This is very exciting! Google has agreed to sponsor our site by placing discreet, content relevant text ads on the page. Let me know what you think...
Monday, November 08, 2004
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Poker Puzzle
This puzzle is brought to us by Aaron J. Friedland. You are also welcome to send me an email with your puzzle and receive credit.
Which of the following poker hands is best? Which is the worst? Which hands are of equal strength? The game is being played with an ordinary 52-card pack. There are no wild cards. (AS means ace of spades, etc.)
(a) AS AH AD KS KH
(b) AS AH AD QS QC
(c) AS AH AD QS QH
(d) AS AH AD 6S 6C
(e) AS AH AD 3S 3C
I'd like to thank Aaron for sending in his puzzle. I'll give the readers a day before posting the solution.
If you would like to have your puzzle posted, please be sure to include your solution so Fritz can manage the volume of editing.
You may post your solution to Aaron's puzzle by posting a comment below.
Which of the following poker hands is best? Which is the worst? Which hands are of equal strength? The game is being played with an ordinary 52-card pack. There are no wild cards. (AS means ace of spades, etc.)
(a) AS AH AD KS KH
(b) AS AH AD QS QC
(c) AS AH AD QS QH
(d) AS AH AD 6S 6C
(e) AS AH AD 3S 3C
I'd like to thank Aaron for sending in his puzzle. I'll give the readers a day before posting the solution.
If you would like to have your puzzle posted, please be sure to include your solution so Fritz can manage the volume of editing.
You may post your solution to Aaron's puzzle by posting a comment below.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Pre-Matrix Dreams
Musing
I had a dream a few months ago that left me lying awake in the dark, in a cold sweat. I lay there waiting for the lingering trauma to subside; for my breathing to slow, and my heart to stop racing. I was worked up like I had been running for my life, fleeing some horrible, nameless foe. Slowly it disapated and I remained. Now calm, I can relate what I saw...
It was the future, or perhaps the world as perceived by a future me. Imagine that every object and every surface, animate or inanimate, were completely covered with streaming data. Information puring over everything, and filling the space between them. What I remember was that everything about everything was knowable. For example, the wall of my house is normally a plain, painted wall (well now it has some stenciling :) but you get the idea. In my dream it was filled with moving lines of text. They were streaming by, even going in different directions and overlapping. One line of text going by told me about the paint on the wall, the color, the chemical makeup, the thickness, the number of layers, the age of the paint, the brand, shelf-life, number of times mixed, number of brushstrokes, and on and on. And that was one line! There were countless others racing past simultanously. Some about the stone in the wall, some about people that had been near it. Some about the position and velocity of the individual molecules present in the wall. Information about the air molecules that had bombarded it. Data about the light wavelenghts reflected, refracted, and absorbed. There were stars that had been destroyed billions of years ago, gave off matter, formed planets, became lava, turned to rock, crushed to sand, and used in the mortar. The name of the fellow that laid the bricks. The name of the inventor of the brick. Historical references about bricks, etc.
When I say that there was streaming information content on every surface, I mean it. Every fiber of each rug, every fork in the kitchen drawer, they all had lines and lines of blue lettering conveying all that was knowable about the object. Nature, origin, history, relationships, events, etc. all there. Imagine it coming to you from everywhere.
It was so vast and so overwhelming my mind reeled. My heart raced to pump blood to my eyes and brain in an effort to keep up. I broke out in a sweat. The walls disappeared, the room flew apart. Replacing everything was this nothing of information. All of the lines of text and numbers still streaming by but now the objects had become unnecesary. I was looking directly at the structure and information and they had become the only substance of reality.
Then I stepped back. I gave up. I stopped trying to know it all and it swept past me. The letters began to blend into the background. I began to see shapes and colors. I no longer knew the details of everything in the room, but the things themsleves started to return. The walls came back. The chair reformed. The forks lay in their drawer. The world became solid again.
I woke from my dream. I lay still in the dark and watched as the last lines of blue text faded into the pale wall of our bedroom. Ali lay quietly beside me, sleeping peacefully as she had before the world disappeared. And I lay there wondering...
What had I seen?
Had I seen some IBM manufactured future where we all wear sunglasses that stream data to us about whatever we are looking at? Had I been shown the futility of the human mind's struggle to know the details of nature? Had I caught a glimpse of the workings behind the curtain of reality? A chance to see what the Universe's Chief Engineer works with? Or had I just learned that sharing a piece of cold pizza with Fritz before going to bed was a good way to ruin a night's sleep?
Guest Contributor: Fritz
I had a dream some months ago that left me panting. I had followed the usual routine that night, went out to my Master-Bath Garden area around 11:30 PM or so. I had just turned and bowed to the moon for evening prayer, when the human started making noise and I had to run inside to make sure he didn’t hurt himself. He was yapping about splitting a piece of pizza (which is a pretty stupid thing to do at bedtime but that’s humans for you). I mentioned one bark about it being too late and we should go to bed when he started dangling it above me out of reach. Damn impertinent. I snatched it to shut him up and respecting the blessing that is food, ate it. (A human would probably have hidden it in some giant cold box without any respect for the gift of life and sustenance).
I showed him how to go up the stairs again but I don’t think he’s really learning. He still walks on only two legs and can’t seem to go up the steps any faster than one or two at a time. Finally the humans were asleep and I could rest my head without worrying about what they would do to the house. Last week they tore up all of the carpeting while I was outside one afternoon. You just can’t trust them while they’re awake.
Then it happened. I fell asleep and in my dream the humans had become the masters and we had become they’re slaves! I had to rise in the morning when the human wanted to use the Garden Bathroom instead of their indoor one. Then I had to prepare their breakfast! Later we went out for a walk and I had to watch where we were going, look out for cars, clean up after they pooped, etc. It was awful. Then they sent me off to labor to earn money to buy them food and treats. I and all the other slaves sat on the road for hours “commuting” and we lacked the brains to solve the “congestion” problem. Meanwhile the humans had the house to themselves. They relaxed, played, ate and drank. It was horrifying.
Finally I awoke from the nightmare and realized it had been a dream. I was still panting but the horror was over and the humans were back to serving us. I don’t know if I saw what the future would look like if humans got smarter? Or what might happen if we outbreed them? Or perhaps I just learned not to eat pizza before putting the humans down for the night.
Poem
As I grapple with the shrapnel of an early morning wound
and wonder at the thunder of my life's impending doom
I writhe upon the scythe that is Death's favorite toy
and miss the youthful bliss that was with me as a boy
we gaze into the haze of the mist upon the ground
and fear the end is near for us soldiers gathered round
we tired, nearly expired, broken sons strewn about
all dread to be dead and prolong living with a shout
our blood was like a flood that abandoned its fleshy banks
while these bones like brittle stones were crushed beneath the treads of tanks
we can't remain and yet we stain the ground with our last fight
and we don't pretend or hope to end the rule of might makes right
we pray, that we may, return to you in some dream
but you won't hear, the dreadful fear, in our dying scream
now go and show that we died not in vain that you might freely live
while we're remembered as the dismembered who did their all finally give
I had a dream a few months ago that left me lying awake in the dark, in a cold sweat. I lay there waiting for the lingering trauma to subside; for my breathing to slow, and my heart to stop racing. I was worked up like I had been running for my life, fleeing some horrible, nameless foe. Slowly it disapated and I remained. Now calm, I can relate what I saw...
It was the future, or perhaps the world as perceived by a future me. Imagine that every object and every surface, animate or inanimate, were completely covered with streaming data. Information puring over everything, and filling the space between them. What I remember was that everything about everything was knowable. For example, the wall of my house is normally a plain, painted wall (well now it has some stenciling :) but you get the idea. In my dream it was filled with moving lines of text. They were streaming by, even going in different directions and overlapping. One line of text going by told me about the paint on the wall, the color, the chemical makeup, the thickness, the number of layers, the age of the paint, the brand, shelf-life, number of times mixed, number of brushstrokes, and on and on. And that was one line! There were countless others racing past simultanously. Some about the stone in the wall, some about people that had been near it. Some about the position and velocity of the individual molecules present in the wall. Information about the air molecules that had bombarded it. Data about the light wavelenghts reflected, refracted, and absorbed. There were stars that had been destroyed billions of years ago, gave off matter, formed planets, became lava, turned to rock, crushed to sand, and used in the mortar. The name of the fellow that laid the bricks. The name of the inventor of the brick. Historical references about bricks, etc.
When I say that there was streaming information content on every surface, I mean it. Every fiber of each rug, every fork in the kitchen drawer, they all had lines and lines of blue lettering conveying all that was knowable about the object. Nature, origin, history, relationships, events, etc. all there. Imagine it coming to you from everywhere.
It was so vast and so overwhelming my mind reeled. My heart raced to pump blood to my eyes and brain in an effort to keep up. I broke out in a sweat. The walls disappeared, the room flew apart. Replacing everything was this nothing of information. All of the lines of text and numbers still streaming by but now the objects had become unnecesary. I was looking directly at the structure and information and they had become the only substance of reality.
Then I stepped back. I gave up. I stopped trying to know it all and it swept past me. The letters began to blend into the background. I began to see shapes and colors. I no longer knew the details of everything in the room, but the things themsleves started to return. The walls came back. The chair reformed. The forks lay in their drawer. The world became solid again.
I woke from my dream. I lay still in the dark and watched as the last lines of blue text faded into the pale wall of our bedroom. Ali lay quietly beside me, sleeping peacefully as she had before the world disappeared. And I lay there wondering...
What had I seen?
