I attend a current events class at the Osher Lifelong Learning Center of the University of Nevada, Reno. This past week we got thinking about the significance of the phenomenon of a rising educated populace all around the world; and how the common man in countries once deemed "primitive" is demanding, more and more, a piece of the action and a share of the world's goodies.
What's the alternative? Suppose the demands of the commoner aren't heeded. We envisioned unrest, class warfare, even war with guns and missiles deployed.
In any case, the point to human existence, if there is one, is to be kept busy doing what man's developed potentials enable him to do. That point was hammered home by the American philosopher John Dewey, who studied the common man seriously.
I think since there's so many educated persons the world over; and the numbers are growing exponentially, they clearly need to be kept busy doing the things they are trained to do. Nations of the world through such organizations as G20 must find the wherewithal to enable the citizens of the world to interact with respect to their training--to prevent worldwide holocaust, caused by the discontent of an educated populace aimlessly shunted about.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Russian Constitution is Pretty Good
By the way, I am glad to see that today President Obama is recommending that Russia join the World Trade Organization. I'm sure Russia will make lasting contributions.
But I want to bring up my travel to the Soviet Union, Moscow, in the late 1980's. I was privileged to discuss the Soviet's new constitution for several hours over the course of my visit through an interpreter with personages I understood were to be involved in its construction.
It's been a long time since, but I remember making the following critical discussion points:
1. The old Soviet Union should be divided up into several independent republics. It's good for economic competition and for efficiency in industrial organization. Altogether, they should form a confederation, working in unity for the good of the whole. I thought the term suitable to the identity of the whole would be The Confederation of Independent States; and their term today does not sharply differ.
2. Since many of these identifiable entities that would form the Confederation have separate languages and cultures, I recommended that the national language of each be reflected in the textbooks and legal documents of each region (rather than in Russian). This promotes pride and nationalism per republic. Of course, each would have its own economy and independent ways, though together they would be interrelated as was the case already.
I believe that over the many years since its adoption, the Constitution has served the republics well. I am glad they have retained the sense of a confederation of independent states.
Just recently in Georgia, there has been opportunity to create yet another republic for Russians living in an area of the region, enabling them to retain a unique self identity--again, showing the viability of the new Constitution to handle ethnic divisions and cultural diversity yet promoting unity of purpose.
Good luck Russia with the new Constitution! I was glad to be present during the formation of such an important document! I try to keep up with what's happening in that region of the world through the Kennan Institute in Washington, DC, whenever I'm on the East Coast.
But I want to bring up my travel to the Soviet Union, Moscow, in the late 1980's. I was privileged to discuss the Soviet's new constitution for several hours over the course of my visit through an interpreter with personages I understood were to be involved in its construction.
It's been a long time since, but I remember making the following critical discussion points:
1. The old Soviet Union should be divided up into several independent republics. It's good for economic competition and for efficiency in industrial organization. Altogether, they should form a confederation, working in unity for the good of the whole. I thought the term suitable to the identity of the whole would be The Confederation of Independent States; and their term today does not sharply differ.
2. Since many of these identifiable entities that would form the Confederation have separate languages and cultures, I recommended that the national language of each be reflected in the textbooks and legal documents of each region (rather than in Russian). This promotes pride and nationalism per republic. Of course, each would have its own economy and independent ways, though together they would be interrelated as was the case already.
I believe that over the many years since its adoption, the Constitution has served the republics well. I am glad they have retained the sense of a confederation of independent states.
Just recently in Georgia, there has been opportunity to create yet another republic for Russians living in an area of the region, enabling them to retain a unique self identity--again, showing the viability of the new Constitution to handle ethnic divisions and cultural diversity yet promoting unity of purpose.
Good luck Russia with the new Constitution! I was glad to be present during the formation of such an important document! I try to keep up with what's happening in that region of the world through the Kennan Institute in Washington, DC, whenever I'm on the East Coast.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Insincerity: the glue in human relations
The Existemtialists since Rousseau argued that to live in society is to live in "bad faith," to sacrifice your personal feelings and wants for the "good of society." To live in society is to do what others expect of you, whether or not you want to do as they say! Well, today, I think we'd say insincerity is the hallmark of living with others; by what you do, you have to make it "seem" you're pleasing them--and that keeps your relationship with them running smoothly.
