Happy New Year!
I wanted to close the year out with a goodbye blog to Ed Rendell and Arlen Specter, two public servants I admire highly, who have made my life happier and full of hope...but that will have to come in a later post.
Later post? What about 'goodbye blog'? Well, I am putting this blog to rest, because it is too time consuming. For those who follow this blog, you may have noticed I am struggling to keep up with the daily grind of political news. I will be sharing my next blog, titled 'Inside Out,' so you can follow that one.
'Inside Out' will allow me the freedom to post what I want, when I want. There may be poetry, motherly memoirs, short stories, and, of course, political news and what I think about it. It will not come out every day, who knows when...who knows what. It is a mystery even to me.
I have had a great deal of satisfaction getting all the things out that I have wanted to say over the last 40 or so posts. Thanks to all who have shared the experience with me.
Happy New Year and fare well until I post to you again. ♥
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Common Good Act 3: Responsibility and Compassion
It has been hard for me to say definitively that one man is accountable for another. We are not accountable for each other, but we are accountable to each other. For this reason it has been hard for me to separate compassion and responsibility. Responsible: chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something; having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action. None of us can live alone, without the help of others...without community. We are made to live together. We will all need help at one time or another, and chances are, someone will be there to help you.
If you saw a man or woman starving on the streets, would you help? If you saw a wounded man, woman or child, would you do what you could to help them? I hope you answered yes, for humanities sake. Humanity: the quality of being human.
Why would someone answer, "No." to the above questions? It just so happens that I took a survey of 100 people a couple of years ago on campus, asking people if they would be nice to a homeless person. The survey was a reaction to my Comparative Politics teacher, who argued that America had as much of a class system as Britain and France, but that we just don't acknowledge it. Well, all of the Americans I asked said they would be nice, though some tentatively. The only five people who said they wouldn't were from England or China. "Why not?" I asked those who said they would not be nice. "Because, they deserve it," was invariably the answer.
It is my theory that the the five percent who said they would be mean suffer from the delusion of elitism. Elitism: the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals; pride in or awareness of being in an elite group.
Elitism popped up in an earlier blog when I was discussing 'Can leaders make us do bad things?' Zimbardo's article mentioned that evil is an effect of situations, such as poverty, racism, sexism and elitism.
Do not the definitions for 'responsible' hold elitists and governments accountable for poverty and suffering of the people with whom they claim to be 'governors' of? Does it not also compel us all to provide for a fellow human who is suffering, if we have the means?
The gray area here is in the word 'moral.' For in our age, in our country, we cannot compel others to be moral, being moral is a choice. Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.
Considering this definition, those who choose not to act responsibly in caring for others in need, may choose not to, but the choice is unethical and wrong.
Our government, our 'elite' and we as a nation have a responsibility to feel compassion for those who suffer, for those who are wronged, and for those who fall through the cracks in society. Compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. It is the responsibility of our community leaders and representatives to identify and correct systemic faults that perpetuate poverty and suffering in our nation. It is each citizens responsibility to pay taxes to fund this protection that the government should provide us, and also to help those who we see that are in need. To do less would be irresponsible.
"A Nation's greatness is judged by how it treats its weakest members." -Ghandi
"There will always be poor people in the land. That’s why I command you to be generous..." -Jesus Deut 15:11
If you saw a man or woman starving on the streets, would you help? If you saw a wounded man, woman or child, would you do what you could to help them? I hope you answered yes, for humanities sake. Humanity: the quality of being human.
Why would someone answer, "No." to the above questions? It just so happens that I took a survey of 100 people a couple of years ago on campus, asking people if they would be nice to a homeless person. The survey was a reaction to my Comparative Politics teacher, who argued that America had as much of a class system as Britain and France, but that we just don't acknowledge it. Well, all of the Americans I asked said they would be nice, though some tentatively. The only five people who said they wouldn't were from England or China. "Why not?" I asked those who said they would not be nice. "Because, they deserve it," was invariably the answer.
It is my theory that the the five percent who said they would be mean suffer from the delusion of elitism. Elitism: the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals; pride in or awareness of being in an elite group.
Elitism popped up in an earlier blog when I was discussing 'Can leaders make us do bad things?' Zimbardo's article mentioned that evil is an effect of situations, such as poverty, racism, sexism and elitism.
Do not the definitions for 'responsible' hold elitists and governments accountable for poverty and suffering of the people with whom they claim to be 'governors' of? Does it not also compel us all to provide for a fellow human who is suffering, if we have the means?
The gray area here is in the word 'moral.' For in our age, in our country, we cannot compel others to be moral, being moral is a choice. Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.
Considering this definition, those who choose not to act responsibly in caring for others in need, may choose not to, but the choice is unethical and wrong.
Our government, our 'elite' and we as a nation have a responsibility to feel compassion for those who suffer, for those who are wronged, and for those who fall through the cracks in society. Compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. It is the responsibility of our community leaders and representatives to identify and correct systemic faults that perpetuate poverty and suffering in our nation. It is each citizens responsibility to pay taxes to fund this protection that the government should provide us, and also to help those who we see that are in need. To do less would be irresponsible.
"A Nation's greatness is judged by how it treats its weakest members." -Ghandi
"There will always be poor people in the land. That’s why I command you to be generous..." -Jesus Deut 15:11
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Common Good Act 2
First, apologies for no blog yesterday. My mother was visiting...much more important!
Act 2: Power
According to political science theory, public welfare is a significant player in national power. The number of people, their age and their state of education, health and morale, all build part of the foundation a nation's power is built upon. Population in general is important to provide large armies and a large workforce. Countries with small populations seldom hold a lot of power on the international stage. Having a population that is not too aged is also important.
Education and health are limiting factors in what the population can do for a country. Research and development is a salient factor in the international game of power, and a country with a poorly educated population will lose out in this area. A nation with a population in poor health can drained of its power by exorbitant health care costs, and an unproductive work force.
Morale can make or break nations. Which is why you see dictators injecting their populous with propaganda that makes them feel swelling national pride. Eventually, if the morale of a country is not supported by real value, that country will fall.
"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
-The Declaration of Independence
The last post showed that public welfare is a matter of self-interest, on the part of the government. This post shows that public welfare is a matter of power for a government. Still, these have not shown public welfare to be a responsibility or an act of compassion. I have only only shown a reasonable government strategy for maintaining order and power.