Had I seen some IBM manufactured future where we all wear sunglasses that stream data to us about whatever we are looking at? Had I been shown the futility of the human mind's struggle to know the details of nature? Had I caught a glimpse of the workings behind the curtain of reality? A chance to see what the Universe's Chief Engineer works with? Or had I just learned that sharing a piece of cold pizza with Fritz before going to bed was a good way to ruin a night's sleep?
Guest Contributor: Fritz
I had a dream some months ago that left me panting. I had followed the usual routine that night, went out to my Master-Bath Garden area around 11:30 PM or so. I had just turned and bowed to the moon for evening prayer, when the human started making noise and I had to run inside to make sure he didn’t hurt himself. He was yapping about splitting a piece of pizza (which is a pretty stupid thing to do at bedtime but that’s humans for you). I mentioned one bark about it being too late and we should go to bed when he started dangling it above me out of reach. Damn impertinent. I snatched it to shut him up and respecting the blessing that is food, ate it. (A human would probably have hidden it in some giant cold box without any respect for the gift of life and sustenance).
I showed him how to go up the stairs again but I don’t think he’s really learning. He still walks on only two legs and can’t seem to go up the steps any faster than one or two at a time. Finally the humans were asleep and I could rest my head without worrying about what they would do to the house. Last week they tore up all of the carpeting while I was outside one afternoon. You just can’t trust them while they’re awake.
Then it happened. I fell asleep and in my dream the humans had become the masters and we had become they’re slaves! I had to rise in the morning when the human wanted to use the Garden Bathroom instead of their indoor one. Then I had to prepare their breakfast! Later we went out for a walk and I had to watch where we were going, look out for cars, clean up after they pooped, etc. It was awful. Then they sent me off to labor to earn money to buy them food and treats. I and all the other slaves sat on the road for hours “commuting” and we lacked the brains to solve the “congestion” problem. Meanwhile the humans had the house to themselves. They relaxed, played, ate and drank. It was horrifying.
Finally I awoke from the nightmare and realized it had been a dream. I was still panting but the horror was over and the humans were back to serving us. I don’t know if I saw what the future would look like if humans got smarter? Or what might happen if we outbreed them? Or perhaps I just learned not to eat pizza before putting the humans down for the night.
Poem
As I grapple with the shrapnel of an early morning wound
and wonder at the thunder of my life's impending doom
I writhe upon the scythe that is Death's favorite toy
and miss the youthful bliss that was with me as a boy
we gaze into the haze of the mist upon the ground
and fear the end is near for us soldiers gathered round
we tired, nearly expired, broken sons strewn about
all dread to be dead and prolong living with a shout
our blood was like a flood that abandoned its fleshy banks
while these bones like brittle stones were crushed beneath the treads of tanks
we can't remain and yet we stain the ground with our last fight
and we don't pretend or hope to end the rule of might makes right
we pray, that we may, return to you in some dream
but you won't hear, the dreadful fear, in our dying scream
now go and show that we died not in vain that you might freely live
while we're remembered as the dismembered who did their all finally give
Biographies
Biographies are like tour guides for the soul. You open this special kind of book, and if it’s worth the paper it’s printed on, you find yourself transported to some other place and time, seamlessly integrated into the life of another. The first “biography” I read was a short children’s book on the life of Abraham Lincoln. From his birth in Springfield, Illinois, to his early failure on the campaign trail and eventual heroism as our country’s President during a time of war, I was enthralled by the life and times of this great man.
Recently I have been reading, “Memoirs of a Geisha”. A fascinating look at a woman’s life in a culture with values far different from those taught to me as a post 1960’s American Catholic, raised in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Other tours have included the lives of Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare, Saladin, Leif Ericson, Kublai Khan, Gautama Buddha, Ben Franklin, Harry Potter, George Washington, Andrew Carnegie, Saul of Tarsus, Jacques de Molay, and the list goes on.
Each tour brought unique revelations, insights about the subject, the world they lived in, and also about myself, and my relationship to the world we live in. The real magic of the tour only comes if you allow yourself to live in the story. When you let your imagination run free and explore the world, ideas, challenges, and opportunities offered to a person in that place, time, culture, etc. you come to a new knowing, far superior to the facts relayed by the author.
It is so engrossing to immerse into the story, to consider how you would have responded, adapted, struggled, floundered or flourished in that other world. I often find myself humbled by the sheer effort and will displayed by these famous few remembered for their deeds long after their corporeal deaths. Sometimes though, I lean the other way and with pride consider how I might have strode the world like a colossus if only I could go back to that moment in history knowing what I know now (and perhaps bringing a Bic lighter to impress the peasants of the day).
But would I really have succeeded where they failed? Would I have recognized opportunity knocking? Would I really be willing to trade comfort for passion? Would I have avoided the mistake of procrastination? Would I ever have developed the confidence to try my hands at the reigns of destiny? Or would I merely drift as we all so often do, down a path of mediocrity, consoled by the domestic successes of hearth, home, family, friends, and food. For after all, what does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?
These great, tragic few, these masters of the universe that carved into our collective memory a niche that outlasts their works, what did they gain and really lose?
I think it was Socrates that said, “The unexamined life isn’t worth living.” Prince Hamlet would perhaps have countered that constant examination made his life unlivable. In the end it is neither wealth, nor power, nor an historian’s praise or damnation, or even that priceless woe-bringer fame that is the measure of us. Our biography it seems is nothing more than the sum of our environment and our response to it, our character. What is the measure of a person, but the depth of their compassion, the weight of their resolve, breadth of their wisdom, and the length of their patience?
How can this humble reader ever hope to measure someone? Neither book nor conversation, nor years of observation can assure me of someone’s character. And, just like the storm cloud rolls by to reveal a blue sky and the Sun, so to can someone in darkness swiftly be transformed by life’s journey.
None of us truly chooses our course in life. What we choose is our response to each moment brought our way. It is our character and habits that choose our responses.
Our life is a dance between what happens to us and how we choose to respond. Since we cannot control what happens to us, we do not lead the dance. Trying to lead the dance with destiny leads to stumbling, for two cannot lead, one must follow. Destiny leads, and we follow. We can only work to become the best dance partner possible and this can only be accomplished through practicing our dancing skill, honing our character. In life, our dancing skill is our character and we can only work on that, and let destiny lead us where it will.
A master dancer does not look on the unskilled as creatures beneath her, but rather as students on a journey, improving their skill. They may stumble when they take Destiny by the hand and try to lead, or misstep and fall into her path, but it is not her place to become angry. It is instead an opportunity to respond with poise and grace, to train further and avoid becoming entangled in a collision with the unskilled.
When our nation clashes with the likes of Osama Bin Laden, it is not our compassion, wisdom, or patience that leads us to conflict. He may have been aiming for us on the dance floor, trying to force destiny to follow him, but we failed to avoid him. Were we known for our character, would not the world have warned us? Would not one of our admirers have taught him of our compassion?
Now, it is nearly done. Soon he will be dead for daring to harm us. His biography written and his place in history fixed. The world will learn again that our will is supreme. But, what will we have learned? Will we learn to be less trusting of others, build security around our lives, barriers on the dance floor? Or will we learn to avoid conflict by knowing and caring about the plight of others in our world? Will we seek to improve ourselves, or merely protect ourselves?
This dance with Destiny is the birthright of each individual. It is also the burden of every nation. I believe our national response is always a reflection of our individual characters. My hope is that by working on my dance, our Nation’s will improve as well.
See you on the floor,
Joe
Stevie Wonder and Tiger Woods are in a bar. Woods turns to Wonder and says,"How's the singing career going?"
Stevie Wonder replies, "Not too bad. How's the golf?"
Woods replies, "Not too bad, I've had some problems with my swing, but I think I've got that going right now."
Stevie says, "I always find that when my swing goes wrong, I need to stop playing for a while and not think about it. Then, the next time I play, it seems to be all right."
Tiger says, "You play golf?"
Wonder says, "Oh, yes, I've been playing for years."
Woods says, "But you're blind! How can you play golf if you can't see?" Wonder replies, "I get my caddy to stand in the middle of the fairway and call to me. I listen for the sound of his voice and play the ball toward him. Then, when I get to where the ball lands, the caddy moves to the green or farther down the fairway and again I play the ball toward his voice."
"But how do you putt?" asks Woods.
"Well," says Stevie, "I get my caddy to lean down in front of the hole and his voice."
Woods asks, "What's your handicap?"
Stevie says, "Well, I'm a scratch golfer."
Woods, incredulous, says to Stevie, "We've got to play a round sometime." Wonder replies, "Well, people don't take me seriously, so I only play for money, and never play for less than $10,000 a hole." Woods thinks about it and says, "OK, I'm game for that, when would you like to play?"
Stevie says, "Pick a night."
Recently I have been reading, “Memoirs of a Geisha”. A fascinating look at a woman’s life in a culture with values far different from those taught to me as a post 1960’s American Catholic, raised in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Other tours have included the lives of Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare, Saladin, Leif Ericson, Kublai Khan, Gautama Buddha, Ben Franklin, Harry Potter, George Washington, Andrew Carnegie, Saul of Tarsus, Jacques de Molay, and the list goes on.
Each tour brought unique revelations, insights about the subject, the world they lived in, and also about myself, and my relationship to the world we live in. The real magic of the tour only comes if you allow yourself to live in the story. When you let your imagination run free and explore the world, ideas, challenges, and opportunities offered to a person in that place, time, culture, etc. you come to a new knowing, far superior to the facts relayed by the author.
It is so engrossing to immerse into the story, to consider how you would have responded, adapted, struggled, floundered or flourished in that other world. I often find myself humbled by the sheer effort and will displayed by these famous few remembered for their deeds long after their corporeal deaths. Sometimes though, I lean the other way and with pride consider how I might have strode the world like a colossus if only I could go back to that moment in history knowing what I know now (and perhaps bringing a Bic lighter to impress the peasants of the day).
