phaedo2000.com Blog

I contend that a good part of “intelligence” is motivation; I also believe that we cannot motivate; we can only develop an environment when people can motivate themselves; thus I consider self-motivation to be a redundancy.  And responsibility?  It is really a very similar concept.  Motivation is, in my opinion, our major responsibility; responsibility in a broader sence is, therefor, merely an extension of self to environment, specifically family, society and others, to the extent practical.  Now there is an easily attacked statement – responsibility to what and to what extent?  A personal thing, yes? but something of great importance.

So I am conflicted with discussions of what’s wrong with our school system that fail to address motivation and responsibility – of the individual students.  Of course family and teachers have responsibility as well, and the combination is clearly the best solution for good results.  That begins to get rather nebulous though, doesn’t it? it really is a team responsibility, isn’t it?  And there is the rub; we have been told more than once not to expect results from a committee, and when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.  I am conflicted because I know how much taking responsibility by families in particular, and teachers to a lesser extent because the lack the same controls, means; yet I cannot accept that if those elements don’t exist the game is over.  Especially when we make convincing arguments to students – to children – that this is so and provide them with the excuses that have been so common to our lives.  So what is a child to do if parents and teachers leave it largely up to them to take hold of their futures?  give up?

One has to recognize that the environment for rugged individuality and self-survival has changed; cities are not farms and frontiers, and life has assumed vast complexities with which we have not previously been faced.  Much of government attempted assumption of control of such things is based on good supporting intentions, but it seems to me the more it attempts the worse things get, maybe because there is a tendency among people to give up their own attempts, which are clearly demanding, when others assume them for them.  I cannot help but think of what I would refer to volunteer slavery, but I don’t think I want to open that can of worms.

But the more and more I am made aware of the problems we are beginning to recognize in our culture, the more I feel they are developing from abrogation of responsibility and inability (for whatever reason) to motivate ourselves to do for ourselves.  Oh, yes, there are many mitigating cahllenges, but might not some of those stem from that original growing lack in our own immediate environments.  Families are important, no question.  Assistance from others is precious and if not essential surely tremendously helpful.  But lack thereof somehow does not excuse individuals from taking control of their own lives.  Too simple?  Perhaps, but when they don’t even try?

My purpose is not to lecture – even to myself – but to suggest something to think about; I don’t think we do that enough – for the same reason: we don’t assume responsibility to do so.  Is that not the basic cause of the slumping we are seeing in our culture?  THINK about it.

Often heard word – often featured concept, but do we really know what it is?  Actually, in my opinion, we use it too casually.

It was used recently when it was disclosed that government personnel, strategically placed, used their positions of access to information not available to the rest of us, to enrich themselves.  Oh, my.  But there is no law against it, as the law deals only with those in a business environment who trade on such information gained inappropriately; politicians (particularly) gain it through congressional hearings.  Morally questionable?  Well, perhaps, but not against the law.  How about cheating in schools?  morally questionable? surely, and against the rules.  But laws don’t apply.  So can either be called corruption?

The dictionary is a bit vague; the two meanings (Oxford) are moral deterioration (especially when widespread) and use of corrupt practices such as bribery or fraud (which usually are against specific laws).

Is there corruption in the West?  I could not say there isn’t and I would suggest there is more than we would like to admit.  But compared to many other regions of the world it is tepid, since elsewhere bribery in particular is quite common; especially bribery used in conjunction with trying to get something that is not illegal, done.  In Korea years ago it was necessary to bribe in order to be considered for a job – for nationals seeking employment with the American government there; supervisors demanded it before they would give consideration, and the amount was well known – among the nationals.  In Cairo a bribe was necessary to gain access from a secondary road to a busy primary road – to the policeman to stop traffic long enough to enter the road, regardless or lights or stop signs.  There are many cases throughout the developing world where bribes are commonly solicited to allow passage across a border, regardless of availability of legally approved paperwork  such as visas.  The list is long.  This is corruption – if it is widespread, and it often is.  but it is often casually overlooked.

In other places, and sometimes even in the West, bribes grease the skids for approval of a contract for, say, construction, but also for service contracts.  Is a donation to a congressman for election expenses a bribe?  well, no.  Even when it leads to the award of a contract through influence? well, yes – if it can be proven.  One of my favorites had to do with contracted transportation; is indication of favoritism corruption? how about rebates?  well…depends on how the law is written and how the courts see it.  And how widespread it is?

