phaedo2000.com Blog

Freedom of speech, yes.  The Supreme Court has even accepted a case to decide whether that covers lies as well; stay tuned.  But freedom of speech and speaking freely are quite different.

We all know how politicians and the media sift through spoken or written comments by anyone they might consider a threat – or newsworthy in any way; but we have also discovered that isn’t confined to what they actually say, but any words they say, that taken out of context might prove to be grist for the mill.  In other words if I were to say I don’t like you when you say things like that, the headline might read I don’t like you, and the underlying article might never attempt to clarify it.  But that’s politics – and that’s news; politics is for a fact dirty business – and always has been, but news can be pretty underhanded as well;  struggle for power has always been win at all costs.

But it goes beyond that, as has been p0inted out in the context of Facebook.  The case of the young cheerleader in the Midwest who was driven to suicide by character assassination and inuendo was well publicized, but not unique.  Young people and those not so young have gotten in the habit of speaking their minds on line, with very little concern for how it might be interpreted.  In fact it has been suggested that some recruiters routinely check out applicants on line (on Facebook) to get a more candid view of them as a person.  When confronted with the results, targets have been very surprised and indignant: that information is PRIVATE.  Oh, is it?  Obviously it isn’t and those that key it in, or worse, illustrate it with pictures, sometimes indiscreet, have learned to their dismay that it is not.  And that’s not fair!  Why not?  The subscriber keys it in and sends it out – on a public platform.  Facebook has subsequently been forced to enhance security, but everyone knows, or should, that friends have friends and once loose, data travels FAST.

The same is true with emails; once released there are no controls – and almost no attribution.  There the admonition is the opposite though, because many, particularly muliple-addresse emails, are usually written to be passed on.  And we all know, or should, all kinds of lies, half truths and innuendo are quite common in mass delivery emails – deliberately.  Which is one reason why I am always advising people not to take information at face value without going more deeply into it.  Such emails - and much else - almost always at best only give only one side of a situation.  Their potential for propaganda; whether black, white or grey; is not only well known but commercially exploited (advertising).

There is no privacy any more, and as the Facebook situation makes evident, many people seem to want it that way, in that they exploit themselves, even if not ALWAYS deliberately – but often enough.  Of course then there is hacking, where preditors make it their business to access other people’s data, without permission, with malice aforethought  Anywhere else that would be a crime, but on line perpetrators are difficult to catch.  For that kind of an attempt for privacy we have created a massive industry that we pay for protection, and even then it doesn’t always do the trick, although it helps.

Add to that our propensity toward political correctness.  There are many things that are just unacceptable to say anymore and say-ers will be quickly taken to task.  Huckleberry Finn has even been removed from bookshelves as a result, but not uniquely.  Political correctness is a whole other discussion, but protecting one’s self from its defenders is not, and has caused people to resort to the above title admonition, despite free speech.  Speech may be free, and protected legally, but that doesn’t mean defenders of whatever they might not want to hear won’t take it and run with it.

When I began this thought process what I was after was the admonition, if you don’t want something to be known or misused – or used against you, shutcher mouth.  But in the process I have been reminded once again how freedom of speech has been exploited – for and against almost everything, proving once again that rights are very fragile without responsibility.

There sure is a lot of information running around out there; what to believe?

It is my opinion (another cook) that the “recent” and continuing electronic technology explosion can take some of the blame/credit for it.  Computers, cell telephones/devices, wi-fi creations, internet, and heaven knows what next are proliferating – all over the world.  This has placed a heavy strain on the old line entities (including governments) that used to dominate communications; not that they are not fully involved, but control has been slipping.  In the United States; newspapers, magazines and network television has been declining in popularity, and thus forced to reduce costs, particularly those involved in foreign news – Americans are both ignorant and indifferent to much of what goes on in the rest of the world and therefore that information tends to be the first to go.

One of the reasons they are declining is competition, but in a kind of strange way.  Much of the information still originates with the media professionals, but it is available in so many other places (cable and satellite TV, bloggers in particular) that many access it without paying for the standard media production of it.  The irony, however, is that much of it still originates with the professionals but is accessed in other than their traditional outlets.  To wit, how much of blogger information is nothing more than opinion of what professionals release?  And when a blogger stumbles upon something, who tends to do the grunt work necessary to fill it out?  But then how many professionals have also become independent bloggers and or sell their wares to new blogging websites?  Confusing?  Oh, yes; and in the meantime there is so much flooding in, that competition to be first is devastating; leaving, of course, inadequate time to vet it properly – and it is changing continually.  Who to believe, especially when opinion rules?