Act 2: Power
According to political science theory, public welfare is a significant player in national power. The number of people, their age and their state of education, health and morale, all build part of the foundation a nation's power is built upon. Population in general is important to provide large armies and a large workforce. Countries with small populations seldom hold a lot of power on the international stage. Having a population that is not too aged is also important.
Education and health are limiting factors in what the population can do for a country. Research and development is a salient factor in the international game of power, and a country with a poorly educated population will lose out in this area. A nation with a population in poor health can drained of its power by exorbitant health care costs, and an unproductive work force.
Morale can make or break nations. Which is why you see dictators injecting their populous with propaganda that makes them feel swelling national pride. Eventually, if the morale of a country is not supported by real value, that country will fall.
"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
-The Declaration of Independence
The last post showed that public welfare is a matter of self-interest, on the part of the government. This post shows that public welfare is a matter of power for a government. Still, these have not shown public welfare to be a responsibility or an act of compassion. I have only only shown a reasonable government strategy for maintaining order and power.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Common Good
Is providing for the common good a responsibility or a superfluous act of compassion?
Act One: Self-interest
Providing for the common good is a self-interested action for those who govern and for those who have prosperity. What happens to the leader who says, "Let them eat cake!" when the people are starving in the streets? Mm-hmm. Europeans still scream, "Off with their heads!" when education costs rise and labor benefits fall. Since the beginning of time leaders have understood that they have to provide adequate infrastructure and services to their people or their people will revolt. Providing for the common good is part of the process of distributing surplus value to sustain a nations power and wealth, and whatever conservative politicians will tell you in America today, that is exactly what governments do...that is what power is for...distributing wealth (and for distributing power itself).
This 'protection' from government is a bargain, as in: an agreement between parties settling what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other (Webster). It is a bargain between protection and wealth extraction. The government needs resources for armies, infrastructure, maintaining economic viability, and distributing goods (especially food). The government takes those resources from the people, mostly in the form of taxes, but also, by conscription.
Historically, governments have gotten the bulk of their taxes from business, which is why business and government are so cozy, and have always been. Kings would offer protection to trading ships in exchange for treasures. Without that treasure the government would fall, and without protection the business man would be pillaged. I think we have a structure in America that can break that antiquated conflict of interest, as the favored business interest is not always the best interest for the country.
As for the people, historically, governments would take food and men from them to fuel armies and supply the courts. In return the people received protection from invading armies. People also expected to be guarded against famine and crisis and otherwise facilitated a good quality of life relative to the Leader's abilities.
Today, the government takes resources mostly in the form of taxes, though in the case of the draft, also conscription. We pay taxes for protection. Protection, in our case, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Protection of our private property. Protection of justice. Protection through our constitution, our representatives, our laws and our courts...for a civil society...for a mutually assured stability.
Act One: Self-interest
Providing for the common good is a self-interested action for those who govern and for those who have prosperity. What happens to the leader who says, "Let them eat cake!" when the people are starving in the streets? Mm-hmm. Europeans still scream, "Off with their heads!" when education costs rise and labor benefits fall. Since the beginning of time leaders have understood that they have to provide adequate infrastructure and services to their people or their people will revolt. Providing for the common good is part of the process of distributing surplus value to sustain a nations power and wealth, and whatever conservative politicians will tell you in America today, that is exactly what governments do...that is what power is for...distributing wealth (and for distributing power itself).
This 'protection' from government is a bargain, as in: an agreement between parties settling what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other (Webster). It is a bargain between protection and wealth extraction. The government needs resources for armies, infrastructure, maintaining economic viability, and distributing goods (especially food). The government takes those resources from the people, mostly in the form of taxes, but also, by conscription.
Historically, governments have gotten the bulk of their taxes from business, which is why business and government are so cozy, and have always been. Kings would offer protection to trading ships in exchange for treasures. Without that treasure the government would fall, and without protection the business man would be pillaged. I think we have a structure in America that can break that antiquated conflict of interest, as the favored business interest is not always the best interest for the country.
As for the people, historically, governments would take food and men from them to fuel armies and supply the courts. In return the people received protection from invading armies. People also expected to be guarded against famine and crisis and otherwise facilitated a good quality of life relative to the Leader's abilities.
Today, the government takes resources mostly in the form of taxes, though in the case of the draft, also conscription. We pay taxes for protection. Protection, in our case, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Protection of our private property. Protection of justice. Protection through our constitution, our representatives, our laws and our courts...for a civil society...for a mutually assured stability.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
How would Jesus lead?
Jesus is a great teacher, and could influence people the way many politicians would like to. How did he do it? It certainly wasn't by being mean or uncaring. Laurie Beth Jones wrote a book for business leaders called Jesus CEO that lists and discusses Jesus' way of leading. I think during the Christmas season and in this political atmosphere of defunct leadership, Jesus' way may provide some refreshing guidance.
Jesus did the difficult things "Opinion polls are a very poor source of vision. Failing to do the difficult thing eventually will get you in trouble."
Jesus owned it "He looked at the world and the people in it as his responsibility, his inheritance and his heritage."
Jesus did not waste time judging others
He requested noble things "He has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to bind up hearts that are broken, to proclaim liberty to captives...to comfort all those who morn, and to give them for ashes a garland...for a mourning robe the oil of gladness, for despondency, praise."
Jesus worked through his fears "He boldly announced his identity to the executioners. He got sick to his stomach and wept until sweat became blood- but he went through it. Although he felt fear, he faced it."
He had a plan "A good idea is worth a dollar, a good plan is worth a million dollars...What good does it do to stir up a crowd if you do not give them a constructive outlet for their energy?"
He asked the question "Who do you think I am? Who do you think you are? What do you want? Where is your heart?...Perhaps he asked so many questions because his motto was, 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Jesus broke ranks "Jesus did not follow the crowd, he led it...There are so many dysfunctional groups in our society today that a person must have uncommon courage to break free."
He was bold "Jesus did not mumble or whisper his message. He did not go through countless committees to get permission to make his statement."
He gave them vision of something larger than themselves "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
He educated Educating minds and hearts was Jesus' number one priority.
He looked out for the little guy "Jesus took time to see the people in the shadows."
Jesus set an example "Leaders set the example by what they do."