One thing that is clear to me is that in a world awash with money and opportunity gain access to it, the temptation is brutal.  I have a friend whose wife “borrowed” money from the company where she worked, and was unable to pay it back; to do so she finally wiped out her husband’s saving account.  Corruption?  nah; even if morally questionable since she didn’t tell him about it; family matter.  But consider that the greatest loss retail businesses sustain is through thievery, and the greatest amount of that is perpetrated by employees.  Corruption? it probably would not come under that category, even though it is clearly against the law; but…

Cheating in school would not come under the category of corruption either; so what is it? it certainly is morally questionable, despite the fact that more and more students both do it and justify it.  People also find it relatively easy to justify shop-lifting since they see no one being hurt by it, at least in their minds, even though the cost of it is passed on to other consumers.  How about a bogus claim against the government for one or another of its many benefit programs?  Sure, but how many see it as such?

My point?  We are quick to call it corruption when a public official takes advantage of an opportunity; but reticent to identify it as such when it is a “smaller” offense by a private person, especially when it is against an institution and not another private person.  So I am defending public corruption? not at all.  I am damning private transgression of morality.  I have said before that rule of law is part of our sacred national legacy, and one of the supporting pillars of that system is personal morality; once it begins to break down that system is in jeopardy.  I think we are leaning in that direction, and I worry about it.

But how many would agree with me?  Well…it depends on the situation, and that’s relativism.  Acqknowledged, the reason we have divided larceny into levels is that we accept that the amount stolen makes a difference as to the extent of the crime – when one is actually caught and tried.  It’s still relativism, and seems to have gotten very blurry in the minds of many too many.  So getting one’s hands on goverment or institutional money is corruption only when it is above some arbitrary amount? well, maybe.  And “we” wonder why we have a growing problem.

I have often said, beware what you are reading/hearing, and I stand by that.  But perhaps I should be more specific.  What is reliable and what is not reliable?  This is my opinion of course, and there are certainly others.

Facts; what are facts?  Generally when something happens and observers report it, there is a level of reliability; something happened.  But as most of us are aware, different people are likely to perceive it in different ways, which is why we believe people are innocent until proven guilty before a court of law, and with a jury of their peers.  There may very well be differences in the accounts of factual occurrence.  Why? because one might only see a part of what happened; one might assume beyond what he/she actually saw; and one might even have an axe to grind.  Something might have happened but exactly what might be at least somewhat in question.

That, however, is not the real problem; the real problem comes with analysis, speculation and prediction.  That usually goes quite a bit beyond fact; it is interpretation and often interpretation based on what has been heard or read, with the same basic differences.  Frequently we see/hear things as we want to with a bias.  That is a problem, and will always be.  Even when one observes an incident on, say television, can we be sure that we saw what we think we saw?  Assault is a particular problem: we might have seen what occurred correctly and accurately, but we might have missed something that came before that might have caused it, changing our concept of how and why.  That is a great problem in things such as vendettas and feuds – or even neighborhood disagreements.

We understand that.  But often the opinion we form is aided by analysis from someone else, who guides us to his/her conclusion.  It gets far more complicated when it entails, say, an international event with many, many ramifications, such as “Arab Springs,” for example.  What really happened and why?  Who (of a total population) was involved; and most of all, why?  One cannot blame a reporter for an opinon.  And in this day and age of competitive reporting (scoops) one cannot blame the editor or producer either; news is news and “the public” is hungry to know what happened, even when facts are murky.

To wit, don’t believe everything you see and hear.  Listen/watch, process, think about it and wait to see what comes next.  Trial by media is, in my opinion, a terrible thing.  Often we leap to judgment and never even know the final outcome based on more detailed investigation; we have decided and that’s it.  So are reputations destroyed.  And the same holds for what we see on TV or in the newspapers and magazines, or hear on the radio or from friends and acquaintances; do not believe everything you see/hear or make judgments based on it.

Moral?  It is incumbent upon us to withhold judgment until WE can personally conclude that we can accept what we are hearing/seeing.  And even that might not be enough, as is clearly indicated by jury trials where juries have to do the same.  Can they make the same errors in judgment? they can, and have.  Juries are not infallible.  So what can we do?  The best we can; but by enhancing our chances of success by being skeptical – always skeptical.  In the end, what we believe must be what WE have concluded, based on the evidence provided, to the best of our ability with a mind as open as it can be; and thus it is in a court of law.

Our legal system is one of the jewels in the crown of being American.  Rule of law and innocent before proven guilty.

One has difficulty these days in convincing self that the “leaders” of the world have much understanding about what they are doing, and, using my old favorite whipping boy, I can’t help but feel that ignorance, particularly of economics, is a major contributor.  But facing facts, there are several things that jump out: self-interest is of course one, has always been, and must be – self-defense/self-preservation; another has to do with power and the need that people, particularly those among the ”elite” seem to have to possess it.  But there is a third, that coupled with the first two is particularly worrisome, to me, and that is a concern that “democracy” across the world, as we know it, is not proving as effective as we might have wished it would.