In isolation that might not be all bad: let them fight it out.  But it is not in isolation, and furthermore big media’s problem of coming up with an effective model to generate revenue is causing more and more fragmentation; and which fragments are believeable?  Particularly when information comes from everywhere instantaneously.  Syria refused to allow foreign correspondents into the country for that very reason, so from whence comes the information?  Good question; but then much of foreign information these days comes from local stringers anyway; who are reliable?  Who knows?

In fact the fragmentation is not unlike the political fragmentation that is so prevalent in the world today; coincidence?  Many seem to be drunk with the power of being able to make themselves heard.  Or stated differently, fragmentation seems to prevail as even fragments fragment.  Watching Arab Sping evolve is educational in that sense, as opposition fragments among itself quicker than it can overcome what existed before it took to the streets (and cried for assistance from those they despise).  What does this show us?  That anyone can criticize and oppose, particularly if their ignorance is sufficient to deny realistic understanding, and that ability to build takes skill not often available, and impossible in such heady and radical environments.  Everyone knows what must be done (centered upon themselves) but no on knows how to make it happen.

I have mentioned anarchy, and it feels like that, but anarchy is no solution because it is unstable; we can’t destroy everything and still survive in the modern world.  But the traditional response of consolidation of the more powerful elements may itself be fragmented – for awhile.  We all know where that eventually leads – eventual consolidation of the more powerful.  The most powerful will always prevail, and that is not likely to result in the best for the most of us; it never has.  So what does that all mean for the so optimistic views of world wide benevolent democracy and a unified world?  Under current circumstances both are pipe dreams.  Some day?  who knows, but not today, and maybe never.  The more individual, uninformed and unrealistic opinions hold sway, or even gain attention, the more likely fragmentation will be, and the more confused it will become – for awhile.

But, as I have also often said, that in no way leads to the end of the world, at least not yet; it just means the world will likely be less stable and more confusing for awhile, until the powerful bring back some semblance of greater stability.  The roller coaster ride will be invigorating for those who have a seat and are buckled in; it is likely to be very painful for those who are unprotected.  But then that’s the way the world has been for almost all of its history.  We just had such high hopes there for a little while – a very little while; such optimism, in the light of human nature and wide ignorance, never really was well founded.  So let’s see what comes over the next rise.

Jonathan Haidt, in a book entitled The Righteous Mind, addresses the need for liberals and conservatives to be able to understand the foundations from which each other thinks, and forms moral judgments; a very reasonable assertion (in essence, empathy).  In a Miller-McCune magazine article (March-April 2012), Tom Jacobs lists Haight’s six moral foundations (found in yourmorals.org) as:

1.  Care/harm (sensitivity to suffering and need)

2.  Fairness/cheating (alerts to those taking advantage of us)

3.  Loyalty/betrayal (binds us as team players)

4.  Authority/subversion (prompts us to respect rank and status)

5.  Sanctity/degradation (inspires a sense of purity physically)

6.  Sanctity/degradation (inspires a sense of purity symbolically).

Jacobs, who describes himself as falling ”on the left side of the political spectrum) says Haidt shows that liberals respond strongly only to the first two impulses whereas most everyone else “feels the tug” of all five.  He goes on to say ”(in response to the liberals’ longtime lament:) Why do so many people vote against their economic interests?  The answer is that conservatives are appealing to them on moral frequencies liberals can’t hear).  That would probably suggest one reason for the lack of agreement on government spending, which bothers Jacobs.

It is something to think about.

I have had friends tell me several times recently: they are all crooks.  Who all?  Politicians, bankers and most people in big business; but then also anyone else that seems to come to mind.  How to respond?  I have become something of an apologist because I don’t believe it.  There are those that succumb to temptation everywhere, and the greater the temptation the greater the inclination to succumb.  A George Will article last week mentioned an impending Supreme Court law suit involving politics and corruption, and made a strong point for better definition of corruption, which is quite bland and becoming blander.  Will’s discussion centered around what politics is about.  We hire (vote for) representatives who support what we believe and want them to support and so do those with greater donational (spell check didn’t like that word, but I do) capacity; they donate money to candidates that support their views.  And let’s be very clear about it, it is impossible to succeed in politics these days without a great deal of funding (television mostly – its very costly, and almost mandatory in order to compete).  So if a person of means is strongly in support of a policy and donates money to a candidate who wins, is that corruption?  Well, what if he is a manufacturer of equipment that benefits from the policy?  Ah, first case no corruption; second case yes, of course.  Really?  It gets blurrier.  If a city needs say, a park, and the politician supports it, and lives near enough to benefit from it personally, is that corruption?