He served them "The principle of service is what separates true leaders from glory seekers."
He loved them "When everything is said and done, only love will last."
He wanted to take everyone to the top "We need each other."
Leaders are so important. They change the world, for better or worse. Ultimately, it is the people who decide who to follow, and what standards the culture will be shaped by.
Jesus did the difficult things "Opinion polls are a very poor source of vision. Failing to do the difficult thing eventually will get you in trouble."
Jesus owned it "He looked at the world and the people in it as his responsibility, his inheritance and his heritage."
Jesus did not waste time judging others
He requested noble things "He has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to bind up hearts that are broken, to proclaim liberty to captives...to comfort all those who morn, and to give them for ashes a garland...for a mourning robe the oil of gladness, for despondency, praise."
Jesus worked through his fears "He boldly announced his identity to the executioners. He got sick to his stomach and wept until sweat became blood- but he went through it. Although he felt fear, he faced it."
He had a plan "A good idea is worth a dollar, a good plan is worth a million dollars...What good does it do to stir up a crowd if you do not give them a constructive outlet for their energy?"
He asked the question "Who do you think I am? Who do you think you are? What do you want? Where is your heart?...Perhaps he asked so many questions because his motto was, 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Jesus broke ranks "Jesus did not follow the crowd, he led it...There are so many dysfunctional groups in our society today that a person must have uncommon courage to break free."
He was bold "Jesus did not mumble or whisper his message. He did not go through countless committees to get permission to make his statement."
He gave them vision of something larger than themselves "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
He educated Educating minds and hearts was Jesus' number one priority.
He looked out for the little guy "Jesus took time to see the people in the shadows."
Jesus set an example "Leaders set the example by what they do."
He served them "The principle of service is what separates true leaders from glory seekers."
He loved them "When everything is said and done, only love will last."
He wanted to take everyone to the top "We need each other."
Leaders are so important. They change the world, for better or worse. Ultimately, it is the people who decide who to follow, and what standards the culture will be shaped by.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
What's your bias?
The title of this blog should be read like the prase, "what's your problem?"
The World English Dictionary defines bias as a "mental tendency or inclination, esp an irrational preference or prejudice."
I argue that I am not biased toward the dems, nor against the repubs. I really don't think I have an irrational prejudice one way or the other.
irrational: without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason
One can be fair and still consistently have negative things to say about an entity, like say, the Republican leadership and their step-alongs. Being un-biased does not mean saying bad things or good things equally about opposing entities. Being unbiased simply means being able to reason through a situation without applying an irrational force toward or against some element of that situation.
Reason is what I have been screaming for, reason is what our society seems to be missing.
I would like to qualify my recent posts that explicitly target Republicans. I should say that I do not think that all those registered as Republicans are representative of the ills I ascribe to the Republican Party. However, the Republicans in our Congress are extremely unified in their irrational behavior, and those who follow them are accountable.
Ultimately, the problems of our society do not lie in our leaders, but in the reasoning abilities of our citizens.
The World English Dictionary defines bias as a "mental tendency or inclination, esp an irrational preference or prejudice."
I argue that I am not biased toward the dems, nor against the repubs. I really don't think I have an irrational prejudice one way or the other.
irrational: without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason
One can be fair and still consistently have negative things to say about an entity, like say, the Republican leadership and their step-alongs. Being un-biased does not mean saying bad things or good things equally about opposing entities. Being unbiased simply means being able to reason through a situation without applying an irrational force toward or against some element of that situation.
Reason is what I have been screaming for, reason is what our society seems to be missing.
I would like to qualify my recent posts that explicitly target Republicans. I should say that I do not think that all those registered as Republicans are representative of the ills I ascribe to the Republican Party. However, the Republicans in our Congress are extremely unified in their irrational behavior, and those who follow them are accountable.
Ultimately, the problems of our society do not lie in our leaders, but in the reasoning abilities of our citizens.
Making Republicans look bad
Lindsay Graham, R. Senator from South Carolina was on Face the Nation this weekend, along with his colleague, D. Senator Carl Levin from Michigan. The topic was the New START treaty. The Republicans refusal to pass this legislation has inflamed national security advocates from all parties.
Graham asserts that the confusing language in the preamble of the treaty will lead to an eventual pull out from Russia when the US commences work again on its missile defense system. The eventual breakdown of the treaty, Graham says, is more dangerous than no treaty at all.
Everyone else seems to disagree with the Senator and his Republican step-alongs in congress.
Levin countered Graham's point, "It'll damage national security (not passing New START), [and] not just because I say so," Levin said. "I may be chairman of the Armed Services Committee but my view is not nearly as important as every single former Secretary of State, every single National Security Advisor, Republican and Democratic, our current military leadership say it is essential to national security that we pass the START treaty."
Graham, however, made the astonishing assertion that HE NEEDS TO BE THE ONE TO SAY SO, HIM SPECIALLY. It is not enough for the military leadership to tell him that his concerns are unfounded, but that he wanted the Russians to assure Graham himself...personally. He want the Russians to make a special assertion just to Senator Graham, or he won't believe that the treaty allows us the ability to continue with our plans.
Wow. Childsplay with our national security between Russia.
Then, Graham goes on to say that the 'excruciating' lame duck session was 'designed' to make Republicans look bad. They do not need any extra help in that, though Democrats could have been making them look much worse for the past 12 years. Democrats are too nice, but maybe it WILL pay off in the end, as the chips fall where they may.
Graham asserts that the confusing language in the preamble of the treaty will lead to an eventual pull out from Russia when the US commences work again on its missile defense system. The eventual breakdown of the treaty, Graham says, is more dangerous than no treaty at all.
Everyone else seems to disagree with the Senator and his Republican step-alongs in congress.
Levin countered Graham's point, "It'll damage national security (not passing New START), [and] not just because I say so," Levin said. "I may be chairman of the Armed Services Committee but my view is not nearly as important as every single former Secretary of State, every single National Security Advisor, Republican and Democratic, our current military leadership say it is essential to national security that we pass the START treaty."
Graham, however, made the astonishing assertion that HE NEEDS TO BE THE ONE TO SAY SO, HIM SPECIALLY. It is not enough for the military leadership to tell him that his concerns are unfounded, but that he wanted the Russians to assure Graham himself...personally. He want the Russians to make a special assertion just to Senator Graham, or he won't believe that the treaty allows us the ability to continue with our plans.
