phaedo2000.com Blog

We do love to revile them, don’t we?  Crooks is a favorite, or as voters used to say about THEIR politicians, sure, but he’s our crook.  Suggesting, of course, that being “a crook” is what we expect as long as it’s in our interest.

So what do we expect of politicians?  More and more, which is probably why our opinion of them (being as it is comparison with expectations) has plunged so low.  Let’s see, they should be impeccably honest, know everything, be able to discuss intelligently with the opposition – and win, movie-star attractive but in a way that squares with power image of a leader, and confidently humble.

The last is the one I would like to concentrate on: confidently humble.  Who could possibly become, or even want to become, a politician is he/she didn’t have a towering ego?  Narcissist has gotten a lot of play lately, but ego is always prevalent.  Confidence is good – essential for any leader; humility is attractive and we like to see it when it is appropriate; but confident humility?  That’s a tough one.

In fact I am painfully aware of my own duplicity on the subject: I detest arrogance, but respect the confidence of success; maybe I’d prefer humble confidence; that would be preferable.  But look at what we are asking for.  We seek people who are powerful enough, intelligent enough and confident enough to do the job; but expect him/her to be humble in the process.  Oh, and we insist that he be smooth enough to convince us with erudite thought out logic of what we already believe; I think that’s called propaganda.

It’s worse than that actually.  We seem to be bothered by success, at least as it is evidenced by wealth derived from it.  Yet confronted with true humility most of us would not equate that with what we want in a politician.  Down to earth maybe?  Ability to discuss respectfully with people on any level.  Even raving, emotional ideologues that won’t listen?  Well…try that sometime.

I could go on, but it wouldn’t add much.  What we expect is essentially unreasonable.  In fact what we seem to want is a character designed by a movie script writer.  We want fantasy.  And because of that we often get fantasy – as we demand – since we reject reality if it is uncomfortable for us.  So what we seek – demand? is impossible, which seems to bother us not at all.  Political correctness prevails, even to our selection of leadership: tell us what we want to hear, and then make it happen they way we want it – without too many conflicting details please.

I have commented before on our ubiquitous hand held communications devices, but last night, attending a ballet performance, I have to admit they blew my mind.

It was during the two intermissions in a close-to-sold-out house; I was in a balcony seat and could see down on much of the audience.  Suddenly below I could see a muckle of tiny blue screens take life – and I do mean suddenly; it was as if that too was choreographed.  What was going on, I wondered?  Dense me.  As if on cue a large part of the audience – not all of course, but so many – had immediately turned on their hand held Internet devices and were tapping away.  One lady in the near proximity was displaying a picture of her cat to a friend; another was thumbing something on his screen; a third was popping through icons faster than I could follow.  Wow.  My daughter has periodically insisted that I need one; I have persisted adamantly that I do not.  Yes, I am a neanderthal dinosaur; but why would I need such capability?

It is, however, not that I am just coming in contact with it.  My daughter called me once, when on the road, to ask what had gone wrong with the instructions from her GPS; she was lost and headed in the wrong direction.   I do have an (out of date) GPS device and have experienced incorrect instructions and unknown locations, but I almost always have a map backup.  Us neanderthals are like that.  I have also been regaled by teachers as to how they – the devices – are used by students: obsessively.  They leave class and they are on before they clear the door.  Seeking?  Querying?  Chatting?  Inquiring?  Or perhaps just making contact with a long long friend with whom they have not spoken for at least a half hour.  My granddaughter used to rush to her room on returning from school to immediately switch on the computer and contact four or five close friends (simultaneously) to continue their conversations of minutes prior, or perhaps discuss the goings on of the day.  But instantaneously and continually?  Wow wow.

Perhaps it is addictive; but then, as with many addictions, it is often habit that drives them.  What an addiction.  I remember when I was in Korea years (many) ago and separated from my family; we corresponded by mail; telephone was far to expensive to be considered.  Two weeks ago a young man of my acquaintance  arrived in Korea, but did not have that problem.  He had corresponded with his new wife four or five times via mobile Skype connection, with face to face communication between leaving the U.S. and arriving in Korea, and more often since (she has pictures of what his room looks like).  Alas, I have also heard/read that young people are even more lonely these days – and isolated from real life (whatever that is) – than those of us who grew up in a simpler world.  Is that possible?

Ah well, but then there are the video games.  I have come in contact with them as well.  Another strange addiction (to me).  They used to say that in the world or the blind the one eyed man (person) was king (queen);  perhaps that is the secret, and now we know more clearly just what old one eye is.