Now, Dr. Laura, whose talk show program takes up topics revolving around "how to get along with others," reminded me of the Existentialist point of view in her recent statements--and I trust I've got them right. She pointed out on one occasion that though she may come home tired and may not want to take out her dog, she does so anyway, because she sees how it pleases him! Similarly, she argues a grandmother who wants to see her grandchild regularly, needs to comply with the wishes of the child's mother--her daughter--or risk not being able to see her grandchild on a regular basis. For example, if the child's mother demands that the grandmother babysit the kid at least two nights a week, so the daughter can go out, if the grandmother wants to see the kid, she should readily comply.
Dr. Laura, I believe, gave another instance in talking with a caller: a wife finds the husband wants sex too frequently; wants sex all too often when she doesn't want to participate in the activity. I think Dr. Laura may have replied, for the sake of the marriage, go through with it! (You understand, this is how I interpreted the repartee.)
Now, I found in my research into caring for baby, that several authorities on the subject encourage the parent to hide how they feel at the moment in order to attend to the baby's wants and needs. Suppose, a parent comes home in a foul, angry mood from work. No, she must not reveal how angry she is but instead put on the mask of a gentle, caring parent, totally involved with baby!
Contrast the notion of play-acting that appears so important to accepting and caring for another person, no matter how one feels at the moment, with "being yourself--laying it all out there!" "I'm me; take me or leave me." If you've watched the housewives series, e.g., the housewives of New Jersey, you know what I mean. If a housewife feels insulted or ignored by another housewife, she tells her off; she says "You're no longer my friend; I never want to see you again!" In short, she cuts the relationship off; no more glue to be applied.
Now, Dr. Laura, whose talk show program takes up topics revolving around "how to get along with others," reminded me of the Existentialist point of view in her recent statements--and I trust I've got them right. She pointed out on one occasion that though she may come home tired and may not want to take out her dog, she does so anyway, because she sees how it pleases him! Similarly, she argues a grandmother who wants to see her grandchild regularly, needs to comply with the wishes of the child's mother--her daughter--or risk not being able to see her grandchild on a regular basis. For example, if the child's mother demands that the grandmother babysit the kid at least two nights a week, so the daughter can go out, if the grandmother wants to see the kid, she should readily comply.
Dr. Laura, I believe, gave another instance in talking with a caller: a wife finds the husband wants sex too frequently; wants sex all too often when she doesn't want to participate in the activity. I think Dr. Laura may have replied, for the sake of the marriage, go through with it! (You understand, this is how I interpreted the repartee.)
Now, I found in my research into caring for baby, that several authorities on the subject encourage the parent to hide how they feel at the moment in order to attend to the baby's wants and needs. Suppose, a parent comes home in a foul, angry mood from work. No, she must not reveal how angry she is but instead put on the mask of a gentle, caring parent, totally involved with baby!
Contrast the notion of play-acting that appears so important to accepting and caring for another person, no matter how one feels at the moment, with "being yourself--laying it all out there!" "I'm me; take me or leave me." If you've watched the housewives series, e.g., the housewives of New Jersey, you know what I mean. If a housewife feels insulted or ignored by another housewife, she tells her off; she says "You're no longer my friend; I never want to see you again!" In short, she cuts the relationship off; no more glue to be applied.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
In Defense of Faith-based Initiatives
I've talked with clergymen and religious leaders of various faiths about the concept of Faith-based Initiatives. At the International Dream Church in LA, (Assembly of God church), as the concept was being formulated, the discussion centered about whether the concept could work. Those who talked with me at the Dream Church were enthusiastic about it. Discussions I've had with the Catholic Worker organization in LA, after the concept was put into use under the leadership of President George Bush, were centered around criticisms they made of the concept and why they wouldn't make use of it. I know that the Evangelical Christian leadership is opposed to the program and wants it repealed, but I haven't discussed it with any of them.. Currently, the program is up and running and seems a tremendous success. I endorse it wholeheartedly! Some Episcopal clergy from England I met at the Hollywood Episcopal church were amazed and confounded that such a program could be successfully undertaken, when I shared my knowledge of the program with them!
The program is modelled after elements of the food distribution program in the US, whereby government supplies food to church and religious agencies who then distribute it. For example, in the Reno area, I receive an allotment of food (supplied by the local Food Bank) at a Christian Church which in turn supplies both the area for the food to be distributed and the volunteer labor who do clerical and food handling stuff. This food distribution to the needy is carried out across the country using church sites, etc. Its is an example of church and state working together for social good.