Wow. Childsplay with our national security between Russia.
Then, Graham goes on to say that the 'excruciating' lame duck session was 'designed' to make Republicans look bad. They do not need any extra help in that, though Democrats could have been making them look much worse for the past 12 years. Democrats are too nice, but maybe it WILL pay off in the end, as the chips fall where they may.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Cure
Since I gave some cause for paranoia, I thought I better share a cure. At the end of Zimbardo's chapter he gives us a recipe for 'promoting civic virtue, moral engagement and human goodness. That sounds good.
'1. Openly acknowledge errors in judgment
reduces need to justify mistake and continue with immoral action
2. Encourage mindfulness
encourage society to reflect on actions and ethical implications
3. Promote sense of personal responsibility and accountability for all actions
reduces diffused sense of responsibility
4. Discourage minor transgressions
cheating, gossiping, lying, teasing, and bullying provide first steps toward escalating abuses
5. Distinguish between just and unjust authority
just because someone is in a position of authority does not mean they deserve obedience
6. Support critical thinking
demand evidence and moral justification, and evaluate its credibility
7. Reward moral behavior
those who do the right thing under difficult situations need recognition
8. Respect human diversity
key to reducing in-group biases and prejudices
9. Change social conditions that promote anonymity
making people feel special and accountable = socially desirable actions + self-worth
10. Challenge pressures for conformity
individuals need strategies to resist group influence and maintain moral compass
11. REFUSE TO SACRIFICE CRUCIAL FREEDOMS FOR ELUSIVE PROMISES OF SECURITY
these steps are often the first toward fascism'
When evaluating our next congress, lets take these 11 steps in mind. Let's critically think about which of our leaders is doing what, demanding evidence, moral justification and then let's evaluate the credibility of that evidence. Let's reward moral behavior, mindfulness, the ability to admit mistakes and take responsibility for one's actions. Let's reward those who respect human diversity. Conversely, let's hold those accountable who cheat, gossip, lie and bully to the detriment of our fellow citizens and our leaders, let's distinguish between just and unjust authority. Also, let's keep in mind that we don't have to sacrifice our freedoms for security.
Two more highlights from this chapter:
"It is only through the recognition of our shared human condition that we can acknowledge vulnerability to situational forces."
'1. Openly acknowledge errors in judgment
reduces need to justify mistake and continue with immoral action
2. Encourage mindfulness
encourage society to reflect on actions and ethical implications
3. Promote sense of personal responsibility and accountability for all actions
reduces diffused sense of responsibility
4. Discourage minor transgressions
cheating, gossiping, lying, teasing, and bullying provide first steps toward escalating abuses
5. Distinguish between just and unjust authority
just because someone is in a position of authority does not mean they deserve obedience
6. Support critical thinking
demand evidence and moral justification, and evaluate its credibility
7. Reward moral behavior
those who do the right thing under difficult situations need recognition
8. Respect human diversity
key to reducing in-group biases and prejudices
9. Change social conditions that promote anonymity
making people feel special and accountable = socially desirable actions + self-worth
10. Challenge pressures for conformity
individuals need strategies to resist group influence and maintain moral compass
11. REFUSE TO SACRIFICE CRUCIAL FREEDOMS FOR ELUSIVE PROMISES OF SECURITY
these steps are often the first toward fascism'
When evaluating our next congress, lets take these 11 steps in mind. Let's critically think about which of our leaders is doing what, demanding evidence, moral justification and then let's evaluate the credibility of that evidence. Let's reward moral behavior, mindfulness, the ability to admit mistakes and take responsibility for one's actions. Let's reward those who respect human diversity. Conversely, let's hold those accountable who cheat, gossip, lie and bully to the detriment of our fellow citizens and our leaders, let's distinguish between just and unjust authority. Also, let's keep in mind that we don't have to sacrifice our freedoms for security.
Two more highlights from this chapter:
"Focusing on people as causes of evil then exonerates social structures and political decision making for contributing to underlying conditions that foster evil:
poverty, racism, sexism and elitism."
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Can leaders make us do bad things?
The most common factor in who we choose as a leader is charisma. We base important decisions on who to follow based on how we feel. This makes it extraordinarily easy for our leaders to persuade us to do things we normally wouldn't. That ability is the core of leader's power. This is not a secret to politicians.
I was just reviewing the book Moral Leadership, specifically the chapter on the psychology of power by Philip G. Zimbardo. "The same mind that creates the most beautiful works of art and extraordinary marvels of technology is equally responsible for perversion of its own perfection." His chapter delves into how good, regular people can be persuaded to do evil things.
Evil (by his definition)- behaving or causing people to act in demeaning, dehumanizing, harming, destroying or the killing of innocent people.
How do leaders use power to persuade people to do evil things?
First of all, as the book makes clear, evil is not the associated with specific kind of people, or a specific person, but rather the result of permissible social constructs and situations. Evil is more prevalent in situations of power (where moral code has less of a role in actions) and in situations where there is a sense of anonymity and/or a sense of crisis.
Within these constructs a powerful person may:
1. Offer an ideology that justifies any means to a desired goal.
2. Arrange a contractual obligation (may be verbal)
3. Give participants meaningful roles to play with familiar positive values and response scripts
4. Present basic, vague rules to be followed
5. Replace reality with desirable rhetoric
6. Create opportunities to diffuse responsibility, so actor does not feel accountable
7. Start path toward evil act with small step
8. Gradually increase acts upon evil act
9. Change authority from 'just' to 'unjust' and demanding which causes confusion and obedience
10. Make exit costs high, but allow dissent
Of course, good people would need to abandon their sense of humanity and morality to engage in evil acts.
Conditions in which we may do so:
1. Altered perception of evil through moral justification, comforting rhetoric, euphemistic labeling.
2. Altered sense of consequence through minimizing, ignoring, misconstruing consequences
3. Displacing/diffusing responsibility
4. Dehumanizing/blaming victim
According to Zimbardo, leaders would use two main strategies to get followers conditioned is to
1. Again, reduce social accountability "creating an environment that masks identity and diffuses responsibility across others in a situation."
2. Stop self-monitoring by altering consciousness through strong emotions, hyperintense activity, and/or drugs.
The result of this evil power manipulation is the suspension of cognitive controls that guide moral action. That is how leaders get good people to do bad things.