But would I really have succeeded where they failed? Would I have recognized opportunity knocking? Would I really be willing to trade comfort for passion? Would I have avoided the mistake of procrastination? Would I ever have developed the confidence to try my hands at the reigns of destiny? Or would I merely drift as we all so often do, down a path of mediocrity, consoled by the domestic successes of hearth, home, family, friends, and food. For after all, what does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?
These great, tragic few, these masters of the universe that carved into our collective memory a niche that outlasts their works, what did they gain and really lose?
I think it was Socrates that said, “The unexamined life isn’t worth living.” Prince Hamlet would perhaps have countered that constant examination made his life unlivable. In the end it is neither wealth, nor power, nor an historian’s praise or damnation, or even that priceless woe-bringer fame that is the measure of us. Our biography it seems is nothing more than the sum of our environment and our response to it, our character. What is the measure of a person, but the depth of their compassion, the weight of their resolve, breadth of their wisdom, and the length of their patience?
How can this humble reader ever hope to measure someone? Neither book nor conversation, nor years of observation can assure me of someone’s character. And, just like the storm cloud rolls by to reveal a blue sky and the Sun, so to can someone in darkness swiftly be transformed by life’s journey.
None of us truly chooses our course in life. What we choose is our response to each moment brought our way. It is our character and habits that choose our responses.
Our life is a dance between what happens to us and how we choose to respond. Since we cannot control what happens to us, we do not lead the dance. Trying to lead the dance with destiny leads to stumbling, for two cannot lead, one must follow. Destiny leads, and we follow. We can only work to become the best dance partner possible and this can only be accomplished through practicing our dancing skill, honing our character. In life, our dancing skill is our character and we can only work on that, and let destiny lead us where it will.
A master dancer does not look on the unskilled as creatures beneath her, but rather as students on a journey, improving their skill. They may stumble when they take Destiny by the hand and try to lead, or misstep and fall into her path, but it is not her place to become angry. It is instead an opportunity to respond with poise and grace, to train further and avoid becoming entangled in a collision with the unskilled.
When our nation clashes with the likes of Osama Bin Laden, it is not our compassion, wisdom, or patience that leads us to conflict. He may have been aiming for us on the dance floor, trying to force destiny to follow him, but we failed to avoid him. Were we known for our character, would not the world have warned us? Would not one of our admirers have taught him of our compassion?
Now, it is nearly done. Soon he will be dead for daring to harm us. His biography written and his place in history fixed. The world will learn again that our will is supreme. But, what will we have learned? Will we learn to be less trusting of others, build security around our lives, barriers on the dance floor? Or will we learn to avoid conflict by knowing and caring about the plight of others in our world? Will we seek to improve ourselves, or merely protect ourselves?
This dance with Destiny is the birthright of each individual. It is also the burden of every nation. I believe our national response is always a reflection of our individual characters. My hope is that by working on my dance, our Nation’s will improve as well.
See you on the floor,
Joe
Stevie Wonder and Tiger Woods are in a bar. Woods turns to Wonder and says,"How's the singing career going?"
Stevie Wonder replies, "Not too bad. How's the golf?"
Woods replies, "Not too bad, I've had some problems with my swing, but I think I've got that going right now."
Stevie says, "I always find that when my swing goes wrong, I need to stop playing for a while and not think about it. Then, the next time I play, it seems to be all right."
Tiger says, "You play golf?"
Wonder says, "Oh, yes, I've been playing for years."
Woods says, "But you're blind! How can you play golf if you can't see?" Wonder replies, "I get my caddy to stand in the middle of the fairway and call to me. I listen for the sound of his voice and play the ball toward him. Then, when I get to where the ball lands, the caddy moves to the green or farther down the fairway and again I play the ball toward his voice."
"But how do you putt?" asks Woods.
"Well," says Stevie, "I get my caddy to lean down in front of the hole and his voice."
Woods asks, "What's your handicap?"
Stevie says, "Well, I'm a scratch golfer."
Woods, incredulous, says to Stevie, "We've got to play a round sometime." Wonder replies, "Well, people don't take me seriously, so I only play for money, and never play for less than $10,000 a hole." Woods thinks about it and says, "OK, I'm game for that, when would you like to play?"
Stevie says, "Pick a night."
Weekly Musings© – “No Solomon”
Weekly Musings© – “No Solomon”
J Sweeney
9/1/04
Many Americans recognize that one duty of citizens in a democracy, perhaps the first duty, is to be an educated voter. While our two-party system has some weaknesses, one of its undeniable strengths is that via the national conventions voters are offered the opportunity to learn more about the people and platforms allied with each candidate. It is a chance for us to listen for what they say and don’t say. By reading the documents and listening to speeches we can gain some insight regarding potential policy directions and perhaps even how a candidate might respond to unforeseen events.
So in an effort to be an informed voter and a good citizen, I patiently sat through the speeches of the Democratic Convention. This week, during the Republican Convention, I am actively listening to the speeches that are aired and trying to find online the content of the speeches that the various commentators think we can live without hearing for ourselves.
During the Democratic Convention the dominant theme from the candidate, Senator John Kerry, was his record as a war hero, a defender of our nation. But, that was not the only theme of the convention. Former President Bill Clinton gave an impassioned speech about choices, particularly in domestic policy. The media appointed heir-apparent of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama called for recognition of our unity as a people and our need to establish a society that more equally distributed the prosperity created by our capitalist system.
I was never a fan of President Clinton. I thought his Presidency lacked focus and his economic policies benefited from a surge in productivity due to information technology that Former Vice-President Gore had more to do with as a senator than either of them did while in the executive branch. Our standing in the world may not have been diminished by unpopular policies but our workers were negatively impacted by NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and his personal choices served as an opportunity to divide our country. However, his speech was the clearest articulation of values and choices given in recent political history. He set the stage perfectly for the democrats to remind Americans about the gravitas of decisions outside the arena of international terrorism.
Kerry however demurred and spent his time highlighting four-months of heroic service thirty years ago instead of submitting evidence from his legislative record to earn our trust and ensure his election to high office. John Kerry may have been a war hero, but his twenty-four years in the Senate apparently do not support adequately in his mind the claim that he is a strong leader.
Now we are in the midst of the Republican Convention. Not surprisingly the party has chosen to disingenuously highlight the presence of socially moderate republicans during the prime time speaking slots. It is a blatant attempt to show a reasonable, compromising, big-tent party that welcomes dissent, discourse, and the exchange of ideas. I call it disingenuous because the platform statement is right-wing diatribe of exclusion and government enforced morality.
Of course the speakers like Former New York Mayor Rudolph Guliani and Senator John McCain are popular with swing-voters and independents specifically because of their socially moderate positions on choice, stem-cell research, campaign finance and fiscal responsibility. However, they are not permitted to speak to those very issues where they differ from the President. Indeed they are carefully presenting the argument that their differences are not important in the face of international terrorism and that they support the President because he is a strong leader in the “War on Terror.”
Even Barbara Bush as she spoke last night merely mentioned policy initiatives like “No Child Left Behind” on her way to saying that such issues were not the big reason to support her husband’s re-election, that the main factor in her mind was his single-minded pursuit of evildoers.
The only two issues that most Republicans are grudgingly willing to talk about outside of terrorism are tax-cuts and the Presidents decision regarding stem-cell research. The first is promoted proudly as an effective stimulus of the economy and a wise decision in the face of criticism. All economic evidence to the contrary social conservatives continue to claim that the tax cuts have been good for the economy. Even moderate republicans, and fiscal conservatives recognize that the massive deficits are having, and will have a nearly incalculable negative impact on our economy.
Please allow me this small diversion from the larger theme for an economics lesson. Tax breaks can be economic stimulators. If the tax break serves to concentrate capital into the hands of the financially savvy the long-term impact can be greater investment into capital improvements and business development. Such investments serve to drive down prices, increase jobs, and can lead to increased tax revenues. However, the increased revenues in such a scenario traditionally come from higher corporate profits and income growth for the middle-class. This tax break will have a different effect.
Corporate taxes are a dwindling percentage of total revenues as collected and reported by the IRS. Due to the globalization of the economy, free-trade agreements, and tax breaks given to corporations in an effort to compete for their presence in our local economies (so as to stimulate job growth) tax revenues will not appreciably grow from the corporate sector in the near future. Our leaders have been required by necessity to shift the tax burden from corporations to individuals. This means that any increase in corporate profits will have a smaller impact on tax revenues than traditionally.
Meanwhile, middle-class tax revenues now make up a larger portion of the tax base then before the targeted tax cut. This means that any loss of revenue from the tax break must be compensated for by a significant increase in middle-class incomes or a net increase in tax rates on the individual. The only other possibility is a surge in the employed population. The challenge is that increases in the employable population and wage increases are economic counter-balances. The more people that compete for jobs the lower wages can go in order to attract qualified employees. This is true locally as well as when US workers compete against foreign compensation models. So, because of modern realities regarding international competition, free trade, and tax burdens, the traditional stimulus effect of a tax break will not necessarily improve the economy to the degree necessary to return higher revenues.
In addition the tax cut was introduced during a time of peak housing prices coupled with both historically low interest rates and increased federal spending due mainly to the war in Iraq. Neither low interest rates nor the war in Iraq are causes of economic insecurity. The low interest rates were a primary factor in rising individual wealth, as home values increased. The financial costs of the war in Iraq are low when compared to other large-scale wars from American history in light of total gross domestic product, GDP. Yet, because the federal budget moved from surplus to deficit thereby requiring the government to borrow money from the marketplace in the form of bonds interest rates are beginning to rise even as the Federal Reserve was already inclined to raise rates in order to stem inflation.
