Ah, election year!

Well, it is 2012 and it is the year of national elections. The media will blast us with commentaries, predictions, interviews, and debates. But how much truth will come to us versus out-and-out falsehoods?

Barak Obama will be blamed for everything wrong with the economy and will be painted as a wild-eyed Socialist and (probably) a Muslim who wants to convert us all to Sharia Law. No problem that almost everything wrong with the economy began with --- and was caused by --- George W. Bush. Democrats, like me, certainly wish that Obama had been able to do more to solve our economic problems in his first three years, but I don't think anyone else could have done better. Then, look what he has been up against in the last year!

To me, the most depressing part of the political spectacle that we will be witnessing during the coming year is how antithetical it is to the spirit of democracy. Sound contradictory? Isn't the right to vote what democracy means? Well, no. The issue about voting is that we have genuine choices. Then, we need to be well and truthfully informed about the choices we are making. And finally, we need to have honest follow-up to see what our elected officials are doing with our votes.

Instead, our government is founded on money --- significant money. Candidates with significant money behind them get in front of the people and get elected. The critical issues that might make a real difference in the country's future are so protected by money that they never find a voice. Money-laiden candidates invent a variety of shallow issues to offer the appearance of choice. After election, the big donors who financed the candidates take over the governing process. This is happening in both parties so no one really offers much of a choice.

So sit back and watch, but you won't see much that really connects with reality.

Some Talk about Abortion Issues

During the last couple of days, I have had a discussion on Facebook with a "friend" regarding abortion issues. The friend wants to use some rather new high-tech visions of egg-fertilization as arguments for his (I think) extreme view that personhood begins at fertilization of the female ovum. He holds to this view so strongly that he is willing to condemn abortions in even cases of incest or rape. While he hasn't mentioned it, I am sure that he would also condemn the so-called "morning-after pill."

What I want to discuss here is the assertion that the biology of egg fertilization is even relevant to the social issues of abortion. Since this particular anti-abortion argument rests on claiming that a "person" is present in the womb immediately after fertilization of an ovum is successful, my assertion is equivalent to saying that biology is not relevant to determining that a person is present in the womb. The abortion argument is still more complicated, of course, because it also requires us to believe that a "person" in any stage of development has the right to protection of its life. Even if one were to admit that the fertilized ovum is a person, it would not be true necessarily, in our society, that such a person is granted the right to protection of its life. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution defines the rights of citizenship in the following way: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (my emphasis). The right to protection of life does not follow the word 'person' wherever we want to carry it; indeed, only persons who are "born" fall within this protection. Framers of the Constitution and their heirs obviously never foresaw the possibility that fetal development would be protected under the 14th Amendment.

However, let's get back to the issue of whether biology informs us of anything relevant to this debate. There are different levels of discourse within the field of biology. Microbiology works with various chemicals (mainly macromolecules) and rises to the identification of genes. Taxonomy, on the other hand, observes and classifies the objects in our world that we understand to fall within the domain of biology, namely, living organisms. Biology assumes no differences between humans (homo sapiens sapiens) and other animal species. Indeed, biology sees humans as evolving over a long period of time out of more primitive animal species. Nor is there any inherent reason why microbiology would distinguish anything different in the human division of animal life. In biology, we can talk about an individual human (homo sapiens sapiens) but there is no word 'person' in the biology vocabulary. Up to the time of birth (or artificial separation) the developing fertilized ovum is simply called a 'fetus'. 

What is going on here is what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called playing language games. One of the big errors that people frequently make is that of believing that all language is somehow continuous and inter-connected. But Wittgenstein observed that language is actually divided up into many independent systems of definitions. Thus, if I choose to play the "biology language game," I am constrained to use the vocabulary and systematic relationships of meaning in that game. I cannot meaningfully carry other words into a discussion of biology.

Thus, if I want to use words like 'person' and 'rights', I must begin by determining the language game in which these are meaningful. Discussion of the abortion issue seems to occur mainly in what we might call the "legal language game." In that game, various rights have been attributed to persons and persons have traditionally been understood as human members of the society in which laws and rights are defined. At the time of the framing of our Constitution, the word 'person' was attributed to white male adults. If female adults were viewed as persons, they were not persons with the robust collection of rights possessed by men. African slaves were not viewed as whole persons, nor were children of any color. While I am no expert on this, my impression is that both the meaning of 'person' and the availability of rights began to change in various ways throughout the 19th Century. While children would not possess all rights and would be looked upon as subordinate persons until "coming of age," they were increasingly seen as having the right of protection by society. Hence, in the movement toward wide-ranging public education in the early 19th Century, a child's right to mental development was protected. In the child labor laws of the late 19th Century, a child's health, safety, and education were protected. Still, children today do not possess all the rights possessed by adults of our society. 