Have Republicans taken us down an evil path? I argue they have. From the war in Iraq to a fight against fellow Americans in our own country.
1. Ideology: They have used the 'War of Terrorism' to create a sense of crisis in which national security is the goal for which any means necessary will be used.
2. Diffused Responsibility: They have created the Tea Party, which is a social movement 'without any leader' and now say that their actions are on behalf of 'the people'.
3. Use moral justifications: they routinely act under the auspice of G-d and Christianity.
4. Have created a hyper partisan atmosphere: labeling Obama as a Socialist/Muslim/non-citizen, and anyone who does not prescribe to their ideology as un-American.
I could go on analyzing each step of the above framework and how Republicans could be following this framework, but I will leave it here, with the most obvious boldly stated.
In the political/cultural atmosphere of today, we should all be mindful of the winds that sway our opinions and actions.
P.S.
The book also says that people, when put into power, will have their characters magnified, i.e. people who act in self-interest are will only act more so when put into power, and those who are more prone to help others will be even more dedicated to public welfare when in power. So, next time you vote, look and see how much that leader has helped the communities and people around them.
I was just reviewing the book Moral Leadership, specifically the chapter on the psychology of power by Philip G. Zimbardo. "The same mind that creates the most beautiful works of art and extraordinary marvels of technology is equally responsible for perversion of its own perfection." His chapter delves into how good, regular people can be persuaded to do evil things.
Evil (by his definition)- behaving or causing people to act in demeaning, dehumanizing, harming, destroying or the killing of innocent people.
How do leaders use power to persuade people to do evil things?
First of all, as the book makes clear, evil is not the associated with specific kind of people, or a specific person, but rather the result of permissible social constructs and situations. Evil is more prevalent in situations of power (where moral code has less of a role in actions) and in situations where there is a sense of anonymity and/or a sense of crisis.
Within these constructs a powerful person may:
1. Offer an ideology that justifies any means to a desired goal.
2. Arrange a contractual obligation (may be verbal)
3. Give participants meaningful roles to play with familiar positive values and response scripts
4. Present basic, vague rules to be followed
5. Replace reality with desirable rhetoric
6. Create opportunities to diffuse responsibility, so actor does not feel accountable
7. Start path toward evil act with small step
8. Gradually increase acts upon evil act
9. Change authority from 'just' to 'unjust' and demanding which causes confusion and obedience
10. Make exit costs high, but allow dissent
Of course, good people would need to abandon their sense of humanity and morality to engage in evil acts.
Conditions in which we may do so:
1. Altered perception of evil through moral justification, comforting rhetoric, euphemistic labeling.
2. Altered sense of consequence through minimizing, ignoring, misconstruing consequences
3. Displacing/diffusing responsibility
4. Dehumanizing/blaming victim
According to Zimbardo, leaders would use two main strategies to get followers conditioned is to
1. Again, reduce social accountability "creating an environment that masks identity and diffuses responsibility across others in a situation."
2. Stop self-monitoring by altering consciousness through strong emotions, hyperintense activity, and/or drugs.
The result of this evil power manipulation is the suspension of cognitive controls that guide moral action. That is how leaders get good people to do bad things.
Have Republicans taken us down an evil path? I argue they have. From the war in Iraq to a fight against fellow Americans in our own country.
1. Ideology: They have used the 'War of Terrorism' to create a sense of crisis in which national security is the goal for which any means necessary will be used.
2. Diffused Responsibility: They have created the Tea Party, which is a social movement 'without any leader' and now say that their actions are on behalf of 'the people'.
3. Use moral justifications: they routinely act under the auspice of G-d and Christianity.
4. Have created a hyper partisan atmosphere: labeling Obama as a Socialist/Muslim/non-citizen, and anyone who does not prescribe to their ideology as un-American.
I could go on analyzing each step of the above framework and how Republicans could be following this framework, but I will leave it here, with the most obvious boldly stated.
In the political/cultural atmosphere of today, we should all be mindful of the winds that sway our opinions and actions.
P.S.
The book also says that people, when put into power, will have their characters magnified, i.e. people who act in self-interest are will only act more so when put into power, and those who are more prone to help others will be even more dedicated to public welfare when in power. So, next time you vote, look and see how much that leader has helped the communities and people around them.
Friday, December 17, 2010
oi...and I am so sick of the polls...rant
Oi, my son woke up at 5:30am and didn't nap until 1pm...then for only 20min. That is the longest he has ever been awake in his life. He is down again, now. I hope he sleeps. Mama is worn down. And of course, little baby without sleep = fussy baby all day long...oi.
Onto my political rant...
I am so sick of newspeople and politicians quoting polls. Really people? Should we be governing by polls? It is fine to gauge what Americans think, but most Americans are not well informed.
I really kills me because, for instance, no one cared when tens of thousands of people protested President Bush being chosen by the supreme court as our President in 2000. No one cared when millions of people protested against the Iraq war .
Leaders don't usually make decisions based on polls, but I guess our country is in such a sorry state, that we don't have leaders who lead. We have leaders who follow...and who are they following? Fox News viewers? And who are Fox News viewers following? More people watch Faux News than any other news channel, and those viewers are the most uniformed.
Click here.
Yes, well, so sad. You now the rest of the world is always referring to us as dumb Americans....seriously, they are right. From test scores to the state of our politics and culture...we are a laughing stock. My son is crying in his sleep...seriously, he is. Poor babe.
The Republicans say they are listening to the American people, but they aren't paying attention to the polls about the healthcare plan, which, when broken down show only 26% of people want the healthcare law repealed and replaced. Of course most of them are Republicans, and most of them have been ill informed anyway by Fox News. And they weren't listening to the people this week when they blocked tax extensions for the middle class to extend them to the uber-wealthy (during one of our countries hardest times in history, and among their own campaign to reduce the deficit!)
Grr. It is so stupid.
Seriously, do we want the country to be run by polls, or by competent leaders?
The twisted thing about it is, Conservatives historically take the position of 'the leader leads because people can't think for themselves.' I spent three years in Altoona trying to prove that idea wrong, but guess what? People were not informed, did not want to be informed, and refused to take action to improve their own lives. That is the reality leaders have to deal with.