It is instructional to peruse websites with links, such as realclearpolitics.com.  One can also select displays of similar on many internet provider offerings: lists of links to articles in various publications.   It is part of what is marginalizing print publications, I believe, providing a broad variety of opinion as opposed to a more focused ideology, without subscribing to all of the publications.

So what is instructional about it?  The opinions expressed in the link titles.  Typically a large number are directed toward anything that is “hot” (that’s the in cultural word these days, as opposed to the old cool – hey, that’s something else to think about: does change from “cool” to “hot” signal a cultural change?) – meaning the articles tend to cluster around what’s happening right now.  But that’s the only similarity, in that they all have a different slant (maybe they draw slant straws every morning).  Even more than that, however, is that educated and experienced observers, looking at the same thing, can have such diametrically different opinions as to what they portray and what they portend.  Are they talking about the same event/situation?

Wecome to the world of humanus erectus.  Born with incredible (but different) genes that support all kinds of wonderful things, they also sport thinking mechanisms that alllow experiences to be received, stored and integrated into the basic package – and oh that integration.  I like to look at it as a basic artificial intelligence program that allows continual updating resulting from experiences, but then that also is another subject.  The point is, however, that what we know is continually changing.

So at what point does that - the continual changing of what we know – solidify into ossified opinion?  Your guess is as good as mine; it surely varies from individual to individual.  And all of that is people, and therefore the most challenging part of democratic republicanism: we all have different opinions, and they change – or sometimes they don’t.  How can such a gaggle be governed?

Talk about herding chickens; or cats; or chickens and cats.

I am becoming progressively more depressed at the process of government and election of officials, and sometimes wonder how we have survived as long as we have.  One answer might have been that it really didn’t matter; but I suggest no one with sense can make that argument today.  What do we stand for?  What is it that we seek?  Does anyone know?  Does the larger public even care?  Sometimes I doubt it; not because they are bad people, but because they it’s all above their understanding and knowledge, if they even stop to think about it.  And the reason they don’t? they are too busy with their own lives.

The campaigns are way too long and cost way, way too much money.  So what can be done about that in an environment of free speech, communication saturation and the fact that incumbents have free access to propaganda merely by opening their mouths, and opponents do not?   If we tried to either restrict spending or reduce the time for campaigning, incumbents would always win and never leave, unless limits are imposed on their incumbency, which they are not likely to impose.  This is particularly the case when the majority of media support one ideology almost exclusively, and protect it.  The whys of that is another subject, but one that is not unrelated.

But then what is it that we (voters) seek?  I think it is clear that over the past 40 years or so that’s fairly obvious: spending on providing them a better life.  Well, that worked for awhile, but it is not clear that it will any longer.  Do voters believe that?  Apparently not, at least most of them apparently do not and have myriad ideas about how much more is needed.  Why do foreigners want to come here?  Concepts like freedom, rights and liberty that they understand imperfectly at best?  That is not what I see; what I see is that they come here for opportunity – that is a better life for themselves.  We have a better life, ipso facto this is the place to live.  Why do we have a better life?  I would suggest they really don’t care all that much, if they can secure a chunk of it and be left alone to enjoy it.

A poll was taken in a part of California asking for “voter” opinion; most respondents had no idea who candidates were much less appreciation or even knowledge of issues beyond what they personally might be experiencing at the moment.  Another poll rather conclusively concluded that voters don’t really care about issues; they care about how candidates look; that would be consistent with our entertainment surfeited culture.  Several respected writers suggested over the past couple of days that most voters don’t want to hear about problems or even issues; they just want to be told that all’s right with the world and things will be just fine, because WE ARE AMERICA.  Our naivete is almost as serious as our ignorance.

Has it always been this way?  Well, for the most part it probably has, at least up to a point.  Politics is local, they say, because “issues” are local – me, now.  One thing that might be different is the number of immigrants; not because immigrants are bad or even not wanted, but because they have little appreciation for the culture and traditions of our country when they arrive.  And that’s bad? yes, I think it is.  Change what we stand for and the country will change to reflect it.  So?  change is good!  Talk about naivite;  change is a function of what was and what results from the change.  And what is that?  Who knows, it just sounds good.  The real question is who cares, and if we don’t we deserve what we get.

It really is about time that voters develop – all of us develop - a little better understanding of what we have and why we have it, and what change might bring in a volatile and predatory world.  We don’t live in a vacuum nor will things be what we want (for ourselves) regardless, just because we want it.  Do I really believe that will happen?  Nope, and that’s why I am concerned.  But time will tell, and I guess we’ll just have to see what we shall see.

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.