The philosophy of the faith-based initiative program is just that simple: religious organizations (e.g., churches) and government (i.e., federal, state, county, municipal) team up together to solve social problems and promote the social welfare for the good of society. Importantly, the one without the other could not do as well; and society would suffer.
HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS (AS I UNDERSTAND IT)
Let's use an example. A church establishes an after-school program for the kids in its neighborhood. The program gets off the ground due to the leadership and direction of its clergy. Then, all of a sudden for whatever reason--say, a business downturn amounting to a recession--the funds the church had no longer are coming in sufficiently to keep the after-school program going. The church would ordinarily have to close the program down--neighborhood kids no longer would have access to that place to study and play after school that the church was providing. These kids might then turn to the streets, once again, and might get into trouble, even engage in social deviant behaviors But because of the Faith-based Initiative program is in existence, the church can apply for government funding! Government to the rescue where community effort left on its own gave insufficient support. The government grants the church sufficient funds to keep the program going. Now, it may be that at some future time, the church will not need those extra funds that the government was giving them; or the church may be able to expand the program with those government funds. That's up to the government agency and the particular church to work out together.
The point is, there's numerous cases in which some religious agency, which runs its own program, and the government can strike a deal for the good of society, especially in hard financial times unforeseen by those who put the program together and run it.
AN ADDENDUM (OF MINE)
The religious person who dedicates himself for a social cause, e.g., building a house or digging a well, in the name of his God will do a fine job. But, if he were to think that he's simply a government worker doing the bidding of some bureaucrat, he would walk off the job! He does what he does, makes the sacrifices involved because he is dedicated to his religious belief. You can't argue with that. So, the social good he does by digging the well, for example, ought to be supported by any means possible. See Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, who makes this point far better than I: religious dedication has social worth as well as religious merit.
And, these Evangelicals and religious purists who decry government and religion working together seem to me espousing a philosophy that would deprive society of the benefits of religious action that has social worth.
The program is modelled after elements of the food distribution program in the US, whereby government supplies food to church and religious agencies who then distribute it. For example, in the Reno area, I receive an allotment of food (supplied by the local Food Bank) at a Christian Church which in turn supplies both the area for the food to be distributed and the volunteer labor who do clerical and food handling stuff. This food distribution to the needy is carried out across the country using church sites, etc. Its is an example of church and state working together for social good.
The philosophy of the faith-based initiative program is just that simple: religious organizations (e.g., churches) and government (i.e., federal, state, county, municipal) team up together to solve social problems and promote the social welfare for the good of society. Importantly, the one without the other could not do as well; and society would suffer.
HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS (AS I UNDERSTAND IT)
Let's use an example. A church establishes an after-school program for the kids in its neighborhood. The program gets off the ground due to the leadership and direction of its clergy. Then, all of a sudden for whatever reason--say, a business downturn amounting to a recession--the funds the church had no longer are coming in sufficiently to keep the after-school program going. The church would ordinarily have to close the program down--neighborhood kids no longer would have access to that place to study and play after school that the church was providing. These kids might then turn to the streets, once again, and might get into trouble, even engage in social deviant behaviors But because of the Faith-based Initiative program is in existence, the church can apply for government funding! Government to the rescue where community effort left on its own gave insufficient support. The government grants the church sufficient funds to keep the program going. Now, it may be that at some future time, the church will not need those extra funds that the government was giving them; or the church may be able to expand the program with those government funds. That's up to the government agency and the particular church to work out together.
The point is, there's numerous cases in which some religious agency, which runs its own program, and the government can strike a deal for the good of society, especially in hard financial times unforeseen by those who put the program together and run it.
AN ADDENDUM (OF MINE)
The religious person who dedicates himself for a social cause, e.g., building a house or digging a well, in the name of his God will do a fine job. But, if he were to think that he's simply a government worker doing the bidding of some bureaucrat, he would walk off the job! He does what he does, makes the sacrifices involved because he is dedicated to his religious belief. You can't argue with that. So, the social good he does by digging the well, for example, ought to be supported by any means possible. See Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, who makes this point far better than I: religious dedication has social worth as well as religious merit.