Deficit spending raises interest rates. Because housing prices are so high when compared historically as a multiple of household income and because lending practices have loosened, people around the country at all income levels are carrying more debt then was considered tolerable by financial institutions even 5 years ago. We have already seen a substantial increase in personal bankruptcy (up 45% since 2002). This means that housing prices are going to slow and are likely to begin declining for a period of correction.
Median Household Income declined last year by 9% according to US Census figures. Any decrease in household incomes puts further downward pressure on housing prices, more importantly in the short-term it decreases tax revenues exacerbating the budget problem and leads to increased borrowing by the federal government.
That was a longer diversion than I had hoped for, however the material is complicated and required the space.
Now, back to the conventions.
The President’s economic policy can be summed up in one phrase, Tax Cuts. I personally think the tax cuts and deficits are an intentional plan on the part of republicans to starve the federal budget and create popular support for drastic cost cutting measures. But, that may be unfairly cynical and I accept the proposition that they enacted the tax-cuts from a principled position of letting people keep more of what they earn and a belief that the cuts would stimulate the economy.
The simplistic choice based purely on historical models is I think indicative of the mentality of this white house. They look at the past, choose a previously successful strategy and then pursue it with determination regardless of differences between the situation studied and the present one.
During this week’s convention you’ll also be treated to verbiage comparing President Bush’s policy on stem cell research to Solomon’s famous handling of the two women, one baby, situation.
I’ve heard this comparison before and it got me thinking. I began to muse, as I’m wont to do from time to time.
King Solomon had two women standing before him both claiming to be the mother of a child. Each woman had given birth recently. One morning they found one child dead and one living. Both women claimed the living child as their own.
Solomon said that the child should be severed in two and then each could have half.
One woman agreed to his proposal. The other woman begged him not to kill the child. She claimed she would rather he be given to the other woman than destroyed.
Thus Solomon knew by their choice which woman spoke truthfully and he returned the child to the real mother.
Now let’s consider the stem cell issue.
Before I begin I should disclose my bias. I am the Founding President of Monsignor Bonner High School’s Pro-Life Club. I have marched in Washington, DC against abortion, and Ali and I adopted a child rather than pursue any fertility program.
So, now let’s consider the stem cell issue.
Bush very publicly expressed his consternation with the issue of whether stem cells from embryos should be used for experimentation. His pressroom made it known that the President was carefully weighing the decision and called upon ethicists, scientists, and clergy to help him navigate the issue. He took some time away from DC and reflected in Crawford, TX on his ranch before announcing his choice.
In a well-orchestrated media blitz the administration announced its “Solomon Like” decision to compromise. The President had “wisely” determined that federal funding could not be used to destroy human life, but that federal funds could be used to conduct experimentation on the cells from life already destroyed. He attempted to capitalize on the issue with social conservatives and moderates. He would fund research with tax dollars and allow private culling and experimentation but no federal funds could be used to generate new lines of research.
Solomon like? I don’t think so. Solomon did not seek a compromise. He used a false compromise to demonstrate the insincerity of one side and thereby legitimize the claim of the rightful mother.
President Bush’s decision offers no such legitimacy to either party. At first it sounds wise. It sounds like a policy of compassion to those that might benefit from stem-cell research and protection of the unborn. But, if you really examine the issue closely you’ll see it is a fraudulent compromise. It is splitting the baby in half and trying to please both women.
Let’s pretend that one woman is the pro-life movement the other the scientific community. That’s a little simplistic, I know, but it is useful for the following mental exercise. The two women go before the President and make their case that the child, the issue, is theirs. President Bush deliberates and decides to split the baby. Solomon would have expected one woman to protest and the other agree. Well, let’s see what happens.
The Christian Right has decided to back Bush’s decision. They agree with his wise choice to split the baby. Let funds be used for some experimentation on embryonic stem cells. Since they were created in the dark of the night before, it is the fair thing to do. The scientific community continues to protest. They claim that splitting the decision is paramount to killing the baby, as weak federal funding won’t do enough to keep the US competitive.
Weird isn’t it? I would have expected the religious right to decry the decision and thereby demonstrate moral consistency and clarity. Instead they fall lockstep behind President Bush and call him wise. Wasn’t there a woman in the story that praised the false compromise offered by the king?
If President Bush believed that research done on unwanted embryos created during fertilization treatments was more morally reprehensible than their outright destruction he could not allow federal funds to be used to pursue research on strains of stem-cells already culled. If on the other hand he believed it was reasonable to use already discarded embryos for stem cell research, then to deny the funds for political cover with his base is a disingenuous choice.
Put simply he is saying that he won’t use your tax money to experiment on embryos that will be thrown out, but he will use your tax dollars to experiment on those that have already been thrown out. In other words the arbitrary line in the sand is the time when the President made his decision. If he had made it 3 years earlier none of the embryonic stem cells would have existed and if he made it 3 years form now perhaps 50 more lines would have been available.
He’s no Solomon. On the choice of the economy he used an old, outdated model to make a decision and continues to pursue that single solution disregarding good economic science.
On the choice of protecting life President Bush decided to split the baby, but unlike Solomon before him, he actually split the baby thereby undermining the entire Right to Life platform.
In both cases, and similar arguments could be made regarding Iraq, gay marriage, the fight against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, social security, and Medicare, President Bush and his advisors lack the intellectual integrity and creativity to effectively lead in a world so strikingly different from the time in which they were raised.
They are not capable of deeply considering long-term consequences or recognizing new opportunities and threats before we suffer the impact. As long as he is President we will continue to be a step behind the terrorists, a cycle behind economically, a generation behind technologically, and a lifetime behind morally.
President Bush is no Solomon and from what I’ve seen so far, Senator Kerry is not a leader.
But, let’s just argue about who did what 30 years ago.
J Sweeney
9/1/04
Many Americans recognize that one duty of citizens in a democracy, perhaps the first duty, is to be an educated voter. While our two-party system has some weaknesses, one of its undeniable strengths is that via the national conventions voters are offered the opportunity to learn more about the people and platforms allied with each candidate. It is a chance for us to listen for what they say and don’t say. By reading the documents and listening to speeches we can gain some insight regarding potential policy directions and perhaps even how a candidate might respond to unforeseen events.
So in an effort to be an informed voter and a good citizen, I patiently sat through the speeches of the Democratic Convention. This week, during the Republican Convention, I am actively listening to the speeches that are aired and trying to find online the content of the speeches that the various commentators think we can live without hearing for ourselves.
During the Democratic Convention the dominant theme from the candidate, Senator John Kerry, was his record as a war hero, a defender of our nation. But, that was not the only theme of the convention. Former President Bill Clinton gave an impassioned speech about choices, particularly in domestic policy. The media appointed heir-apparent of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama called for recognition of our unity as a people and our need to establish a society that more equally distributed the prosperity created by our capitalist system.
I was never a fan of President Clinton. I thought his Presidency lacked focus and his economic policies benefited from a surge in productivity due to information technology that Former Vice-President Gore had more to do with as a senator than either of them did while in the executive branch. Our standing in the world may not have been diminished by unpopular policies but our workers were negatively impacted by NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and his personal choices served as an opportunity to divide our country. However, his speech was the clearest articulation of values and choices given in recent political history. He set the stage perfectly for the democrats to remind Americans about the gravitas of decisions outside the arena of international terrorism.
Kerry however demurred and spent his time highlighting four-months of heroic service thirty years ago instead of submitting evidence from his legislative record to earn our trust and ensure his election to high office. John Kerry may have been a war hero, but his twenty-four years in the Senate apparently do not support adequately in his mind the claim that he is a strong leader.
Now we are in the midst of the Republican Convention. Not surprisingly the party has chosen to disingenuously highlight the presence of socially moderate republicans during the prime time speaking slots. It is a blatant attempt to show a reasonable, compromising, big-tent party that welcomes dissent, discourse, and the exchange of ideas. I call it disingenuous because the platform statement is right-wing diatribe of exclusion and government enforced morality.
Of course the speakers like Former New York Mayor Rudolph Guliani and Senator John McCain are popular with swing-voters and independents specifically because of their socially moderate positions on choice, stem-cell research, campaign finance and fiscal responsibility. However, they are not permitted to speak to those very issues where they differ from the President. Indeed they are carefully presenting the argument that their differences are not important in the face of international terrorism and that they support the President because he is a strong leader in the “War on Terror.”
Even Barbara Bush as she spoke last night merely mentioned policy initiatives like “No Child Left Behind” on her way to saying that such issues were not the big reason to support her husband’s re-election, that the main factor in her mind was his single-minded pursuit of evildoers.
The only two issues that most Republicans are grudgingly willing to talk about outside of terrorism are tax-cuts and the Presidents decision regarding stem-cell research. The first is promoted proudly as an effective stimulus of the economy and a wise decision in the face of criticism. All economic evidence to the contrary social conservatives continue to claim that the tax cuts have been good for the economy. Even moderate republicans, and fiscal conservatives recognize that the massive deficits are having, and will have a nearly incalculable negative impact on our economy.
Please allow me this small diversion from the larger theme for an economics lesson. Tax breaks can be economic stimulators. If the tax break serves to concentrate capital into the hands of the financially savvy the long-term impact can be greater investment into capital improvements and business development. Such investments serve to drive down prices, increase jobs, and can lead to increased tax revenues. However, the increased revenues in such a scenario traditionally come from higher corporate profits and income growth for the middle-class. This tax break will have a different effect.