I have learned to do better with responses in less serious matters.  Did you see such and such on TV last night?  No is sufficient; no one is much interested in my opinion beyond that.  Or a movie?  Or a BIG football game.  I have evolved through life and not watching is an acquired taste, but don’t bother explaining that to an afficionado.  A friend once asked me if I had seen something or other on TV and I said I don’t watch TV.  Even movies? she asked in horror.  Even movies.  She couldn’t believe anyone could be so barbaric, and has, to the best of my recollection never spoken to me again.

But, they are all crooks is something else.  I can’t agree because I do not believe it to be so.  But trying to explain why I do not believe it sounds lame to most who  adamantly believe that it is so.  And that matters?  Well, probably not, but it kind of shuts down the conversation and leaves them feeling – deprived maybe?  Whatever.  Will suggests, and I agree, that this attitude is dangerous for democracy.  But that leads into other subjects that I do not want to pursue at this time; it seems there are many things these days that are dangerous for and threaten democracy.

The world is coming apart at the seams!  Oh woe.

Athens: looters and masked anarchists

London: mostly Pakistanis apparently, off and on

Afghanistan: Taliban tribalists, continually (over centuries)

Baghdad: almost daily it seems with whoever is in the mood today, kind of like a competition

Philippines: Muslim terrorists (ho hum)

China: peasants with some regularity

Venezuela: anyone who Chavez has it in for this week

Zimbabwe: everyone, whenever they are able to elude the army (and ex army)

Egypt?  Syria?  Yemen?  Libya?  Mali (Libya sent the former Mali rebel Libya mercs back home).

It’s never been like this.  Well, unless you have checked into a little history: England 1381, 1497, 1513; Germany: 1524-25; Italy: 1304; Flanders: 1328; France: 1320, 1358, 1384 (and that was before the big one); Bohemia: 1419-24; Hungary: 1514; Austria: 1515; Czechloslovakia: 1420; and that’s just during the Middle Ages.  Mostly then it was unhappy peasants; but then isn’t it always unhappy peasants?  Usually, almost always, with good justification.  Actually during the 30 years war it was unhappy mercenary soldier who didn’t get paid.

And on and on and on.  Is it different today?  Revolts have always entailed damage, and usually looting.  It would have been cheaper it seems to have given them whatever they wanted.  So what’s new?  Well reading about Hamas, it seems to have become a pretty good business, with wealthy clients seeking their product; which is what?  what else?  killing and destroying.  Is that part of human nature?  when the unhappy look for something to destroy – and loot?

One gets the distinct feeling today that revolting is almost like a parlor game; hey, to the streets, the fun has started; don’t want to miss it.  Is it that everyone is unhappy all the time and just waiting for an opportunity to smash things up?  and loot of course.  One thing seems at least a little different: in the past revolters felt they had nothing to lose; today they are revolting because they are being asked to lose something.  So are revolts worse when people are desperate and have nothing to lose?  or when they are adament that no one is going to take from them what they have, even if the provider is broke; or when there is that great opportunity to loot?  It’s probably worse today.  More people, more to smash up, better means (bombs and guns) to smash them up with, and of course more to loot; seems there is always something along the street to loot.  Watts anyone?

One just has to invest time to find it and develop a personal list of trusted sources.  One I have found useful is realclearpolitics.com.  It’s primary usefulness (and it’s not all politics) is in providing links to a broad variety of information expressing different views of facts and a variety of opinions.

Two articles I found thoughtful today were one by Trugman of the New York Post and Samuelson in Newsweek.

Trugman, in discussing the current tussle with Switzerland suggested that part of the problem is that the US tax system is the worst in the world, and that the two strongest reasons investors send money offshore is 1) there is a growing lack of faith among them in our current political system and 2) the litigation risk; the rich have become convenient targets and if the money is invested offshore it is safe from lawsuits.  Samuelson was discussing our debt and pointed to one reason it is growing as it is is the disability portion of Social Security, which is growing at an increasing rate, partly due to decreases in lower paying jobs and increased unemployment; a fifth of the cost of Social Security lies with disability.

Unfortunately we have too much deliberately biased information, and realclearpolitics shows some of it too - from both sides.  But they also try to achieve balance in both the bias and with articles that are more unbiased.  Many of the financial pages seem to discuss things that are evident to them without pushing judgment and some of the better articles are written by their own in-house writers.

I strongly recommend use of the realclearpolitics platform to access such articles.

