If you have been following my blog off-and-on, it has been published as an Amazon Kindle book --- both paperback and kindle formats. The blogs have been reorganized into groups of relevant material.
https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-American-Dream-Excerpts-Philosophers/dp/1980850836/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1524695233&sr=1-1
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Monday, March 26, 2018
The Gun Issue, Part 2
On Saturday, thousands of people (even people outside of the US) marched in support of the movement founded and lead by the young survivors of the Florida school shooting. It is more than sad, actually obscene, that the gun supporters (NRA and others) refuse to engage in dialogue and merely demean the young people and their followers. That is genuine cowardice.
No one that I know or have heard has called for the elimination of hunting guns. I suppose that some people consider an AR 15 to be a hunting weapon, though I think a sign I saw responds to those people —- “If you need an AR 15 to hunt, you should find a better hobby.”
I think there are really two levels of gun issues. The present issue is AR 15s and AK 47s and similar military-style assault weapons. The other issue is hand guns. Without a doubt, hand guns are involved in the majority of annual deaths from gun violence. In that sense it is an even more serious issue. Nevertheless, the present issue stems from the use of assault weapons to attack schools and other large gatherings of people young and old. There is something terribly wrong when parents send their children off to school in the morning and cannot be sure that they will be safe.
If researchers and commentators are correct, the majority of gun owners in our country are willing to have stronger restrictions on the purchase or sale of guns. Even large numbers of police and military personnel believe that assault weapons should not be available to the public. But the bottom line of defense of those who believe in free access to assault weapons seems to be among those who hate and fear government and who believe that their weapons are the one line of defense against government enslaving them. I find this argument entirely unconvincing. First of all, it seems historically true that people lose their freedom and move into tyrannies slowly and by their own doing. Italy, Spain, Germany, China, and Cuba are recent examples. By the time they realize what they have done to themselves it is really too late to clean and load their arsenals. Secondly, modern governments have multiple ways in which they can control and overcome people — cancelling their bank accounts and credit cards, intervening in their employment and housing, invading their homes and throwing them in jail overnight. That fellow with his AR 15 is going to be pretty confused by the time the swat team surrounds his house and breaks through his front door. In short, it seems to me that the only way to protect ourselves from an abusive government is to participate in good government and try to make government work well. We have a well founded Constitution and we will be safe if we follow it. That includes the Second Amendment, by the way. If we really followed it, all the assault weapons would be in the National Guard where they belong.
Currently, there are two big problems in American government. Huge rich organizations like the NRA literally own Congress and the Presidency so those who are assigned the task of governing us are actually acting in the interests of these organizations rather than for the interests of the people. The second problem is that we now have a President who is born to be a tyrant and has no respect for the Constitution and is probably mentally ill.
No one that I know or have heard has called for the elimination of hunting guns. I suppose that some people consider an AR 15 to be a hunting weapon, though I think a sign I saw responds to those people —- “If you need an AR 15 to hunt, you should find a better hobby.”
I think there are really two levels of gun issues. The present issue is AR 15s and AK 47s and similar military-style assault weapons. The other issue is hand guns. Without a doubt, hand guns are involved in the majority of annual deaths from gun violence. In that sense it is an even more serious issue. Nevertheless, the present issue stems from the use of assault weapons to attack schools and other large gatherings of people young and old. There is something terribly wrong when parents send their children off to school in the morning and cannot be sure that they will be safe.
If researchers and commentators are correct, the majority of gun owners in our country are willing to have stronger restrictions on the purchase or sale of guns. Even large numbers of police and military personnel believe that assault weapons should not be available to the public. But the bottom line of defense of those who believe in free access to assault weapons seems to be among those who hate and fear government and who believe that their weapons are the one line of defense against government enslaving them. I find this argument entirely unconvincing. First of all, it seems historically true that people lose their freedom and move into tyrannies slowly and by their own doing. Italy, Spain, Germany, China, and Cuba are recent examples. By the time they realize what they have done to themselves it is really too late to clean and load their arsenals. Secondly, modern governments have multiple ways in which they can control and overcome people — cancelling their bank accounts and credit cards, intervening in their employment and housing, invading their homes and throwing them in jail overnight. That fellow with his AR 15 is going to be pretty confused by the time the swat team surrounds his house and breaks through his front door. In short, it seems to me that the only way to protect ourselves from an abusive government is to participate in good government and try to make government work well. We have a well founded Constitution and we will be safe if we follow it. That includes the Second Amendment, by the way. If we really followed it, all the assault weapons would be in the National Guard where they belong.