Corporate taxes are a dwindling percentage of total revenues as collected and reported by the IRS. Due to the globalization of the economy, free-trade agreements, and tax breaks given to corporations in an effort to compete for their presence in our local economies (so as to stimulate job growth) tax revenues will not appreciably grow from the corporate sector in the near future. Our leaders have been required by necessity to shift the tax burden from corporations to individuals. This means that any increase in corporate profits will have a smaller impact on tax revenues than traditionally.
Meanwhile, middle-class tax revenues now make up a larger portion of the tax base then before the targeted tax cut. This means that any loss of revenue from the tax break must be compensated for by a significant increase in middle-class incomes or a net increase in tax rates on the individual. The only other possibility is a surge in the employed population. The challenge is that increases in the employable population and wage increases are economic counter-balances. The more people that compete for jobs the lower wages can go in order to attract qualified employees. This is true locally as well as when US workers compete against foreign compensation models. So, because of modern realities regarding international competition, free trade, and tax burdens, the traditional stimulus effect of a tax break will not necessarily improve the economy to the degree necessary to return higher revenues.
In addition the tax cut was introduced during a time of peak housing prices coupled with both historically low interest rates and increased federal spending due mainly to the war in Iraq. Neither low interest rates nor the war in Iraq are causes of economic insecurity. The low interest rates were a primary factor in rising individual wealth, as home values increased. The financial costs of the war in Iraq are low when compared to other large-scale wars from American history in light of total gross domestic product, GDP. Yet, because the federal budget moved from surplus to deficit thereby requiring the government to borrow money from the marketplace in the form of bonds interest rates are beginning to rise even as the Federal Reserve was already inclined to raise rates in order to stem inflation.
Deficit spending raises interest rates. Because housing prices are so high when compared historically as a multiple of household income and because lending practices have loosened, people around the country at all income levels are carrying more debt then was considered tolerable by financial institutions even 5 years ago. We have already seen a substantial increase in personal bankruptcy (up 45% since 2002). This means that housing prices are going to slow and are likely to begin declining for a period of correction.
Median Household Income declined last year by 9% according to US Census figures. Any decrease in household incomes puts further downward pressure on housing prices, more importantly in the short-term it decreases tax revenues exacerbating the budget problem and leads to increased borrowing by the federal government.
That was a longer diversion than I had hoped for, however the material is complicated and required the space.
Now, back to the conventions.
The President’s economic policy can be summed up in one phrase, Tax Cuts. I personally think the tax cuts and deficits are an intentional plan on the part of republicans to starve the federal budget and create popular support for drastic cost cutting measures. But, that may be unfairly cynical and I accept the proposition that they enacted the tax-cuts from a principled position of letting people keep more of what they earn and a belief that the cuts would stimulate the economy.
The simplistic choice based purely on historical models is I think indicative of the mentality of this white house. They look at the past, choose a previously successful strategy and then pursue it with determination regardless of differences between the situation studied and the present one.
During this week’s convention you’ll also be treated to verbiage comparing President Bush’s policy on stem cell research to Solomon’s famous handling of the two women, one baby, situation.
I’ve heard this comparison before and it got me thinking. I began to muse, as I’m wont to do from time to time.
King Solomon had two women standing before him both claiming to be the mother of a child. Each woman had given birth recently. One morning they found one child dead and one living. Both women claimed the living child as their own.
Solomon said that the child should be severed in two and then each could have half.
One woman agreed to his proposal. The other woman begged him not to kill the child. She claimed she would rather he be given to the other woman than destroyed.
Thus Solomon knew by their choice which woman spoke truthfully and he returned the child to the real mother.
Now let’s consider the stem cell issue.
Before I begin I should disclose my bias. I am the Founding President of Monsignor Bonner High School’s Pro-Life Club. I have marched in Washington, DC against abortion, and Ali and I adopted a child rather than pursue any fertility program.
So, now let’s consider the stem cell issue.
Bush very publicly expressed his consternation with the issue of whether stem cells from embryos should be used for experimentation. His pressroom made it known that the President was carefully weighing the decision and called upon ethicists, scientists, and clergy to help him navigate the issue. He took some time away from DC and reflected in Crawford, TX on his ranch before announcing his choice.
In a well-orchestrated media blitz the administration announced its “Solomon Like” decision to compromise. The President had “wisely” determined that federal funding could not be used to destroy human life, but that federal funds could be used to conduct experimentation on the cells from life already destroyed. He attempted to capitalize on the issue with social conservatives and moderates. He would fund research with tax dollars and allow private culling and experimentation but no federal funds could be used to generate new lines of research.
Solomon like? I don’t think so. Solomon did not seek a compromise. He used a false compromise to demonstrate the insincerity of one side and thereby legitimize the claim of the rightful mother.
President Bush’s decision offers no such legitimacy to either party. At first it sounds wise. It sounds like a policy of compassion to those that might benefit from stem-cell research and protection of the unborn. But, if you really examine the issue closely you’ll see it is a fraudulent compromise. It is splitting the baby in half and trying to please both women.
Let’s pretend that one woman is the pro-life movement the other the scientific community. That’s a little simplistic, I know, but it is useful for the following mental exercise. The two women go before the President and make their case that the child, the issue, is theirs. President Bush deliberates and decides to split the baby. Solomon would have expected one woman to protest and the other agree. Well, let’s see what happens.
The Christian Right has decided to back Bush’s decision. They agree with his wise choice to split the baby. Let funds be used for some experimentation on embryonic stem cells. Since they were created in the dark of the night before, it is the fair thing to do. The scientific community continues to protest. They claim that splitting the decision is paramount to killing the baby, as weak federal funding won’t do enough to keep the US competitive.
Weird isn’t it? I would have expected the religious right to decry the decision and thereby demonstrate moral consistency and clarity. Instead they fall lockstep behind President Bush and call him wise. Wasn’t there a woman in the story that praised the false compromise offered by the king?
If President Bush believed that research done on unwanted embryos created during fertilization treatments was more morally reprehensible than their outright destruction he could not allow federal funds to be used to pursue research on strains of stem-cells already culled. If on the other hand he believed it was reasonable to use already discarded embryos for stem cell research, then to deny the funds for political cover with his base is a disingenuous choice.
Put simply he is saying that he won’t use your tax money to experiment on embryos that will be thrown out, but he will use your tax dollars to experiment on those that have already been thrown out. In other words the arbitrary line in the sand is the time when the President made his decision. If he had made it 3 years earlier none of the embryonic stem cells would have existed and if he made it 3 years form now perhaps 50 more lines would have been available.
He’s no Solomon. On the choice of the economy he used an old, outdated model to make a decision and continues to pursue that single solution disregarding good economic science.
On the choice of protecting life President Bush decided to split the baby, but unlike Solomon before him, he actually split the baby thereby undermining the entire Right to Life platform.
In both cases, and similar arguments could be made regarding Iraq, gay marriage, the fight against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, social security, and Medicare, President Bush and his advisors lack the intellectual integrity and creativity to effectively lead in a world so strikingly different from the time in which they were raised.
They are not capable of deeply considering long-term consequences or recognizing new opportunities and threats before we suffer the impact. As long as he is President we will continue to be a step behind the terrorists, a cycle behind economically, a generation behind technologically, and a lifetime behind morally.
President Bush is no Solomon and from what I’ve seen so far, Senator Kerry is not a leader.
But, let’s just argue about who did what 30 years ago.
The End of History?
Weekly Musings – The End of History?
J Sweeney
5/22/02
This topic has been on my mind quite a bit of late, but no organizing theme has come forward to serve. I’d like to discuss the nature of historical perspective, political freedom, and the pursuit of meaning in life, but how to tie them together? Perhaps I can’t, at least not yet.
I’ve been writing “Weekly Musings” for over two years now. Like any hobby or craft you learn things as you go. It’s the act of doing that makes progress possible. Often I have stumbled to produce a piece for weeks at a time, and I have yet to produce a work worthy of the ideas or attention provided by you the reader. However, I have learned this lesson. Sometimes, you just have to go forward even though the path is unclear. It is very easy to wait for the perfect answer, the right choice, the ideal moment to act, but that never arrives. We end up waiting for something external to occur before we initiate the internal work, and that leads to stagnation.
So, here I go. I’ll just start writing and we’ll see what comes of it.
I believe we live in the dark ages. In case you missed that or thought it was a teaser phrase to get you thinking, let me repeat. We live in the dark ages. This is not the age of reason, the dawn of the future, the moment of humanities greatness. This is an age of darkness. It is not the end of history, but rather a moment in time that future generations will look back on and shake their heads in wonder. They’ll review our works of art, our political structures, our social compassion, and arrogance, planetary isolation, and anonymity with horror. They’ll be amazed we survived at all.
Before you begin to espouse to me the Herculean achievements of our age, the wonders of modern medicine, the unprecedented freedoms, the unrivaled standard of living, and the power of communications technology, let me remind you of a secret you may have forgotten. We don’t live at the end of history.
I know it seems like it. I know that during school most of us were told how early man developed agricultural technologies about five to ten thousand years ago that let former hunter-gathers settle down and farm somewhere in Samaria. A little later that culture was taken up in the valley of the Nile. The flooding river gave rise to a surplus economy. Trade and culture were born and shared. Not long thereafter Hamurabi codified specific laws that would be applied equally and the concept of social justice was born. The gods, Astrology, craft specialization, etc were born.
Soon the Greeks, the Fathers of Western Civilization, took all that had come before them, and created a Golden Age of arts, science, rhetoric, and political freedom. Here our history classes usually got fuzzy again, and the demise of Greece, Athens and Sparta, etc. were left to barbarians, our imaginations, and the conquering Romans. Fine, let’s pretend. So Rome the small city, became the Republic, became the Empire. Ah, the end of history. Each of these societies is chosen in our history classes because we know of them, and they each seemed to be the result of history up to that point. We pretend that the line of succession of better and better civilizations leads right past the Rennasiance, the Magna Carta, and up to the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the lessons of Vietnam, the fall of the Berlin wall, and the end of Communism. What a joke.