How would you like to be the leader, whether democratically chosen or otherwise selected/appointed in the world today?  Getting past the emotion and moral implications with which we tend to be overwhelmed, thing about it.  The primary responsibility of government is security; in fact one of the primary motivations for Muslims is avoidance of chaos, which from a governing point of view is not that much different.  So suddenly the world is riven with discontent and violence, aided and abetted by local and international media driven by the search for sensationalism and hindered by lack of real understanding.  What do you do?  Leaders who have been brought up in a “paternalistic” environment would see only one course of action, especially if that paternalistic environment had little experience with local rule and observance of a legal environment developed to support it.  We sometimes forget the legacy in the United States of several centuries of our own development of local government and rule of law and its conditioning.  Even before the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution we had a long history of local rule, not always but often of a democratic nature, to build into our culture.  We forget (or don’t even realize) that that makes a difference.  Culture does matter.

That would make a difference to a world leader today, especially when he was aware that the dissenters had no clue as to what governing a country entailed, and feared the result of chaotic collapse.  We live today in a world of growing expectations with, seemingly, very little concern for unintended consequences, a great deal of ignorance and little discipline.  What, for example, is to happen in Greece where the population apparently has no intention of accepting the austerity that is being opposed upon it; nor for that matter does anyone seem to know what it might bring, whether successful or unsuccessful.

On the other hand, as a tangential situation, what of the Egyptian action with regard to AID workers from the West?  How can I make that transition?  From the leadership point of view it appears closely related, because of the threat of possibly portending chaos.  Chaos; it is a frightening word to leadership that feels constantly threatened by it – and with reason.  We see it as brutality; they see it as survival – not only for themselves but for the way of life they have always supported, and the only thing they know; they likely truly fear the probable chaotic unknown with which they think they face.  We assume selfish motives, but what if they were not?  What if leaders faced with chaos actually believe they are holding the line for the good of the people who appreciate not what alternative might bring?  There are always multiple points of view to any situation, ours being only one.  We are blinded by rights; they are blinded by fear of chaos.  I honestly suspect that Egypt’s military leaders fear what the AID workers could do to a country not ready for democratic elections.  Of course we know they are wrong, don’t we.  Human rights are what are paramount – to everything!  But what if Egypt really is not ready for democratic elections?  What if a leap into them is a leap into chaos?  Chaos, after all, is not stable so will almost certainly be followed by something else; and what will that something else be?  Is there any doubt?

So, what to do?  Easy for us, not so easy for them.  But even for us, what might threat to expectations bring?  Will we be faced with chaos, or will our respect for rule of law prevail?  The favored opinions in the United States, for Americans, are of confidence in the status quo and optimism, and I hope they are right; but for others?  The world seems to be facing impending threat of instability with which each government must deal, and each will attempt to deal with it in their own way.  In our own myopic and arrogant way, we are less than sympathetic, because our appreciation of the situations elsewhere are poorly understood; we KNOW how they should play out.  But then our track record for jumping in without consideration of unintended consequences is not all that great.

We are facing interesting times, with which none of us have much experience, and the chance of unintended consequences are quite good.

If you want to see a glimpse of American exceptionalism take a peek into one of those interminable catalog magazines that hit the mail box most days (and are increasingly invading the computer screens).  Then think hard about what you see.  A bunch of junk?  Dollar grabbers?  How about innovative ideas that some individual, more often than not, has taken the initiative to develop into a product.  Yeah, one might say, one that he sells.  Well sure, how else is he/she (how often are they shes?) going to finance what is being offered?  Gimmicky?  If you wish, but the secret in most cases is practicality: they are products that catalog readers find attractive and useful – for them – and buy.

So why is that exceptionalism?  Because it is not found to the same extent in most other countries.  In fact it would be interesting to know how many of those ideas originated in other than the United States; so why don’t they sell them in their own countries?  Oh, they do, but accessibility to American markets is so superior to most – another innovation.  Ahhh you might say, and the size of the American market has nothing to do with it?  Of course it does, but that’s the secret of open markets: because of the opportunity to create and sell there translates into more opportunity to buy, and the buying feeds the creation and selling; that’s what free markets are all about.  So why do people want to come to the United States?  Not for abstract concepts, but the very solid concept of opportunity.  It doesn’t just happen, it builds over a long period of time, but it only builds if the infrastructure is there.

And the infrastructure is?  Is the Constitution too simple an answer?  Perhaps it is, the Constitution is, after all, only a document signed by a bunch of men who died many years ago.  But they had a vision and it has brought us to the point where we are.  We’d best not take it for granted though, because it truly is fragile; America’s exceptionalism and its foundation are still seen as the experiment that it very definately is, and probably always will be.