Currently, there are two big problems in American government. Huge rich organizations like the NRA literally own Congress and the Presidency so those who are assigned the task of governing us are actually acting in the interests of these organizations rather than for the interests of the people. The second problem is that we now have a President who is born to be a tyrant and has no respect for the Constitution and is probably mentally ill.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
The Gun Issue
The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The NRA likes to ignore the part about the “well regulated militia” and focus only on the part that says “shall not be infringed.” What the framers of the Constitution surely had in mind, speaking of the “security of a free state,” was the possible intrusion of British or other foreign forces. As time has passed, the concept of a militia has been replaced by the concept of a National Guard. A militia was a well armed citizenry that was ready to come together in defense of the country. The National Guard is an organization of volunteer citizens who train together and stand ready to act in the interests of the state or nation. And the National Guard can indeed be called into action in situations where the national security seems threatened. People in the Guard are trained and “well regulated” and leave their military style weapons and other equipment in the Guard facility.
The Second Amendment says nothing about keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of hunting, home protection, marksmanship, or merely collecting. But American tradition clearly includes shotguns and rifles for hunting as well as hand guns of various sorts for self defense. Rural Americans have grown up hunting and do so with little formal training. Urbanized Americans hunt for a mixture of reasons and most likely need training. (In California one cannot get a hunting license without passing a hunter’s safety course.) I do not believe there has been any significant movement to take away hunting equipment; although there is certainly a movement that speaks against “trophy hunting” and for good reasons. (I have an article about hunting published on Amazon’s Kindle.)
The issue of hand guns is a rather different matter however. Hand guns can easily be concealed. They can be brought out quickly and they can be deadly at close range. Hand guns are of little use in hunting and their main use is against other human beings. The NRA likes to say that “a good guy with a gun is the one sure way of dealing with a bad guy with a gun.” What this brings to mind is the American Wild West where everyone was toting a gun and there was so much violence that towns ultimately began restricting guns. Hand guns are susceptible to accidental use and are all too available when people are angry or drunk. By far the majority of gun related deaths in this country are involved with hand guns.
Now enter military style assault weapons. Their sole purpose is to kill lots of people very fast. Perhaps that is desirable on a military stage but it has no place in a domestic scene. In spite of the NRA, that good guy with the gun doesn’t really stand a chance against someone with an assault weapon. So the whole thing escalates. That good guy better have an assault weapon too. So we should put these into schools? Enough of them so that there’s a real barrier against assault? First of all, any person in the military or in the police force will tell you that working a hand gun or an assault weapon effectively requires significant training. And actually confronting another person who is armed and dangerous is not just a simple matter of holding a weapon of your own. And actually shooting another person is not easy, nor is the aftermath pleasant.
Virtually none of the rights bestowed on us in our Bill of Rights are unlimited. Speech is free so long as you don’t abuse it by standing up in an airplane and yelling “highjack” or “bomb.” Assembly is free but you better get permits from the city if you plan to do it in public. The press is free but you are not free to defame someone. Only the NRA seems to think that the right to our weapons is unlimited; even most NRA members seem to agree that limitations are justified.
I have a hunting license because I did go through hunter safety training and I am glad that I did. I think that people who want to have hand guns should register them, insure them, and receive training on how to handle and store them. We do as much for driving a car. Personally, I think that assault weapons should remain within the military domain and should not be available to the general public.
The Second Amendment says nothing about keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of hunting, home protection, marksmanship, or merely collecting. But American tradition clearly includes shotguns and rifles for hunting as well as hand guns of various sorts for self defense. Rural Americans have grown up hunting and do so with little formal training. Urbanized Americans hunt for a mixture of reasons and most likely need training. (In California one cannot get a hunting license without passing a hunter’s safety course.) I do not believe there has been any significant movement to take away hunting equipment; although there is certainly a movement that speaks against “trophy hunting” and for good reasons. (I have an article about hunting published on Amazon’s Kindle.)
The issue of hand guns is a rather different matter however. Hand guns can easily be concealed. They can be brought out quickly and they can be deadly at close range. Hand guns are of little use in hunting and their main use is against other human beings. The NRA likes to say that “a good guy with a gun is the one sure way of dealing with a bad guy with a gun.” What this brings to mind is the American Wild West where everyone was toting a gun and there was so much violence that towns ultimately began restricting guns. Hand guns are susceptible to accidental use and are all too available when people are angry or drunk. By far the majority of gun related deaths in this country are involved with hand guns.