This history we have been sold is not only erroneous and self-serving for the elite, but it is dangerous. It leads us to feelings of contentment and also social arrogance. We are not the result of history. We are merely a spurious offshoot and perhaps an altogether unimportant one.
Choose any objective measure of a culture and we shall come up wanting against many of these that I mentioned. Choose any measure and compare it to where we might have been if we didn’t succumb to the deceits of our age and we shall fall so short of the mark as to be truly depressing.
Art? What piece of art, what theater or play, what music or song will be in the hearts of humanity two thousand years from now? What piece of our artistic culture resounds so deeply with the human experience that you would expect it to survive transition to another culture, another nation, or perhaps even another planet?
Science? Fundamentally what new and provable truth is the product of our country’s pursuit of technology? The atom was described in the Vedas (ancient Sanskrit writings) over six thousand years ago. The anatomy of the brain is described in detail on the wall of the tombs of mummified Egyptian kings. Perhaps you would point to the horseless carriage, but it still travels on roads built by the Romans in some places, so not much has changed there. We went to the moon you say, that can stand as our achievement. Did you go? Can you even prove anyone did?
Communication? Yes, we communicate more quickly and with larger audiences than any other civilization we know of throughout all of history. But, has the quality improved? Is something faster always better? Do our news broadcasts and web sites convey more clearly the totality of events and their meaning than the carefully crafted speeches and letters of medieval France? Do our politicians tell us more truth than Hammurabi did to his subjects?
Standard of Living? Do we not still stack bricks, sticks, stones, and steel into the shapes of caves to guard ourselves against the weather and others in our tribe? Do we not still wrap cloth about our bodies to preserve them from the elements and the eyes of others? Do we not still eat roots taken from the ground and the flesh of other living creatures? Do we not still seek entertainment to free ourselves from boredom? Do we not still work more hours than we wish, doing things we would not do unless we were paid to do them? Do we still not die younger than we hope with more things left undone than we’d like? Our waste is still carried from our house by pipes that may eventually rot and burst. Many families still collapse under the weight of the pursuit of material goods.
Freedom? Ah, freedom the bell weather of the great US culture. Surely in this realm we are supreme. If nowhere else, at least in this we are masters of history. Really? Whose voice was heard loudest in the Oval Office when energy policy was being decided, yours or some wealthy man’s, or some corporation that was lying to us? Did the popular vote win the election last time? Do you not lock your car door at night? Does your house have an alarm or a dog to protect you? Can you freely walk the streets at night without fear? Can you travel the world without threat of being targeted because of your country’s actions (which you don’t have a voice in anyway)? Can you say what you think without the “PC” police calling you a racist, sexist, or bigot? Can you practice your religion without others labeling you as an extremist or pagan? Can you grow an herb in your garden and smoke it without first checking if it is legal? Can you drink fermented beverages without waiting three years until after you have registered to die in a foreign land in a war you disagree with? Can you choose? Does some government-enforced monopoly determine your “choice” of cable provider, medical insurance, or local phone company? Can you elect not to pay taxes that support programs you wholeheartedly disagree with?
What freedoms we think we have are not new. Choosing what job to work at and pay taxes from is not freedom. An election where wealth controls the outcome is not self-rule. Closing your mouth at of fear of persecution is not free speech. A National Guard sent oversees in service of the government is not a militia that will protect us from infringement of rights. Holding suspects indefinitely for visa violations is not justice. The use of conversations with your advocate being used against you in a court of law is not privacy. Random screening of all travelers is an assumption of guilt, not innocence. New Federal Agencies with broad “Security” mandates, armed and organized beyond the capacity of a State are a threat to Freedom, not an assurance of it.
We are moving slowly (or quickly depending on your perspective) toward tyranny. We are doing so because we believe in the righteousness of our leaders, whom we believe are serving our interests because we elected them. We did not elect them. More importantly they do not serve us when they choose our safety over our freedom.
History is a long story of, often unrelated, chapters. It is not a planned movement from one high society to the next. It is instead a record of the choices made by various peoples in their most trying moments.
This nation has never chosen science before technology or art before commerce. Art and Science are the long-term achievements of significant investments in education and research. Throughout history, they have required the benefit of wealthy donors for their sustenance. So it is not surprising if history does not look back and marvel at our achievements in this regard.
Freedom, self-rule, these are our hallmarks. We have repeatedly thrown off the shackles of elitism, tyranny, and slavery here and abroad. We have been the beacon during our dark age for those willing to sacrifice any luxury or comfort for the inalienable right of self-determination. We have always chosen to risk our lives for the sake of freedom.
Now, once again we are faced with a choice. Do we wish to live in a free society where we rely one another to preserve safety, or would we rather hand over our freedom to a national government that promises to protect us? We already know that the Federal Government is unable and potentially unwilling to protect us. We also know that the same body does not trust us to regulate ourselves.
Have we come too far? Is our violence to great, our lower class too desperate, our population to aged and too comfortable? How do we turn back the hands of a government that seeks to number us, monitor us, search us, label us, and protect us? How does our voice become heard if our votes don’t count?
Is this the end of our history?
Perhaps future historians will look back at this “Great Experiment” in democracy and say, “Here, here is the point when they grew weak, when they yielded to fear and handed over their freedom. Here is when the Republic died and the Empire was born.”
J Sweeney
5/22/02
This topic has been on my mind quite a bit of late, but no organizing theme has come forward to serve. I’d like to discuss the nature of historical perspective, political freedom, and the pursuit of meaning in life, but how to tie them together? Perhaps I can’t, at least not yet.
I’ve been writing “Weekly Musings” for over two years now. Like any hobby or craft you learn things as you go. It’s the act of doing that makes progress possible. Often I have stumbled to produce a piece for weeks at a time, and I have yet to produce a work worthy of the ideas or attention provided by you the reader. However, I have learned this lesson. Sometimes, you just have to go forward even though the path is unclear. It is very easy to wait for the perfect answer, the right choice, the ideal moment to act, but that never arrives. We end up waiting for something external to occur before we initiate the internal work, and that leads to stagnation.
So, here I go. I’ll just start writing and we’ll see what comes of it.
I believe we live in the dark ages. In case you missed that or thought it was a teaser phrase to get you thinking, let me repeat. We live in the dark ages. This is not the age of reason, the dawn of the future, the moment of humanities greatness. This is an age of darkness. It is not the end of history, but rather a moment in time that future generations will look back on and shake their heads in wonder. They’ll review our works of art, our political structures, our social compassion, and arrogance, planetary isolation, and anonymity with horror. They’ll be amazed we survived at all.
Before you begin to espouse to me the Herculean achievements of our age, the wonders of modern medicine, the unprecedented freedoms, the unrivaled standard of living, and the power of communications technology, let me remind you of a secret you may have forgotten. We don’t live at the end of history.
I know it seems like it. I know that during school most of us were told how early man developed agricultural technologies about five to ten thousand years ago that let former hunter-gathers settle down and farm somewhere in Samaria. A little later that culture was taken up in the valley of the Nile. The flooding river gave rise to a surplus economy. Trade and culture were born and shared. Not long thereafter Hamurabi codified specific laws that would be applied equally and the concept of social justice was born. The gods, Astrology, craft specialization, etc were born.
Soon the Greeks, the Fathers of Western Civilization, took all that had come before them, and created a Golden Age of arts, science, rhetoric, and political freedom. Here our history classes usually got fuzzy again, and the demise of Greece, Athens and Sparta, etc. were left to barbarians, our imaginations, and the conquering Romans. Fine, let’s pretend. So Rome the small city, became the Republic, became the Empire. Ah, the end of history. Each of these societies is chosen in our history classes because we know of them, and they each seemed to be the result of history up to that point. We pretend that the line of succession of better and better civilizations leads right past the Rennasiance, the Magna Carta, and up to the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the lessons of Vietnam, the fall of the Berlin wall, and the end of Communism. What a joke.
This history we have been sold is not only erroneous and self-serving for the elite, but it is dangerous. It leads us to feelings of contentment and also social arrogance. We are not the result of history. We are merely a spurious offshoot and perhaps an altogether unimportant one.
Choose any objective measure of a culture and we shall come up wanting against many of these that I mentioned. Choose any measure and compare it to where we might have been if we didn’t succumb to the deceits of our age and we shall fall so short of the mark as to be truly depressing.
Art? What piece of art, what theater or play, what music or song will be in the hearts of humanity two thousand years from now? What piece of our artistic culture resounds so deeply with the human experience that you would expect it to survive transition to another culture, another nation, or perhaps even another planet?
Science? Fundamentally what new and provable truth is the product of our country’s pursuit of technology? The atom was described in the Vedas (ancient Sanskrit writings) over six thousand years ago. The anatomy of the brain is described in detail on the wall of the tombs of mummified Egyptian kings. Perhaps you would point to the horseless carriage, but it still travels on roads built by the Romans in some places, so not much has changed there. We went to the moon you say, that can stand as our achievement. Did you go? Can you even prove anyone did?
Communication? Yes, we communicate more quickly and with larger audiences than any other civilization we know of throughout all of history. But, has the quality improved? Is something faster always better? Do our news broadcasts and web sites convey more clearly the totality of events and their meaning than the carefully crafted speeches and letters of medieval France? Do our politicians tell us more truth than Hammurabi did to his subjects?