Nor are the treats to it, and our comfortable way of life, not without challenges – even enemies.  But all that aside, to gain understanding and appreciation look beyond the glitzy pictures – and prices – to see the seedbed of innovation and opportunity that is there (even to include publishing and mailing networks).  It defines us.  We need to protect it, nurture it, and make sure that enemies, however well-meaning they might be, don’t cripple it.  It could happen, and with less effort than it might seem.  You don’t care for the word exceptionalism?  Pick another, but recognize the facts within that that make us what we are.  In the meantime, next time you want to swear at the pile of catalogs, think about it.

It used to be said that everyone has their price; I don’t really believe that, but maybe close to everyone.  What does that mean?

It’s probably difficult to say – cliches tend to be like that, sweeping simplistic generalities that catch the attention.  On the other hand maybe that’s the point: sweeping generalities that catch the attention.  Isn’t that what drives democratic elections?  And if so, what does THAT mean?  One of the most famous cliche-ers of sweeping simplistic generalities was a fellow named Adolph; of course he had his back office too, his speech writers and cliche builders.  Not that he was into much in the way of democratic elections, after that first big push, but one might be surprised at how hard those other folks (other than democratically elected leaders) have to work on public opinion as well; it’s tough when they – the people - are against you, ask any of them.  It’s tough to run things for long when the populace is non-supportive, even with armed thugs trying to convince them.

So how do they get public support – after the thugs can’t do it any more?  Buy them.  Ooooooo that sounds bad: corruption!  Bribes!  But if everyone – most – have their price, what would you call it?  What is the most important thing in current U.S. elections?  Superpacs, apparently; money bundlers, collection agents.  And what is that for?  Gathering MONEY, lots of it.  And money for what?  Propaganda.  Ooooooooo that sounds bad too; we don’t like propaganda; but we fall for it none the less.  It isn’t admitted outright – or even understood, actually – but it might as well be: the key to getting elected (more often that not – there have, of course, been exceptions) is to have the biggest war chest, used for the purpose mostly of broadcasting propaganda.  Ahhh way to simple; ok, I admit that, but what is the next largest decider?  Ergo, we are for sale, and don’t even know it.

And thinking about it maybe the largest decider isn’t propaganda per se; maybe the biggest is promises: ear marks, tax breaks, wellfare payments (or whatever they call them nowadays).  And that’s not propaganda?  We are for sale.  Ugly ugly thought; we are not for sale; we are…well, interested in what’s good for us!  And that’s what propaganda is all about, to convince us that one candidate or the other is more interested in what’s good for us than the other, and if he convinces us (propaganda) we vote for him – or her.  So we vote for the one who promises us the most of what we want, we are convinced so to do by propaganda (which is very expensive to deliver) paid for by donations collected by all kinds of collectors, but particularly (it appears these days) superpacs.  Bought and paid for; we are for sale.

Remember that old saw, he with the most toys wins?  Well?

I wrestle continually with cultural differences, including those within our own culture.  This morning I read an article by Charles Murray that helped me make some sense of my wrestling.  The article was about resentment of the new rich.

I have a problem with resentment of people who are successful; it sounds very hypocritical to me.  Whereas the rich are criticized for greed, the rest of us who want more are not; greed is greed, after all.  But Murray suggests that the current resentment is less about money and more about elitism.  That rings a bell with me.  Elitists are almost by definition separate from the rest of us, above us, and they let us know it.  Resenting that makes a whole lot more sense than resenting success.

But that spills over into another area of my conundrums: the left (liberal) and the right (conservative).  Just taking the words (concepts) one has to realize that the basis of modernity is liberality, enshrined in the concept of equality under the law.  On the other hand conservativeness embodies living within one’s means and observing the rules; they are two views of the same thing, from different perspectives.  But the fringes – radicals in my view – have corrupted the meanings of both through emotion and ignorance.

I have no argument with people’s beliefs as long as they confine them to themselves and how they live.  But I have lots of argument with those who try to impose them on others, especially me.  There are actually two sides of that too: those who want to impose life styles and ones who want me to support their life styles.  Life in a democratic republic complicates that however because we elect representatives who support our beliefs and those representatives tend to pass laws that do just that.  Why can’t people just live their own lives and leave others alone?  Because that is not human nature.  We want to do what we want to do, but enjoy the advantages of those that do otherwise; and we cannot seem to help (I know, generalization) wanting to convert other’s thinking to our own.

There are fringes of almost everything, when one views the statistical distribution of whatever it is we are viewing.  The bulk of us are more or less in agreement about most things (more or less), but the fringes are…well, radical and want it all their own way.  Elites are one aspect of that; but students who eschew studying – working at their studies – and expect unreasonable benefits are another.  Criminals (a serious fringe) who take what others have and have worked for are something else again.

Beware those on the fringes; it is they that will bring us down.