In know someone is going to think, "that has all changed now, since the Tea Party etc. etc." People engaged in today's partisan politics are in it for the game, not for sustained change. Click here to get the real dish on the tea party. Back to the same source for the uncanny, ridiculous, political fervor ruining our country.
Once again, where are there any leaders in this country? (I reserve Obama and Clinton here as America's few leaders).
That's right Obama and Hillary ARE leaders, only with few followers.
Funny (in a terrible way), we are a nation of followers without enough leaders, where the couple of leaders we have, don't have any followers. Something is sorely amiss.
Onto my political rant...
I am so sick of newspeople and politicians quoting polls. Really people? Should we be governing by polls? It is fine to gauge what Americans think, but most Americans are not well informed.
I really kills me because, for instance, no one cared when tens of thousands of people protested President Bush being chosen by the supreme court as our President in 2000. No one cared when millions of people protested against the Iraq war .
Leaders don't usually make decisions based on polls, but I guess our country is in such a sorry state, that we don't have leaders who lead. We have leaders who follow...and who are they following? Fox News viewers? And who are Fox News viewers following? More people watch Faux News than any other news channel, and those viewers are the most uniformed.
Click here.
Yes, well, so sad. You now the rest of the world is always referring to us as dumb Americans....seriously, they are right. From test scores to the state of our politics and culture...we are a laughing stock. My son is crying in his sleep...seriously, he is. Poor babe.
The Republicans say they are listening to the American people, but they aren't paying attention to the polls about the healthcare plan, which, when broken down show only 26% of people want the healthcare law repealed and replaced. Of course most of them are Republicans, and most of them have been ill informed anyway by Fox News. And they weren't listening to the people this week when they blocked tax extensions for the middle class to extend them to the uber-wealthy (during one of our countries hardest times in history, and among their own campaign to reduce the deficit!)
Grr. It is so stupid.
Seriously, do we want the country to be run by polls, or by competent leaders?
The twisted thing about it is, Conservatives historically take the position of 'the leader leads because people can't think for themselves.' I spent three years in Altoona trying to prove that idea wrong, but guess what? People were not informed, did not want to be informed, and refused to take action to improve their own lives. That is the reality leaders have to deal with.
In know someone is going to think, "that has all changed now, since the Tea Party etc. etc." People engaged in today's partisan politics are in it for the game, not for sustained change. Click here to get the real dish on the tea party. Back to the same source for the uncanny, ridiculous, political fervor ruining our country.
Once again, where are there any leaders in this country? (I reserve Obama and Clinton here as America's few leaders).
That's right Obama and Hillary ARE leaders, only with few followers.
Funny (in a terrible way), we are a nation of followers without enough leaders, where the couple of leaders we have, don't have any followers. Something is sorely amiss.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Obama's meeting with CEO's- Uncertainty of DEMAND
PBS Newshour is one of my favorite place to get the news. Last night, Gwen Infil interviewed David Cote, of Honeywell and Greg Brown of Motorolla to see what came out of President Obama's 4 hour meeting with a group of business leaders.
Obama commented to the cameras on his way to the meeting that he was going to see what he could do about getting some of the trillion dollars business are holding off the sidelines and back into the economy. Gwen asked Honeywell's Cote why this money hasn't been invested when the economy so badly needs it, and he didn't say because of uncertainty in tax rates, he said the uncertainty in DEMAND has been holding back investment.
The creation of demand is exactly what the Republicans have been blocking. No more stimulus they say for the demand side of the equation, we need to stimulate the supply side (they are like a broken record). Well, Cote says, its nice to have the tax cuts extended but, "it is the worst kind of compromise to fix (the deficit) problem." He and Brown of Motorolla said the tax extensions will have to expire in the next few years if we are going to get a handle on the deficit.
More shocking news from this interview:
Obama's actions averted a depression, Cote said, and according to Brown, tensions between the business community and the White House have been way overblown. Gee who has been using that rhetoric, oh yeah, those mean, lying Republicans.
According to the businessmen, the economy has been much better in the last 18 months, with stocks, corporate earnings and cash on hand increasing. "The opportunities for us to grow and invest are right there, " said Brown.
So why haven't they invested? Like Cote said in the beginning, uncertainty of DEMAND. Obama's admin. has been steadily stimulating the demand side of the economy (somehow through the endless roadblocks of the Repubs), and extension of unemployment benefits will continue that work.
Obama commented to the cameras on his way to the meeting that he was going to see what he could do about getting some of the trillion dollars business are holding off the sidelines and back into the economy. Gwen asked Honeywell's Cote why this money hasn't been invested when the economy so badly needs it, and he didn't say because of uncertainty in tax rates, he said the uncertainty in DEMAND has been holding back investment.
The creation of demand is exactly what the Republicans have been blocking. No more stimulus they say for the demand side of the equation, we need to stimulate the supply side (they are like a broken record). Well, Cote says, its nice to have the tax cuts extended but, "it is the worst kind of compromise to fix (the deficit) problem." He and Brown of Motorolla said the tax extensions will have to expire in the next few years if we are going to get a handle on the deficit.
More shocking news from this interview:
Obama's actions averted a depression, Cote said, and according to Brown, tensions between the business community and the White House have been way overblown. Gee who has been using that rhetoric, oh yeah, those mean, lying Republicans.
According to the businessmen, the economy has been much better in the last 18 months, with stocks, corporate earnings and cash on hand increasing. "The opportunities for us to grow and invest are right there, " said Brown.
So why haven't they invested? Like Cote said in the beginning, uncertainty of DEMAND. Obama's admin. has been steadily stimulating the demand side of the economy (somehow through the endless roadblocks of the Repubs), and extension of unemployment benefits will continue that work.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Back to Domestic Politics-Tax debate-empowering the right
Well, it was nice to see President Obama at least mention fighting against the Republican's and their ridiculous behaviors in our Congress. But, really, he just mouthed the words, and did not take appropriate fighting actions. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. I believe there was time to make this fight against extending the top tier tax cuts, but he did not make it.
The Dem. Congress is furious that he seemed to have made a tax deal unilaterally, without a fighting process through the congress, but why should Obama have expected the Dem. Congress to start leading now? They have been silent for the last two years, trying to avoid hard debates, and pointing to Obama as a non-leader. If Obama is trying to get legislation moving on his own, then maybe this was his best option.