Standard of Living? Do we not still stack bricks, sticks, stones, and steel into the shapes of caves to guard ourselves against the weather and others in our tribe? Do we not still wrap cloth about our bodies to preserve them from the elements and the eyes of others? Do we not still eat roots taken from the ground and the flesh of other living creatures? Do we not still seek entertainment to free ourselves from boredom? Do we not still work more hours than we wish, doing things we would not do unless we were paid to do them? Do we still not die younger than we hope with more things left undone than we’d like? Our waste is still carried from our house by pipes that may eventually rot and burst. Many families still collapse under the weight of the pursuit of material goods.
Freedom? Ah, freedom the bell weather of the great US culture. Surely in this realm we are supreme. If nowhere else, at least in this we are masters of history. Really? Whose voice was heard loudest in the Oval Office when energy policy was being decided, yours or some wealthy man’s, or some corporation that was lying to us? Did the popular vote win the election last time? Do you not lock your car door at night? Does your house have an alarm or a dog to protect you? Can you freely walk the streets at night without fear? Can you travel the world without threat of being targeted because of your country’s actions (which you don’t have a voice in anyway)? Can you say what you think without the “PC” police calling you a racist, sexist, or bigot? Can you practice your religion without others labeling you as an extremist or pagan? Can you grow an herb in your garden and smoke it without first checking if it is legal? Can you drink fermented beverages without waiting three years until after you have registered to die in a foreign land in a war you disagree with? Can you choose? Does some government-enforced monopoly determine your “choice” of cable provider, medical insurance, or local phone company? Can you elect not to pay taxes that support programs you wholeheartedly disagree with?
What freedoms we think we have are not new. Choosing what job to work at and pay taxes from is not freedom. An election where wealth controls the outcome is not self-rule. Closing your mouth at of fear of persecution is not free speech. A National Guard sent oversees in service of the government is not a militia that will protect us from infringement of rights. Holding suspects indefinitely for visa violations is not justice. The use of conversations with your advocate being used against you in a court of law is not privacy. Random screening of all travelers is an assumption of guilt, not innocence. New Federal Agencies with broad “Security” mandates, armed and organized beyond the capacity of a State are a threat to Freedom, not an assurance of it.
We are moving slowly (or quickly depending on your perspective) toward tyranny. We are doing so because we believe in the righteousness of our leaders, whom we believe are serving our interests because we elected them. We did not elect them. More importantly they do not serve us when they choose our safety over our freedom.
History is a long story of, often unrelated, chapters. It is not a planned movement from one high society to the next. It is instead a record of the choices made by various peoples in their most trying moments.
This nation has never chosen science before technology or art before commerce. Art and Science are the long-term achievements of significant investments in education and research. Throughout history, they have required the benefit of wealthy donors for their sustenance. So it is not surprising if history does not look back and marvel at our achievements in this regard.
Freedom, self-rule, these are our hallmarks. We have repeatedly thrown off the shackles of elitism, tyranny, and slavery here and abroad. We have been the beacon during our dark age for those willing to sacrifice any luxury or comfort for the inalienable right of self-determination. We have always chosen to risk our lives for the sake of freedom.
Now, once again we are faced with a choice. Do we wish to live in a free society where we rely one another to preserve safety, or would we rather hand over our freedom to a national government that promises to protect us? We already know that the Federal Government is unable and potentially unwilling to protect us. We also know that the same body does not trust us to regulate ourselves.
Have we come too far? Is our violence to great, our lower class too desperate, our population to aged and too comfortable? How do we turn back the hands of a government that seeks to number us, monitor us, search us, label us, and protect us? How does our voice become heard if our votes don’t count?
Is this the end of our history?
Perhaps future historians will look back at this “Great Experiment” in democracy and say, “Here, here is the point when they grew weak, when they yielded to fear and handed over their freedom. Here is when the Republic died and the Empire was born.”
Cameras in the Classrooms
Below is an old rant that I decided to add to this site for your enjoyment.
Weekly Musings – “Cameras in the Classrooms”
J Sweeney
08/14/03
Classes for the new school year began in Biloxi, Mississippi this week. Along with the normal jitters of starting a new schedule, the pleasure of seeing friends, and the mirth of guessing what kind of meat product the cafeteria is attempting to pass off as beef, the students have a new presence in their environment to consider. Over the summer every classroom and hallway had a web-enabled camera installed.
So far, most of the feedback from those affected, as reported by the district, is positive. Parents are quoted as saying they feel that their children are safer. Some are reported as having stated that they are willing to surrender certain freedoms if it means better security. The only slightly negative comment noted was from one teacher wondering whether the added oversight would negatively impact the student-teacher rapport.
So, the town of Biloxi has apparently used its proceeds from legalizing gambling in a way that has popular support and may even deter violence or other crimes against students. Civil libertarians will sound an alarm about the erosion of privacy and the danger of “Big Brother” watching, but considering the cameras are installed in a public setting, they do not have a leg to stand on. Unless of course you consider that the students are required to attend the school by law and are therefore being coerced into being monitored without their ascent. Seeing that most students don’t vote and given the popular support among parents and administrators, I expect that nothing short of a successful lawsuit will remove the cameras.
Perhaps this is where we’re headed. A little over a year ago I had the opportunity to dine with a Judge and his wife. They’ll remain nameless, as I did not request permission at the time to quote them. The dinner was full of stimulating conversation. Both the Judge and his wife were active in other areas of our democracy and had served in the defense and education sectors respectively. Among the many issues discussed that evening was the topic of videotape surveillance and its role in our society, public life, and work environment. Joining the conversation was a medical doctor and a technology consultant.
The Judge described the value that adding video and audio recording to his courtroom had produced in reducing errors, creating an objective record, and protecting him from inaccurate claims by defendants and lawyers. He was convinced that every professional, particularly doctors should immediately begin demanding that their interactions with clients, patients, and the public be recorded for their protection.
The doctor at our table was deeply concerned about the potential for harm if patients felt their doctor patient relationship compromised by a recording. Would they be willing to share intimate and potentially embarrassing details about behavior that may have led to disease contraction? Would they be as forthcoming with very personal details about symptoms they were suffering from?
As the Doctor and the Judge argued and periodically turned to the consultant for technical details about security, encryption, and capabilities, I had the opportunity to begin to muse, as I’m inclined to do from time to time.
What about psychologists, lawyers, accountants, teachers, guidance counselors, priests, rabbis, imams, etc.? Was the Judge correct in thinking that once professionals had an opportunity to try the technology they would come to appreciate its benefits so much that they would demand its presence?
The concept of being taped when entering a stadium, using the ATM, or just walking into a department store is something we have all become accustomed to even if we have not grown quite comfortable with it yet. But, when the airports and stadiums added recognition software that identifies facial mappings and then compares them to a database to watch for terrorists and criminals, things changed. The very logical argument was that the police could do the same thing but they would have to increase manpower, and thus costs, significantly to have as much coverage as the automated system. I agree but what police don’t do currently that is within the capability of the system is to record all faces and begin to build a record of places and times where and when that face has been recorded.
Layer that concept with the idea of cameras in the schools and we can begin to map out a possible misuse of this technology. Imagine a school with cameras installing the recognition system. Imagine them then using it to improve school security by alerting officials if an unknown person was wondering the halls, perhaps selling drugs or seeking revenge on a student. The facial mapping software would alert school security that a known drug dealer was on the premises. They could detain him, call the police, or they could watch to see who interacted with him while he was present. Sounds like a great idea and one that would have popular support in some locations.
What it requires is a record of all students’ faces and a system that can maintain detailed time logs of comings and goings. What it precedes is a national, albeit disconnected, network of systems that have similar logs and profiles. A government agency would then merely have to gain access to the disparate systems and search for an individual to get a detailed record of their movement map for a given period of time. That could then be cross-indexed with movements of known terrorists and we could someday begin to unravel support networks for these international criminals.
Given the scope of the Patriot Act, the fear of the average citizen, and the pace of technological advances. I believe it is a forgone conclusion that Big Brother will be watching. I also believe we’ll be safer for it. My only question is, at what cost?
“If you are living within the bounds of the law you shouldn’t mind them looking into your backyard or house”, more than one law enforcement official has told me. Maybe, maybe not, I don’t break any laws in my house but does that mean I am willing to relinquish my privacy? Should I have a say in whether my image can be recorded, stored, searched, tracked, etc? Should I even care if like they say, I “have nothing to hide?”
The word that comes to mind is Trust.
It just keeps moving in and quietly reminding me to consider it. Trust. What happens to “Trust” when we get used to having our lives on tape? Does it improve? Does the fabric of society become stronger because we all live more carefully inside the law? Does it erode as people realize that someone or some agency can edit, manufacture, or destroy records that we rely on for “objective” truth?
Does the human capacity for self-control improve through this silent coercesion or does it erode our internal and individual sense of right and wrong in favor of a socially acceptable code of behavior? Does doing the right thing become something we choose because of our values or instead become a decision made in fear of potential retribution? Are we moving forward or moving backward?
The message of the Old Testament for me was that there was one god and only one god. He was watching and stood in judgment over all creation. He punished the evildoer in this life or the next. The people of the Old Testament lived in awe and fear and behaved accordingly or were punished. The message of the New Testament is that there is a god, he loves us and expects us to love him and to treat our neighbor with the same love that we have for ourselves. There’s more to both stories and I’ve left out everything about his chosen people, but those were the two main themes I learned.
Here’s my question, if this nation was founded on the whole of the Judeo-Christian tradition which story do you want to run the country by? Because this recording and the technologies that come with it sound a lot more like the Old Testament than the New. I’m all for punishing criminals and rehabilitating them if possible, but I deeply prefer that my society and fellow citizens choose the good from a knowledge of our shared inheritance, shared divine love, and unity, rather than that they choose the good from a place of fear of the all knowing eye.