Now enter military style assault weapons. Their sole purpose is to kill lots of people very fast. Perhaps that is desirable on a military stage but it has no place in a domestic scene. In spite of the NRA, that good guy with the gun doesn’t really stand a chance against someone with an assault weapon. So the whole thing escalates. That good guy better have an assault weapon too. So we should put these into schools? Enough of them so that there’s a real barrier against assault? First of all, any person in the military or in the police force will tell you that working a hand gun or an assault weapon effectively requires significant training. And actually confronting another person who is armed and dangerous is not just a simple matter of holding a weapon of your own. And actually shooting another person is not easy, nor is the aftermath pleasant.
Virtually none of the rights bestowed on us in our Bill of Rights are unlimited. Speech is free so long as you don’t abuse it by standing up in an airplane and yelling “highjack” or “bomb.” Assembly is free but you better get permits from the city if you plan to do it in public. The press is free but you are not free to defame someone. Only the NRA seems to think that the right to our weapons is unlimited; even most NRA members seem to agree that limitations are justified.
I have a hunting license because I did go through hunter safety training and I am glad that I did. I think that people who want to have hand guns should register them, insure them, and receive training on how to handle and store them. We do as much for driving a car. Personally, I think that assault weapons should remain within the military domain and should not be available to the general public.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Education
I value "learning" but I value "education" more. What is the difference? Well, learning is the result of studies in a very wide range of topics and fields. Education is learning that addresses specific needs that have been established by people whose wisdom we trust.
When I came to Harvey Mudd College in 1961, there was a required program of studies through the first two years called the Common Core. At the end of the second year, students could select a major course of study for their final two years. The major, needless to say, was also largely a required set of studies. In other words, all four years of study at Harvey Mudd was largely directed study in specific fields, a program of study that would educate young mathematicians, scientists, and engineeers.
As an example, the State of California, at that time, required undergraduate programs to include a course of study in US history. It seemed wise for students to go out into the world with an understanding of their own history.
What has happened at Harvey Mudd as well as at most other institutions, is that our confidence has been shaken. Fewer faculty are inclined to make a claim of wisdom with regard to learning. The US history requirement disappeared decades ago. Faculty backed up from specific fields and content to defend only specific techniques. So, as time went by, we were willing only to require that historical studies should be a part of one's program. As a consequence, students go out in the world understanding Asian history (for instance) but not their own history. I have no problem with the study of Asian history as such but I do have a real problem with the general ignorance of US history that has been a result.
In a similar way, the Common Core has been eroded and degraded over the years. The faculty is unwilling to stand up for it's beliefs and the general direction is one of pacifying student protests. After all, they are paying for their education. But that is very ironic because, if they really want an education, why are they unwilling to respect the wisdom of the faculty. The answer, I guess, is that respect has little to do with actions among many students today.
When I came to Harvey Mudd College in 1961, there was a required program of studies through the first two years called the Common Core. At the end of the second year, students could select a major course of study for their final two years. The major, needless to say, was also largely a required set of studies. In other words, all four years of study at Harvey Mudd was largely directed study in specific fields, a program of study that would educate young mathematicians, scientists, and engineeers.
As an example, the State of California, at that time, required undergraduate programs to include a course of study in US history. It seemed wise for students to go out into the world with an understanding of their own history.
What has happened at Harvey Mudd as well as at most other institutions, is that our confidence has been shaken. Fewer faculty are inclined to make a claim of wisdom with regard to learning. The US history requirement disappeared decades ago. Faculty backed up from specific fields and content to defend only specific techniques. So, as time went by, we were willing only to require that historical studies should be a part of one's program. As a consequence, students go out in the world understanding Asian history (for instance) but not their own history. I have no problem with the study of Asian history as such but I do have a real problem with the general ignorance of US history that has been a result.
In a similar way, the Common Core has been eroded and degraded over the years. The faculty is unwilling to stand up for it's beliefs and the general direction is one of pacifying student protests. After all, they are paying for their education. But that is very ironic because, if they really want an education, why are they unwilling to respect the wisdom of the faculty. The answer, I guess, is that respect has little to do with actions among many students today.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
On Government
I have often argued that government is the way in which we (the people) come together to solve our mutual problems. And I still believe that; however, government in that sense in our country has completely failed. Government as people coming together requires education and participation so that the people have an understanding of what their mutual problems are and try to find the best solutions. People in the US have largely ceased educating themselves and participation has fallen to ridiculous lows. So the result is that very wealthy people get elected to office by a small percentage of the population and these “representatives” take over “government” in their own interests and the interests of those who pay their way. In the US, government is an oligarchy that has little to do with what we like to call “the common good.”