The problem is how weak the Democratic party is. Howard Dean has done nothing to lead and strengthen the party. Pelosi and Reed have done little to create a cohesive unit, or even strong public campaign for the change people voted for in 2008. Republicans, on the other hand, have played the field with genius. The American people have virtually forgotten anything that happened during the Bush years, and it is taboo to even talk about. The first thing the Republicans did was to say, "Hey! Don't keep blaming things on Bush, this is your (Obama's) country now." Republicans then proceeded to orchestrate a populous movement, underpinned by the fallacy that President Obama is a Socialist, Muslim, non-citizen etc. Wow, and half of the population bought it. The other half just cowered in silence. Is this America????
Does it really matter at this point? After the damage the Bush years did to our country, is this vote on taxes going to kill us? No, I don't think so. What we do need to worry about is the empowerment of the Republican party who continue to lie and erode the fabric of this country by turning Americans against each other for one thing, POWER. That's what this compromise does, empowers the wrong people. And what will they do with their power? Take the risk and look at the past decade under Bush, and keep running..
Less talk about fight, Dems, and more action. ( and I don't think leaving that fight to the one member in congress who can legitimately be called a Socialist is the best plan!)
The Dem. Congress is furious that he seemed to have made a tax deal unilaterally, without a fighting process through the congress, but why should Obama have expected the Dem. Congress to start leading now? They have been silent for the last two years, trying to avoid hard debates, and pointing to Obama as a non-leader. If Obama is trying to get legislation moving on his own, then maybe this was his best option.
The problem is how weak the Democratic party is. Howard Dean has done nothing to lead and strengthen the party. Pelosi and Reed have done little to create a cohesive unit, or even strong public campaign for the change people voted for in 2008. Republicans, on the other hand, have played the field with genius. The American people have virtually forgotten anything that happened during the Bush years, and it is taboo to even talk about. The first thing the Republicans did was to say, "Hey! Don't keep blaming things on Bush, this is your (Obama's) country now." Republicans then proceeded to orchestrate a populous movement, underpinned by the fallacy that President Obama is a Socialist, Muslim, non-citizen etc. Wow, and half of the population bought it. The other half just cowered in silence. Is this America????
Does it really matter at this point? After the damage the Bush years did to our country, is this vote on taxes going to kill us? No, I don't think so. What we do need to worry about is the empowerment of the Republican party who continue to lie and erode the fabric of this country by turning Americans against each other for one thing, POWER. That's what this compromise does, empowers the wrong people. And what will they do with their power? Take the risk and look at the past decade under Bush, and keep running..
Less talk about fight, Dems, and more action. ( and I don't think leaving that fight to the one member in congress who can legitimately be called a Socialist is the best plan!)
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 6: Terrorist strategies and counter-strategies
The subject of this post is to enlighten you about terrorist strategies and counter strategies. I think this rationalization, provided by the work of Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, makes sense out of what has been happening with the 'War on Terror,' as Bush liked to call it.
I am using this information in the context of non-state terrorists, like Al Queda, the PLO and Hamas, who feel they have no other alternative, but I believe states use terrorism as well, covertly and integrated into conventional war strategy.
It's very simple, I will follow each terrorist strategies with its aligning counterstrategy, according to K and W:
Attrition: Showing terrorists are strong enough to inflict considerable costs if target does not change its policy.
fertile ground for attrition:
The said policy is important to the targeted state
The targeted state has the ability to retaliate
The targeted state is sensitive to the cost of violence
counter measures:
Minimize psychological costs (don't over-react)
Concede inessential issues for peace
Targeted retaliation
Deny access to weapons
Intimidation: Showing that terrorists can punish disobedience and that government is weak (this mainly refers to the terrorists home state...i.e. Afghanistan)
fertile ground:
Weak States
Regime change
Rough geographical terrain (hard for state to mount counter-attack)
counter measures:
Retake territory (clear and hold)
Increase law enforcement
Provocation: Induce enemy to use indiscriminate force
fertile ground:
When the enemy is capable of severe military force
counter measures:
Discriminate targeting
Spoiling: Convince enemy that moderates on terrorist's side are not trustworthy
fertile ground:
Moderates on terrorist's side are strong
counter measures:
Build trust with moderates on terrorist's side
Decrease moderate's vulnerability
Power-share with moderates
Use of international organizations (to build strength/legitimacy on moderate's side)
Outbidding: Showing that the terrorist group has the greatest resolve (over, say, the legitimate government or rival home power) to fight rival
counter measures:
Encourage competing groups to unify
Give concessions to non-violent groups, illustrating the greater strength of non-violent groups.
So, this makes sense right? Can you see how this strategy/counter strategy has played out in the 'War on Terror?' Incidentally, using the term, 'War on Terror' is an unwise counter-terrorism strategy. It goes against the advice under attrition- don't over-react.
It is curious that the Bush admin counter measures seemed to have encouraged terrorism i.e. creating a sense of fear in this country, like 'The terrorist are going to get us anyday...everyday!" with the colored warning system: green, yellow, orange, red to tell us how scared we should be everyday. Geez. and, of course, under the strategy of attrition and provocation (which were clearly used on us with 9-11), the use of indiscriminate force. We just bombed the heck out of Iraq. Not discriminate targeting.
Obama, on the other hand, has stopped using the term 'War on Terror,' if you haven't noticed and is focusing on discriminate force, along with other rational counter-terrorist strategies that agree with K and W, which I will allow you to analyze for yourself.
Let's not forget one of the main reasons for terrorism: political POLICY.
I also want to insert here that the main reason for religious and cultural cleavages in societies is politicians.
You can see how this plays out with Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism in Muslim States, Israel and the US, respectively. Why do politicians use religion as a tool to enrage the masses? Because, it is easy to do.
Evoking nationalism is another easy way for politicians to get the masses to support extreme policy measures.
I am using this information in the context of non-state terrorists, like Al Queda, the PLO and Hamas, who feel they have no other alternative, but I believe states use terrorism as well, covertly and integrated into conventional war strategy.