Pro-life advocates are really arguing within the legal language game of our particular society and are actually arguing two separate points. First, they are arguing that we should extend the meaning of the word 'person' to include what biologists call the human fetus. A woman who has become pregnant should really be referred to as being "with person." Second, they are arguing that certain rights possessed by persons should follow this extension of meaning into the woman's body. As seen in the previous discussion, not all rights apply to every person. But the argument here is that the right of certain protections should apply. In particular, the protection of life should apply. But, if this is the case, we should note that the protection of the person's development toward a happy normal life might also be insisted upon. In other words, if we view a fetus as a person, then we might be obligating our society to assure that the fetus will be well cared for in all respects. Women who smoke or drink alcohol or take drugs during pregnancy might be liable for arrest and punishment. Indeed, since the woman's body is now the living quarter of an official person, society may have made itself responsible for the health, nutrition, and safety of those "quarters." 

What interests me --- and I will end here --- is that pro-lifers are so desperate to save the life of the fetus they want to call a person, but they really have no concern about protecting the well-being of the life they have saved. I say that because most of the people who are pro-life are also very antagonistic toward government intrusion into our lives and are largely opposed to social services such as welfare.

Occupy What?

I am really getting tired of people who look at the Occupy Wall Street protestors and just call them deadbeats and tell them to go out and get jobs. While I am fairly confident that there probably are some deadbeats in the mix, I am equally confident that there are many who are simply fed up with the American situation and need to do something (whatever seems possible at present) about it. It is ridiculous to scream at people that they should get jobs and work when the jobs simply do not exist. 

All of this yelling, it seems to me, is a device for ignoring the point of the protests --- and maybe an excuse for not joining them. The American economic system is badly broken and it is not going to repair itself. On one side, the 1% has successfully waged a "class war" over the last thirty years or so in which they have cornered most of the wealth in the country. They have done that by buying off the government --- Federal and state both --- and reducing their tax contributions to all time lows. They have also done this by elevating salaries and bonuses for executives like themselves to ridiculous amounts. The 1% lives by a simple truth; they have the power so they take the money.

The meaning of "economy" in Greek was essentially "household management." In modern times "economy" applies to communities or commonwealths  and is the way in which the production and distribution of goods and services is organized. When the system was based on barter, there was a clear understanding of who has produced what and how the distribution proceeds. When barter is replaced by a system of money exchange, however, the accumulation of wealth becomes possible. Then, all one needs is a system of protecting wealth. Kings and nobles amassed armies. Modern governments a la John Locke instituted laws and administered enforcement. In modern times the feudal system of kings, church, and serfs has been replaced by a modern system of "corporate feudalism" in which the corporation owns everything, the government protects corporate interests, and the people work to maintain what they can in the margin. Doubtless that corporate feudalism is just as much a "system" as was household management; but there is one enormous difference. In the household there were social (moral) relations between husband, wife, children, and slaves. Corporate (capitalism) feudalism today functions under no sense of relationship, no moral bond; it simply pursues the accumulation of more wealth. The name of the game is purely Greed. 

In the 19th Century, Marx clearly and convincingly described the situation of uncontrolled capitalism. Motivated by greed, the capitalist will always attempt to extract the maximum amount of work from labor and pay as little as is possible. Since no "social consciousness" is involved, the worker's plight is left to a losing fight to make ends meet. The proletariat class is created and it expands. Marx concluded that the proletariat would eventually be forced to rebel or simply starve. 

Interestingly, Lenin realized that the major Western economies were headed in a different direction. Through the system of Imperialism they could export the proletariat class to what we have come to call the Third World. By a system of economic colonization, the Western states obtained their raw materials from the Third World and they paid higher wages to their own workers so as to create a friendly and cooperative "middle class." The middle class, being modestly well off, would not rebel and the foreign proletariat would be too far away.

This system worked effectively through the middle of the 20th Century and then it started to come apart. It has been coming apart ever since. What is interesting (in an academic sort of way) is that the system came apart not only because the colonies began to rebel and declare independence, but that capitalists decided to join the program. Advanced transportation and communication technologies now allowed corporations to move production facilities off-shore and, hence, to cut off the American worker completely. The same technologies allowed corporations to move their wealth off-shore as well --- which they have done under the flag of "globalization". In short, the whole idea of the middle class has been abandoned in America. So as the ranks of the proletariat come together again in the American economy, we have to ask where this will take us. But what we face is something different than we might have faced in the 19th Century. We face corporations that still remain in control of the government over us but have also rendered themselves less vulnerable to rebellion by being largely absentee holders of American wealth. 

The Occupy movement may not be articulating all of this but I do believe that they are an early vanguard of something quite important in the evolution of an American political economy.

Where Is the Problem?

50% of American voters, more or less, vote for Republican candidates. However, Republican candidates who are elected tenaciously underwrite the interests of the 1% most wealthy Americans and very frequently act against the interests of the other 49% who voted for them. Frankly, I don't get it. Why do the 49%ers consistently vote against their own interests?