Liberal democrats, like myself, continue to vote for candidates who, they think, will support the common good. Conservative republicans seem to vote in multiple paths that are not always logically consistent. One group seems to support “moral values” although they seem to have in mind merely a very limited number of issues such as abortion and gay/lesbian lifestyles while ignoring core principles of Christian faith. Another group seems merely interested in “law and order” and added to that a fear of world-wide terrorism. Yet a third group seems only concerned with the “free market” which translates into taxation and business regulation. The reality of this, it seems to me, is that both groups — Republicans and Democrats — believe in certain policies that politicians are expert at using to their advantage. The resulting government really fails to satisfy any of these goals.
What all of this seems to have brought us down to is a national movement that hates the Federal government and would prefer to just retreat into state-run societies. Having grown up in Illinois, I can’t say that I have much faith in state government. One might think this is just a resurgence of the Civil War but the movement is far larger than just a North/South matter. One might also think that it is a resurgence of the Articles of Confederation and anti-Federalism from the 1780s but few are well schooled in the Federalist Papers and other arguments with regard to the Articles. The only power of the Federal government that people seem happy about is defense, which may be why they are willing to pay almost half of their income taxes directly to the military.
The sad aspect of this movement to undermine Federal government and to inflate state governments is the loss of any “national character.” But perhaps a national character was an illusion sheltered by naive people like myself. Perhaps we have been ignoring the large differences in character that are evident as we travel around the country. What is happening right now is a backlash of those differences against a nationally motivated attempt to secure a common character.
Liberal democrats, like myself, continue to vote for candidates who, they think, will support the common good. Conservative republicans seem to vote in multiple paths that are not always logically consistent. One group seems to support “moral values” although they seem to have in mind merely a very limited number of issues such as abortion and gay/lesbian lifestyles while ignoring core principles of Christian faith. Another group seems merely interested in “law and order” and added to that a fear of world-wide terrorism. Yet a third group seems only concerned with the “free market” which translates into taxation and business regulation. The reality of this, it seems to me, is that both groups — Republicans and Democrats — believe in certain policies that politicians are expert at using to their advantage. The resulting government really fails to satisfy any of these goals.
What all of this seems to have brought us down to is a national movement that hates the Federal government and would prefer to just retreat into state-run societies. Having grown up in Illinois, I can’t say that I have much faith in state government. One might think this is just a resurgence of the Civil War but the movement is far larger than just a North/South matter. One might also think that it is a resurgence of the Articles of Confederation and anti-Federalism from the 1780s but few are well schooled in the Federalist Papers and other arguments with regard to the Articles. The only power of the Federal government that people seem happy about is defense, which may be why they are willing to pay almost half of their income taxes directly to the military.
The sad aspect of this movement to undermine Federal government and to inflate state governments is the loss of any “national character.” But perhaps a national character was an illusion sheltered by naive people like myself. Perhaps we have been ignoring the large differences in character that are evident as we travel around the country. What is happening right now is a backlash of those differences against a nationally motivated attempt to secure a common character.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Protecting Our earth
Global Warming is a scientific fact. Temperature readings from around the world and over a long period of time have been collected and analyzed. The average temperature of our earth is increasing. You cannot call that "BS".
Climate Change is more speculative. Rather than being a fact, it is a well developed theory, based on documented climate events.
The human origin of global warming and climate change is more speculative yet. Nevertheless, what other factors can we seriously propose as causes of these changes? Skeptics like to believe that human behaviors do not have that much effect on global phenomena. However, one of the classic examples of human impact is the presence of lead in the polar ice cap. When cores are drilled in the ice cap and analyzed, there is no lead found until around 1930s and then the amount of lead increases radically. It was in the 1930s that tetra-ethyl lead was introduced in motor fuels to solve the problem of "knocking". Auto engineers knew that it would be bad if the lead remained in the engines so they also introduced ethylene dichloride. Lead chloride is gaseous at high temperatures and takes the lead out the exhaust system of the vehicle into the atmosphere. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions are definitely a major result of our behaviors as well.