And, these Evangelicals and religious purists who decry government and religion working together seem to me espousing a philosophy that would deprive society of the benefits of religious action that has social worth.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
How US Can Assert Leadership: continued
On the radio today, Glenn Beck predicted that countries the world over will blame the US for the global financial crisis being experienced. To my mind he really doesn't answer to what otherwise would be a dilemma for the US foreign policy makers, though I concur in his analysis.
However, the situation isn't really that bad, if the US pursues a policy that led to NAFTA and other trade agreements. On C-Span a few days ago (you can see I listen to the news a lot out here in Reno!), a seminar on navigational rules and regulations held in Virginia was broadcast. The participants were bemoaning that for the last 23 years, apparently, the US Senate has refused to endorse US participation in multi-national navigational, marine tribunals, preferring instead to "go it alone"--as was the case in the US' refusal to endorse the Kyoto agreements for some years. As was pointed out in this navy-sponsored (in-part) seminar, the Republicans have long endorsed the policy of "my way or no way" in US foreign policy.
Yet, some participants in this seminar pointed out that should the US join such multi-national institutions and structures regulating international waters, it could exert great influence upon the thinking and doing of other nations in this area. Indeed, Congress is fashiioning, I believe, that the banking regulations and rules being developed now in their halls be applicable to financial situations in the entire G20 bloc. This Congressional deliberate intention, I believe, is how the US can maintain and even further develop its leadership potential among all nations in the world.
Presently, Okinawa wants the US troops out of their territories. The US military there have countered by insisting that the US presence in this strategic location is a vital force to maintain peace and stability in the Far East. I strongly agree with the US military position!
The US is needed as a major player for peace in the world, I believe. It strengthens its leadership among other countries whenever it insists upon participating with othher nations for peace.
However, the situation isn't really that bad, if the US pursues a policy that led to NAFTA and other trade agreements. On C-Span a few days ago (you can see I listen to the news a lot out here in Reno!), a seminar on navigational rules and regulations held in Virginia was broadcast. The participants were bemoaning that for the last 23 years, apparently, the US Senate has refused to endorse US participation in multi-national navigational, marine tribunals, preferring instead to "go it alone"--as was the case in the US' refusal to endorse the Kyoto agreements for some years. As was pointed out in this navy-sponsored (in-part) seminar, the Republicans have long endorsed the policy of "my way or no way" in US foreign policy.
Yet, some participants in this seminar pointed out that should the US join such multi-national institutions and structures regulating international waters, it could exert great influence upon the thinking and doing of other nations in this area. Indeed, Congress is fashiioning, I believe, that the banking regulations and rules being developed now in their halls be applicable to financial situations in the entire G20 bloc. This Congressional deliberate intention, I believe, is how the US can maintain and even further develop its leadership potential among all nations in the world.
Presently, Okinawa wants the US troops out of their territories. The US military there have countered by insisting that the US presence in this strategic location is a vital force to maintain peace and stability in the Far East. I strongly agree with the US military position!
The US is needed as a major player for peace in the world, I believe. It strengthens its leadership among other countries whenever it insists upon participating with othher nations for peace.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
US Role of Leadship Today: Is the US Up to It?
I was listening to Senator Christopher Dodd this morning on C-Span; and he made a most important historical point (in my opinion).
The US government and Big Business are naturally at odds. This is because business wants to make the greatest profits it can. It wants little interference; indeed, it seeks support and help from governments to do as told, i.e.., do its bidding. Perhaps, this is why to this point Big Business has been locating here: less taxes (when you take account of the deductions they're allowed). Government, on the other hand, wants to maintain a fair playing field (see John Rawl's book Justice as Fairness). It wants to maintain a tension between interested parties. It wants no "slam dunk" winners--neither business nor the unions; nor the federal government itself. The radio and many TV talk shows merely regurgitate the "Big Business" line of business being persecuted.
But this antipathy of commercial interests and government is by no means new. It has frequently been cited as promoting the phenomena of globalization, practiced first in the Netherlands in the 17th Century, then England in the Nineteenth Century; the United States in the Twentieth Century. Globalization enables Big Business to wheel and deal in the financial markets, while keeping in check the power of national governments to dictate national and international policy on behalf of their citizenry. By moving money around from country to country--each of these mentioned serving the interests of international, powerful money groups--business maintains its position of "king of the mountain," i ,e,, the old divide and conquer principle.