You may think it naïve to expect to live in such a place, a society where people choose the good because it is the good, not for a reward or fear of punishment. You may think it unrealistic given our diverse culture and the lack of a homogenous value system. I may be naïve, but it wasn’t cynicism that caused twelve men and two women to found a tradition of love and forbearance upon the death of their spiritual leader. It wasn’t cynicism that caused the people of the colonies to rise up and create a new society with hope for the self-rule of nations. It wasn’t a lack of faith in his fellow man that gave President Lincoln the confidence to take the North to war and win freedom for an oppressed people. It wasn’t a society of the Old Testament. We are not Israel.
We as a nation have many, many choices ahead of us in the next twenty years. Most of them have to do with public policy as it relates to technological advancements. We should begin to develop a framework for how these decisions will be made. What is most important is to devise a way to determine if a specific technology serves the common good in the long-term, or if it erodes some foundation of our society. I am not sure into which category intelligent video surveillance falls, we probably all need to keep an open mind and consider the testimony of experts from various sciences. Law enforcement, ethicists, legal advocates, educators, national security agencies, civil liberties groups, and religious leaders all have something to add to this debate. Future debates will require even broader gatherings of experts, particularly from the medical and genetics fields.
Our politicians will need to be held to a higher standard than they are currently. They will have to demonstrate intellectual integrity, and I think a degree of intellectual curiosity. It is not enough that they have good advisors and follow their counsel. It is essential that they can read, comprehend and extrapolate against a wide variety of highly technical and emotionally charged topics, without relying too heavily on the advice of industry supported expert testimony.
They will have to balance our needs for international leadership with our internal class dynamics. These forces will be in direct opposition for most of the decisions concerning engineered improvements to the human genome and life expectancy.
It’s time for me to stop typing and go back and cut huge sections out of this overlong missive. I apologize in advance for any failures in editing.
Peace, be upon you and your home.
Joe
Weekly Musings – “Cameras in the Classrooms”
J Sweeney
08/14/03
Classes for the new school year began in Biloxi, Mississippi this week. Along with the normal jitters of starting a new schedule, the pleasure of seeing friends, and the mirth of guessing what kind of meat product the cafeteria is attempting to pass off as beef, the students have a new presence in their environment to consider. Over the summer every classroom and hallway had a web-enabled camera installed.
So far, most of the feedback from those affected, as reported by the district, is positive. Parents are quoted as saying they feel that their children are safer. Some are reported as having stated that they are willing to surrender certain freedoms if it means better security. The only slightly negative comment noted was from one teacher wondering whether the added oversight would negatively impact the student-teacher rapport.
So, the town of Biloxi has apparently used its proceeds from legalizing gambling in a way that has popular support and may even deter violence or other crimes against students. Civil libertarians will sound an alarm about the erosion of privacy and the danger of “Big Brother” watching, but considering the cameras are installed in a public setting, they do not have a leg to stand on. Unless of course you consider that the students are required to attend the school by law and are therefore being coerced into being monitored without their ascent. Seeing that most students don’t vote and given the popular support among parents and administrators, I expect that nothing short of a successful lawsuit will remove the cameras.
Perhaps this is where we’re headed. A little over a year ago I had the opportunity to dine with a Judge and his wife. They’ll remain nameless, as I did not request permission at the time to quote them. The dinner was full of stimulating conversation. Both the Judge and his wife were active in other areas of our democracy and had served in the defense and education sectors respectively. Among the many issues discussed that evening was the topic of videotape surveillance and its role in our society, public life, and work environment. Joining the conversation was a medical doctor and a technology consultant.
The Judge described the value that adding video and audio recording to his courtroom had produced in reducing errors, creating an objective record, and protecting him from inaccurate claims by defendants and lawyers. He was convinced that every professional, particularly doctors should immediately begin demanding that their interactions with clients, patients, and the public be recorded for their protection.
The doctor at our table was deeply concerned about the potential for harm if patients felt their doctor patient relationship compromised by a recording. Would they be willing to share intimate and potentially embarrassing details about behavior that may have led to disease contraction? Would they be as forthcoming with very personal details about symptoms they were suffering from?
As the Doctor and the Judge argued and periodically turned to the consultant for technical details about security, encryption, and capabilities, I had the opportunity to begin to muse, as I’m inclined to do from time to time.
What about psychologists, lawyers, accountants, teachers, guidance counselors, priests, rabbis, imams, etc.? Was the Judge correct in thinking that once professionals had an opportunity to try the technology they would come to appreciate its benefits so much that they would demand its presence?
The concept of being taped when entering a stadium, using the ATM, or just walking into a department store is something we have all become accustomed to even if we have not grown quite comfortable with it yet. But, when the airports and stadiums added recognition software that identifies facial mappings and then compares them to a database to watch for terrorists and criminals, things changed. The very logical argument was that the police could do the same thing but they would have to increase manpower, and thus costs, significantly to have as much coverage as the automated system. I agree but what police don’t do currently that is within the capability of the system is to record all faces and begin to build a record of places and times where and when that face has been recorded.
Layer that concept with the idea of cameras in the schools and we can begin to map out a possible misuse of this technology. Imagine a school with cameras installing the recognition system. Imagine them then using it to improve school security by alerting officials if an unknown person was wondering the halls, perhaps selling drugs or seeking revenge on a student. The facial mapping software would alert school security that a known drug dealer was on the premises. They could detain him, call the police, or they could watch to see who interacted with him while he was present. Sounds like a great idea and one that would have popular support in some locations.
What it requires is a record of all students’ faces and a system that can maintain detailed time logs of comings and goings. What it precedes is a national, albeit disconnected, network of systems that have similar logs and profiles. A government agency would then merely have to gain access to the disparate systems and search for an individual to get a detailed record of their movement map for a given period of time. That could then be cross-indexed with movements of known terrorists and we could someday begin to unravel support networks for these international criminals.
Given the scope of the Patriot Act, the fear of the average citizen, and the pace of technological advances. I believe it is a forgone conclusion that Big Brother will be watching. I also believe we’ll be safer for it. My only question is, at what cost?
“If you are living within the bounds of the law you shouldn’t mind them looking into your backyard or house”, more than one law enforcement official has told me. Maybe, maybe not, I don’t break any laws in my house but does that mean I am willing to relinquish my privacy? Should I have a say in whether my image can be recorded, stored, searched, tracked, etc? Should I even care if like they say, I “have nothing to hide?”
The word that comes to mind is Trust.
It just keeps moving in and quietly reminding me to consider it. Trust. What happens to “Trust” when we get used to having our lives on tape? Does it improve? Does the fabric of society become stronger because we all live more carefully inside the law? Does it erode as people realize that someone or some agency can edit, manufacture, or destroy records that we rely on for “objective” truth?
Does the human capacity for self-control improve through this silent coercesion or does it erode our internal and individual sense of right and wrong in favor of a socially acceptable code of behavior? Does doing the right thing become something we choose because of our values or instead become a decision made in fear of potential retribution? Are we moving forward or moving backward?
The message of the Old Testament for me was that there was one god and only one god. He was watching and stood in judgment over all creation. He punished the evildoer in this life or the next. The people of the Old Testament lived in awe and fear and behaved accordingly or were punished. The message of the New Testament is that there is a god, he loves us and expects us to love him and to treat our neighbor with the same love that we have for ourselves. There’s more to both stories and I’ve left out everything about his chosen people, but those were the two main themes I learned.
Here’s my question, if this nation was founded on the whole of the Judeo-Christian tradition which story do you want to run the country by? Because this recording and the technologies that come with it sound a lot more like the Old Testament than the New. I’m all for punishing criminals and rehabilitating them if possible, but I deeply prefer that my society and fellow citizens choose the good from a knowledge of our shared inheritance, shared divine love, and unity, rather than that they choose the good from a place of fear of the all knowing eye.
You may think it naïve to expect to live in such a place, a society where people choose the good because it is the good, not for a reward or fear of punishment. You may think it unrealistic given our diverse culture and the lack of a homogenous value system. I may be naïve, but it wasn’t cynicism that caused twelve men and two women to found a tradition of love and forbearance upon the death of their spiritual leader. It wasn’t cynicism that caused the people of the colonies to rise up and create a new society with hope for the self-rule of nations. It wasn’t a lack of faith in his fellow man that gave President Lincoln the confidence to take the North to war and win freedom for an oppressed people. It wasn’t a society of the Old Testament. We are not Israel.
We as a nation have many, many choices ahead of us in the next twenty years. Most of them have to do with public policy as it relates to technological advancements. We should begin to develop a framework for how these decisions will be made. What is most important is to devise a way to determine if a specific technology serves the common good in the long-term, or if it erodes some foundation of our society. I am not sure into which category intelligent video surveillance falls, we probably all need to keep an open mind and consider the testimony of experts from various sciences. Law enforcement, ethicists, legal advocates, educators, national security agencies, civil liberties groups, and religious leaders all have something to add to this debate. Future debates will require even broader gatherings of experts, particularly from the medical and genetics fields.
Our politicians will need to be held to a higher standard than they are currently. They will have to demonstrate intellectual integrity, and I think a degree of intellectual curiosity. It is not enough that they have good advisors and follow their counsel. It is essential that they can read, comprehend and extrapolate against a wide variety of highly technical and emotionally charged topics, without relying too heavily on the advice of industry supported expert testimony.
They will have to balance our needs for international leadership with our internal class dynamics. These forces will be in direct opposition for most of the decisions concerning engineered improvements to the human genome and life expectancy.
It’s time for me to stop typing and go back and cut huge sections out of this overlong missive. I apologize in advance for any failures in editing.
Peace, be upon you and your home.
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