Perhaps we can all live with global warming, but climate change, if genuine, is a major problem. Agriculture, as one example, is hugely dependent on climate. A large part of California's economy is based on agriculture, thus alteration of California's traditional climate could have a major impact on our economy. Climate change can potentially make some parts of the world unlivable and cause major disruption of human life. Rising ocean waters are already problematic in some coastline areas.
It seems obvious to me that, if we can avoid damaging the earth, which is our home, we should do so. We did do away with lead in our gasoline. Perhaps we can also stop throwing so much methane and carbon dioxide into our atmosphere as well. Eat less beef; walk more (it's good for us); and use green energy when possible.
Climate Change is more speculative. Rather than being a fact, it is a well developed theory, based on documented climate events.
The human origin of global warming and climate change is more speculative yet. Nevertheless, what other factors can we seriously propose as causes of these changes? Skeptics like to believe that human behaviors do not have that much effect on global phenomena. However, one of the classic examples of human impact is the presence of lead in the polar ice cap. When cores are drilled in the ice cap and analyzed, there is no lead found until around 1930s and then the amount of lead increases radically. It was in the 1930s that tetra-ethyl lead was introduced in motor fuels to solve the problem of "knocking". Auto engineers knew that it would be bad if the lead remained in the engines so they also introduced ethylene dichloride. Lead chloride is gaseous at high temperatures and takes the lead out the exhaust system of the vehicle into the atmosphere. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions are definitely a major result of our behaviors as well.
Perhaps we can all live with global warming, but climate change, if genuine, is a major problem. Agriculture, as one example, is hugely dependent on climate. A large part of California's economy is based on agriculture, thus alteration of California's traditional climate could have a major impact on our economy. Climate change can potentially make some parts of the world unlivable and cause major disruption of human life. Rising ocean waters are already problematic in some coastline areas.
It seems obvious to me that, if we can avoid damaging the earth, which is our home, we should do so. We did do away with lead in our gasoline. Perhaps we can also stop throwing so much methane and carbon dioxide into our atmosphere as well. Eat less beef; walk more (it's good for us); and use green energy when possible.
Friday, May 12, 2017
The Absurdity of Trump's "Religious Freedom" Order
Some American Christians have been whining a lot about their religious freedom. Supposedly their religious freedom is being hampered because they are not free to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Of course, they are completely free to think what they like about gays and lesbians; but because we live in a "civil" society, they must conform to how we are expected to treat gays and lesbians. Comparable issues arise with birth control and abortion.
Our Constitution provides the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice (or, for that matter, the freedom to practice no religion at all). So the real question at the bottom of all this is what actually constitutes "practice." It seems to me that practicing a religion means having certain beliefs and, perhaps, taking part in organized groups who share those beliefs. Many people would also suggest that sharing one's beliefs with others or even helping others to understand similar beliefs is part of practice. In my opinion, that can become a bit "edgy;" people who want to share their beliefs at my front door are really violating my privacy.
The problem with religious practice is that some groups seem to think that they should be allowed to treat others in our society consistent with their special beliefs instead of treating them within the norms of civil society. This, of course, amounts to a demand that their beliefs trump (excuse the pun) all the rest. That really means that others should not have the same freedom of religious belief.
The irony is that Christians are not at all ready to allow other religious groups to behave according to their own private beliefs in our society --- especially not Muslims. Freedom of religion depends upon being in a free civil society; but that means that many behaviors, especially toward other people, are controlled by the rules of that society and not by private religious beliefs.
Our Constitution provides the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice (or, for that matter, the freedom to practice no religion at all). So the real question at the bottom of all this is what actually constitutes "practice." It seems to me that practicing a religion means having certain beliefs and, perhaps, taking part in organized groups who share those beliefs. Many people would also suggest that sharing one's beliefs with others or even helping others to understand similar beliefs is part of practice. In my opinion, that can become a bit "edgy;" people who want to share their beliefs at my front door are really violating my privacy.
The problem with religious practice is that some groups seem to think that they should be allowed to treat others in our society consistent with their special beliefs instead of treating them within the norms of civil society. This, of course, amounts to a demand that their beliefs trump (excuse the pun) all the rest. That really means that others should not have the same freedom of religious belief.
The irony is that Christians are not at all ready to allow other religious groups to behave according to their own private beliefs in our society --- especially not Muslims. Freedom of religion depends upon being in a free civil society; but that means that many behaviors, especially toward other people, are controlled by the rules of that society and not by private religious beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)