In a recent conversation about this, my wife suggested that it is all about the social agenda. While people may claim that the economy is their biggest issue, today, they still vote according to the social issues as they see them. And Republicans have consistently and successfully built their case on the social issues. Look at their voting record in the House, this last fall. They have spent far more time voting up ridiculous social agenda items that will never pass the Senate or escape a Presidential veto, far more than any sensible approach to the economy. Why? Because it is in their best interest to keep the 49% thinking they are represented on their favorite social issues.

So what are these issues? Life should be defined as beginning with conception after proper insemination --- preferably in the "missionary position." Abortions of any kind, therefore, should be absolutely illegal no matter what the conditions are. Sexuality should be permitted only after age 18 between racially paired males and females only. Sexuality of any other form and at any other age is a perversion. Hence, of course, marriage is not to be permitted for lesbians and gays. Well, let's see what else. Oh, education should be guided by local government counsels. History texts should be censored and rewritten so as to indicate the excellence of the Reagan and Bush years and the corruptions of Democratic administrations in any form. Science teaching should be restricted to the faithful discussion of Creationism only and reference to evolution, Darwin, etc should be eliminated. Current scientists should be looked upon with the greatest suspicion, especially when they attempt to fill their pockets with huge research grants relating to fabrications about "climate change" and "atmospheric warming." Muslims should all be banished from the US and English should be the only and official language of this country --- speak English or get out.

This is the "short list" on the social agenda; I could go on. What is somewhat odd about this list is the fact that the 49ers, so to speak, see themselves as detesting government and worshipping freedom. Yet their entire social agenda requires a more pervasive government presence in order to repress those behaviors that they dislike and they have no respect for the freedom of people other than themselves. 

So I guess that is the problem and it's not a problem that can be easily solved. 

Occupy Wall Street and Global Calls for Economic Justice

It is good to see that people around the world are finally beginning to understand the situation and are trying to make themselves heard. The problem, unfortunately, is that the powerful 1% do not listen and, even if they listen, do not believe or even understand. In fact, the 1% could care less. They live in their very own insulated world.

What this means, I'm afraid to say, is that we will see nothing happen as a result of the protests. Most likely, as a matter of fact, the protestors will begin to dwindle as cold weather begins to set in. And probably there will be fewer and fewer genuine protestors and more and more homeless and schizophrenics who just want a free lunch. Since that is what the 1% think this is all about anyway, the end game does not look good for our side.

It seems to me that the 1% will budge only after the 99% begin to achieve something that hurts. On one extreme, there could be random assassinations of the rich&powerful. This is the traditional road of revolutionaries, and it can be effective. On the other extreme, we can continue with pacifist demonstrations of discontent. This has been effective in the past in certain situations but it requires leadership and imagination. Simply camping out in cities across the country has no hurtful impact on the 1%. Someone needs to imagine a way in which this social power can be channeled in a way that hurts. During the civil rights movement of the '60s there were some very effective suspensions of work or consumption, for instance. Begin to deny services to the rich&powerful. Another tactic would be to show very publicly all of the channels through which the 1% manipulate and control local, state, and Federal governments. Embarrass the hell out of our wonderful "law makers." 

The 1% will, of course, begin to retaliate in every way they can. That, and only that, will be an indication of success. Thus far, there is no real retaliation, just the usual reactions of poorly informed and ill trained police departments. 

Baseball

We have watched a great deal of baseball this year. I like baseball. I consider it the best sport around. It is complex and intellectual.

But there is one big problem with baseball these days. It's the spitting. Why do baseball players have to spit so much? It's constant and annoying, and it makes you wonder what the dugout looks like after a game. They might as well put a big trough right in front of that fence!

No other sport that I know involves spitting at the frequency and volume of baseball. I haven't seen it in soccer, football, hockey, or hurling. What would boxing be like if the fighters were spitting like that. The ring would become too slick to prance in.

Maybe all of this was OK once upon a time, but now that we have High Definition TV cameras that can bring up head shots from across the field we need the spitting to stop.

The Anti-Occupy-Wall-Street Blog

I just came across a Web Site called "We're the 53%" at http://the53.tumblr.com/

It's full of wonderful stories about people who have worked hard, kept their employment, and are proud of it. Much of it is devoted to telling the Occupy Wall Street people to shut up, stop complaining, and do what they did. 

The sad thing about these "53%" people is that, like most Conservatives (so called), they do not look around. They look straight ahead and they look at themselves and they have no sense whatsoever of the world that other people face. If they really are 53% or more of Americans, then America is a thoroughly selfish society. These are people who would flee from a burning airplane and then tell reporters, "We all got out fine, just used the exits and shoots," when in fact 40% of the passengers died in flames.