Democracy, as conceived in the United States, has always been seen as the great experiment, which included an electorate that was knowledgeable and concerned, and broad separation of powers within the government, leading to limitations.  The Europeans, when the U.S. embraced it, were dubious from the get-go, having little confidence in their own populations at that time to be capable of it.  But we have always considered ourselves different.  Are we really, any more?  It is difficult to not have doubts.  The increased complexity of the world, including communications, expanded trade, transportation and innovation have certainly contributed to that, but more than anything else one would have to point to economics, or more explicitly finance, and its relationship to politics.  All in all it seems to appear almost hopeless.

But so have things in the past, and we must remember how much better, for the most part, things are today than in the past.  Having said that though, one cannot avoid viewing the vast and growing difference between those who are considered elite and the rest.  The U.S. and much of the West have benefited from the development of something in-between, a strong middle-class that buffers that difference.  Can it survive?

Probably, but perhaps not in the exact form Americans envisige; in fact many Americans already seem to be leaning away from that which we have always accepted, as security seems to be trumping individuality – a complex subject that I shall not attempt to address here.  But this mix is a growing focus and point of dissention, and security seems to be winning.  One need only look to Singapore, China and Russia, and perhaps even the countries of the European Union to see admiration for that effect as it develops.  The feeling seems to be that the complexity has vitually ruled out anything other than elite rule.

Now it must be realized that rule of the elite has always been the norm; whether family, tribe or nation; and the question is how elite is to be established.  Surely in the West there continues to be an element of popular selection, although it is less in a parliamentary system than in a presidential/congressional system; parliamentary systems with prime ministers chosen generally from the majority party or by other means through coalitions; voters choose the parties and individual representatives are selected via lists generated by the parties.

Russia and Singapore feign such competition but both are much more paternalistic, with leaning that is not far from a virtual dictatorship, although they shun that word.  China is ruled by selections from within the “Communist” party, which has virtually nothing to do with either democracy or communism and probably more to do with socialism, despite allowance for a measure of free market economics.  In any event the American model elsewhere is virtually nonexistent, where there are very few checks and balances, meaning few restrictions on the central governments, save for periodic elections which can be and have been rigged by those governments.  Thus institutional elites tend to be self-perpetuating.  And both a number of mediaists, more than a few academics and perhaps even some industrialists seem rather comfortable with that.

The feeling seems to be that “the people” really are not capable of ruling themselves, and should leave decisions to those elite; and that may not be far from the truth.  But going all the way with that approach also results in eliminating any controls on government; it must be recalled that Alolph Hitler was democratically elected, as were Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe, making a farce of democratic elections, something that might be becoming something of a preference.  Many, even in this country, have become uncomfortable with the give and take mud wrestling that is the trademark of democratic elections, as voters exercise their differences of opinion.

So with the apparent preference for security over individuality – I could say rights, but rights have almost become a farce as they are continually re-enumerated to cover what politicians want them to be as tools of garnering votes – some basic assumptions in American politics might be changing.  It will be interesting to see where this takes us, as it could result in some basic changes in our country, and consequently the world.  Time will tell.

They say history repeats itself; it doesn’t, but there sure are some interesting similarities, all having to do with people’s reactions.

Russia is working on what they call “managed democracy” and our media will find all sorts of things to poke fun at, analyze and criticize.  But it will probably work for them.  Hugo Chavez has recently told his countrymen that he needs forty more years to make things right for Socialism, while he and his committee of four thousand set prices so all will be FAIR.

I had a short conversation with a Jordanian taxi driver today and he explained to me how our media is totally controlled when it comes to criticizing Jews (they never do).  Hmmmm, I hadn’t noticed that.  But then a Greek friend had just finished (several weeks before) telling me how it was all the Jews fault, particularly Greece’s debt crisis.  Wow, I hadn’t realized.  But today I pulled it all together, reading about the Middle Ages black death plague.  Folks didn’t really understand what was happening to them, but they knew what to do about it: pray and kill Jews.  Amazing.

What’s discouraging is how little democratically elected governments have been able to change at the foundation level – the level of people and their reactions.  One way or the other the “elite” somehow find a way to whip the people in line – or to herd them in the direction THEY know they should go (whoever the “elite” happen to be), such as Hugo’s price controls or Putin’s “managed democracy.”

So why do I keep harping on propaganda?  Why indeed?