If I am right in my analysis, we can understand why governments seek the money and power big business groups can offer them. In a fictionalized account, Germany prior or during the Second World War is portrayed to have sought the support from international financiers for its war efforts, only to be turned down. The book is entitled Dragon Harvest; and though fiction, it reads plausibly. Author Upton Sinclair makes the further point that once Germany had been turned down, Roosevelt committed the US to supplying Britain with airplanes.
Today, what Big Business is demanding from the US governmennt for the sake of its derivative transactions is that banking institutions of substantial worth be able to make investments as well as become insurers and engage in banking transcations. Senator Dodd wants transpareny of these transactions in order to insinuate a modicum of accountability. Will the US stand up to Big Business and protect the US citizens and citizens around the world, including presently Greece, from its practices involving fraud and usury? If not, perhaps China, as the major world leader will!
The US government and Big Business are naturally at odds. This is because business wants to make the greatest profits it can. It wants little interference; indeed, it seeks support and help from governments to do as told, i.e.., do its bidding. Perhaps, this is why to this point Big Business has been locating here: less taxes (when you take account of the deductions they're allowed). Government, on the other hand, wants to maintain a fair playing field (see John Rawl's book Justice as Fairness). It wants to maintain a tension between interested parties. It wants no "slam dunk" winners--neither business nor the unions; nor the federal government itself. The radio and many TV talk shows merely regurgitate the "Big Business" line of business being persecuted.
But this antipathy of commercial interests and government is by no means new. It has frequently been cited as promoting the phenomena of globalization, practiced first in the Netherlands in the 17th Century, then England in the Nineteenth Century; the United States in the Twentieth Century. Globalization enables Big Business to wheel and deal in the financial markets, while keeping in check the power of national governments to dictate national and international policy on behalf of their citizenry. By moving money around from country to country--each of these mentioned serving the interests of international, powerful money groups--business maintains its position of "king of the mountain," i ,e,, the old divide and conquer principle.
If I am right in my analysis, we can understand why governments seek the money and power big business groups can offer them. In a fictionalized account, Germany prior or during the Second World War is portrayed to have sought the support from international financiers for its war efforts, only to be turned down. The book is entitled Dragon Harvest; and though fiction, it reads plausibly. Author Upton Sinclair makes the further point that once Germany had been turned down, Roosevelt committed the US to supplying Britain with airplanes.
Today, what Big Business is demanding from the US governmennt for the sake of its derivative transactions is that banking institutions of substantial worth be able to make investments as well as become insurers and engage in banking transcations. Senator Dodd wants transpareny of these transactions in order to insinuate a modicum of accountability. Will the US stand up to Big Business and protect the US citizens and citizens around the world, including presently Greece, from its practices involving fraud and usury? If not, perhaps China, as the major world leader will!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Harry Reid's Position of Political Power in the Senate at Stake
I saw an ad for the Harry Reid incumbent candidacy for the US Senate on TV yesterday. It claimed that Senator Reid has done a lot to promote the interests of Nevada in his position as Senator.
I'm new to Nevada, but I do know that as Majority Leader of the Senate and a Senator with years of seniority, Reid has ready channels through which to feed any pork, i.e., projects he is promoting on behalf of the State; and he is a national, if not international, power broker--witness, his setting the agenda for items the Senate will take up.
What I'm trying to say that if Reid is ousted as Senator, with his ouster goes the seniority he has attained. I recognize that the polls have him trailing his rival candidates. But none of the latter will be able to achieve on behalf of the State what he, qua his stature in the Senate, might be accomplishing, since any replacement will be "low-man-on-the-totem-pole!"
In Britain, for example, political personages of Reid's stature run in what are regarded as "safe" counties, for the country wants to avoid sharp power breaks.
I'm new to Nevada, but I do know that as Majority Leader of the Senate and a Senator with years of seniority, Reid has ready channels through which to feed any pork, i.e., projects he is promoting on behalf of the State; and he is a national, if not international, power broker--witness, his setting the agenda for items the Senate will take up.
What I'm trying to say that if Reid is ousted as Senator, with his ouster goes the seniority he has attained. I recognize that the polls have him trailing his rival candidates. But none of the latter will be able to achieve on behalf of the State what he, qua his stature in the Senate, might be accomplishing, since any replacement will be "low-man-on-the-totem-pole!"
In Britain, for example, political personages of Reid's stature run in what are regarded as "safe" counties, for the country wants to avoid sharp power breaks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)