really democracy that people are after or something else?
If you mean by "democracy" that people make all the decisions with regard to their collective problems, then America is no democracy and never has been. What we have is a so-called "representative democracy" or "democratic republic." We follow a general rule of majority decision in choosing those who will represent us, and they follow a general rule of majority decision in acting and making law. But the great stabilizing feature of our government is its anchorage in a constitution, held as "fundamental law" and protected by a system of "checks and balances." If that is what Egyptians aspire to, more power to them, and good luck. Even in America, it is not at all clear that the system works well.
Why is America not exactly a great example? Mainly because wealth always seems to come to the forefront and take command. It has an ingenious way of using the law to advance its own interests. So America is actually more like an "oligarchic republic" --- that is, a constitutionally sanctioned rule of wealth. Consider the great difficulty that we have had in providing health care to Americans. We have been trying for decades without any success whatsoever. Now, for the first time, the Obama administration has succeeded in providing something. But, wait. The first business of the new Republican House is to vote to demolish it. Why? In whose interest is our government working? In the interests of wealthy insurance companies and over-priced physicians and hospitals, of course. Health care is BIG business. We can't let the government interfere in that. Of course, that's not the end of it. Republicans also want to demolish National Public Radio, the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Oh, and by the way, isn't it obvious that "global warming" is just a fraud concocted by money-hungry scientists? Do Republicans ever look outside their little world of profit and greed to see what the rest of the world is thinking and doing?
Well, back to the Middle East. Like others, I am thrilled by their desire to free themselves from the rule of dictators. But they will need more than 18 days and crowds of young people to turn their governments into systems that work for freedom and justice and that avoid immediate collapse into corruption.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
A Comment on the Church
I've lost much of my interest in politics so I think I will discuss religion for a while. I was thinking about this while I walked downtown to coffee this morning. I suppose my mind was joggled by the weekly message on a little church I pass --- something to the effect that "Jesus saved us from our sins." Sin is a very strange concept but it has been enormously successful in trapping huge numbers of people for over centuries. It is doubtless to me that there are certain things we can do that are wrong to do. There are grounds for judging "right and wrong." But this does not mean that wrong things are sins. The notion of sin is actually quite unrelated to the issue of right and wrong acts. Christian theology wants to have us believe that we begin life "in sin." Even the baby is mortally encumbered by sin far before he/she can do anything that has moral scope. It seems to me that this is more-or-less equivalent to saying that life itself is viewed as evil. If we believe that, then there is no hope for us except what's offered by the church.
Christian theology has the formula for saving us from evil and stepping beyond sin. What is the formula? Being faithful to their theology of course. What this is, in my mind, is nothing related to the existence of a deity but rather a crass political usurpation of power over vast populations of people. It has been very successful. What better way to make people cower at your feet than to convince them that they have been created evil and impure and that their only path to redemption is to do everything that you tell them.
That, of course, is not all. At some point in the beginning, theologians realized that the one impulse in humans more powerful than even the need to eat is sexuality. Hence, all forms of sexuality had to be brought under church control. Now, even if people are a little hesitant about admitting sin in the abstract, they can become mortified by their own instinctual desires. And the Catholic (the traditional Christian) is not permitted sex in any circumstance but one in which conception of a child is possible, even intended. Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" gives us a vivid picture of mortification-onto-damnation in the life of a young believer. I won't even bother to consider what this principle has done to world populations and how it maintains people in poverty. What interests me at the moment is what a shrewd political move it was to capture sexuality in this way before people felt free to own it themselves.
And if that isn't enough, Christianity was built on the foundation of yet another Achilles heal, the dread of death. If the physical body is desiring sex, the spiritual mind is anxious about death. The mind, too, must be imprisoned. Thus, Christian theology promises life-after-death and adds the quaint picture of hellfire versus heaven. It's a very scary road, life, and only the Church can guide you through so long as you are obedient and generous.
All of this is theology --- which is pretty much raw politics --- and has nothing to do with Jesus. I don't find any of this in Jesus' teaching, which is actually rather socialist in its leanings. As Nietzsche said, "There has been only one true Christian, and he died on the cross."
Christian theology has the formula for saving us from evil and stepping beyond sin. What is the formula? Being faithful to their theology of course. What this is, in my mind, is nothing related to the existence of a deity but rather a crass political usurpation of power over vast populations of people. It has been very successful. What better way to make people cower at your feet than to convince them that they have been created evil and impure and that their only path to redemption is to do everything that you tell them.
That, of course, is not all. At some point in the beginning, theologians realized that the one impulse in humans more powerful than even the need to eat is sexuality. Hence, all forms of sexuality had to be brought under church control. Now, even if people are a little hesitant about admitting sin in the abstract, they can become mortified by their own instinctual desires. And the Catholic (the traditional Christian) is not permitted sex in any circumstance but one in which conception of a child is possible, even intended. Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" gives us a vivid picture of mortification-onto-damnation in the life of a young believer. I won't even bother to consider what this principle has done to world populations and how it maintains people in poverty. What interests me at the moment is what a shrewd political move it was to capture sexuality in this way before people felt free to own it themselves.
And if that isn't enough, Christianity was built on the foundation of yet another Achilles heal, the dread of death. If the physical body is desiring sex, the spiritual mind is anxious about death. The mind, too, must be imprisoned. Thus, Christian theology promises life-after-death and adds the quaint picture of hellfire versus heaven. It's a very scary road, life, and only the Church can guide you through so long as you are obedient and generous.
All of this is theology --- which is pretty much raw politics --- and has nothing to do with Jesus. I don't find any of this in Jesus' teaching, which is actually rather socialist in its leanings. As Nietzsche said, "There has been only one true Christian, and he died on the cross."
What will they do?
The interesting thing about politics, these days, is that, now that the Republicans have full power in the House, the whole question is what will they do with their new-found power. There are certain things that Americans want their government to do, but it is not at all clear that the Republicans are tuned into those wishes. Instead, they seem to be reaching out to achieve certain fantasies of what the American people want --- like re-defining "rape," throwing out the entire healthcare legislation, etc. And, of course, in spite of their heroic need to follow the Constitution to the letter, they spent their first three days violating the Constitution right and left.
The simple fact remains that Republicans hate government so much that they are terrible governors when they hold the power. All they want to do is tear things down, and the more they can give out to their rich corporate friends in the process, the better. After complaining about the failure of bipartisanship for the last two years, now is the time for the Republicans to demonstrate how they can work with Independents and Democrats to solve some of the urgent problems we face.
The simple fact remains that Republicans hate government so much that they are terrible governors when they hold the power. All they want to do is tear things down, and the more they can give out to their rich corporate friends in the process, the better. After complaining about the failure of bipartisanship for the last two years, now is the time for the Republicans to demonstrate how they can work with Independents and Democrats to solve some of the urgent problems we face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)