It's very simple, I will follow each terrorist strategies with its aligning counterstrategy, according to K and W:
Attrition: Showing terrorists are strong enough to inflict considerable costs if target does not change its policy.
fertile ground for attrition:
The said policy is important to the targeted state
The targeted state has the ability to retaliate
The targeted state is sensitive to the cost of violence
counter measures:
Minimize psychological costs (don't over-react)
Concede inessential issues for peace
Targeted retaliation
Deny access to weapons
Intimidation: Showing that terrorists can punish disobedience and that government is weak (this mainly refers to the terrorists home state...i.e. Afghanistan)
fertile ground:
Weak States
Regime change
Rough geographical terrain (hard for state to mount counter-attack)
counter measures:
Retake territory (clear and hold)
Increase law enforcement
Provocation: Induce enemy to use indiscriminate force
fertile ground:
When the enemy is capable of severe military force
counter measures:
Discriminate targeting
Spoiling: Convince enemy that moderates on terrorist's side are not trustworthy
fertile ground:
Moderates on terrorist's side are strong
counter measures:
Build trust with moderates on terrorist's side
Decrease moderate's vulnerability
Power-share with moderates
Use of international organizations (to build strength/legitimacy on moderate's side)
Outbidding: Showing that the terrorist group has the greatest resolve (over, say, the legitimate government or rival home power) to fight rival
counter measures:
Encourage competing groups to unify
Give concessions to non-violent groups, illustrating the greater strength of non-violent groups.
So, this makes sense right? Can you see how this strategy/counter strategy has played out in the 'War on Terror?' Incidentally, using the term, 'War on Terror' is an unwise counter-terrorism strategy. It goes against the advice under attrition- don't over-react.
It is curious that the Bush admin counter measures seemed to have encouraged terrorism i.e. creating a sense of fear in this country, like 'The terrorist are going to get us anyday...everyday!" with the colored warning system: green, yellow, orange, red to tell us how scared we should be everyday. Geez. and, of course, under the strategy of attrition and provocation (which were clearly used on us with 9-11), the use of indiscriminate force. We just bombed the heck out of Iraq. Not discriminate targeting.
Obama, on the other hand, has stopped using the term 'War on Terror,' if you haven't noticed and is focusing on discriminate force, along with other rational counter-terrorist strategies that agree with K and W, which I will allow you to analyze for yourself.
Let's not forget one of the main reasons for terrorism: political POLICY.
I also want to insert here that the main reason for religious and cultural cleavages in societies is politicians.
You can see how this plays out with Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism in Muslim States, Israel and the US, respectively. Why do politicians use religion as a tool to enrage the masses? Because, it is easy to do.
Evoking nationalism is another easy way for politicians to get the masses to support extreme policy measures.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 5-Terrorism
The Palestinian cause and Western influence in the ME has encouraged terrorism. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), Hizbollah, and Al Queda are all organizations that have arisen against injustices influenced or caused by Western influences.
The PLO was the first organization to try and govern, protect and defend the nationless people of Palestine. They were created as the Palestinian authority by the Arab League in 1967. The PLO was considered a terrorist organization by many western states, though recognized by many non-western states. They won international recognition in the UN and observer status in 1974. They were not recognized by the US as a legitimate authority until 1991, when they agreed to recognize Israel as a state.
Hizbollah was a similar organization, aided by Syria and Iran, to fight Israel from Lebanon. They formed as a force against Israel and Western interests in 1982, when the PLO left Lebanon.
The PLO and Hizbollah, were not only targeted by the US as terrorists, but also, sardonically, by Arab states themselves, who would support the groups one day, and act as enemies the next.
The whole recipe of ME international relations is literally blowing up in the faces of Arab and Western States alike. The ME is on a downward spiral of destabilization, as foundations for Arab interests are eroded (exactly the effect neo-cons proffered in their policy papers); and the US is exposed to more threats and anit-American sentiments around the globe. The US is also suffering from a plague of domestic fear and international isolationism as the unjust nature of our ME policies become transparent to the world. This is exacerbated by our blind loyalty to Israeli leaders.
Keep in mind, there were/are many tit for tat bombings/killings in the Palestinian/Israeli battle, but who has tried to work out a deal that benefits the Palestinians? They had their land/homes taken away with the inception of Israel as a nation, and, in the cases of villages close to roads important to transport to Israel, had their villages burned to the ground. The Palestinians did not have an Army, and their allies were systematically eroded by Western influences, and they had nowhere to address their grievances. A recipe for terrorism.
Let me just insert here that injustices done to the Jewish people during WWII do not justify injustices done to Palestinians. These are two separate issues.
In my view the way to address this ongoing saga is from the root: acknowledging that the creation of Israel was an injustice to the Palestinians, and instituting the land for peace option. Acknowledging the initial injustice create an opening for Palestinian leaders to empathize with the Israeli plight. I think the original partition map must go, and new territories negotiated with congruous borders, not pieces of one State among the other in an illogical pattern. This against the 'peace for peace' option advanced by neo-conservative leaders, who would like to see Israel as such a military threat to its enemies, that they dare not threaten it (including a right to pre-emptive strike as a means of instilling dominance/fear.)
Moving to another terrorist group: Al Queda, according to my political geography teacher was fueled by the US's tactical use of Osama Bin Laden as an 'ally'. I didn't know, until this geography class, that the US employed Bin Laden against Russian forces when Russia invaded Afghanistan. As the history was told to me, upon Bin Laden's return, the US had set up military complexes around the oil fields of Kuwait (as a result of the first gulf war), a threatening move according to Bin Laden. This, according to Ms. Chattergee was the impetus for Bin Laden to rail against America and form Al Queda...NOT as US propaganda said over and over again, because Al Queda hates US freedoms. This agrees with Bin Laden's initial statement, that his attacks on the US were due to extreme resistance to US foreign policy.
This reminds me of another snippet from Holland's book, America and Egypt, about Goha's nail. The goes that a person Goha sold his home to a friend, under one condition: Goha would retain ownership on one nail in the house. Under the agreement Goha frequented the house day and night inspecting the nail, until he eventually married the owners daughter and got his house back. According to Holland, this typifies the fear ME leaders have of the West. The nail = oil, and states in the ME fear US and Western interests taking the whole of their states off the jumping board of oil interests. This is a fear acted upon by Bin Laden.
The question US citizens should have is, "Is the fear well founded?"
Are these terrorist organizations reacting to a real threat? How, exactly are we threatening the people and nations in the ME? What non-violent options do terrorist organization representing Palestine have open to them? What non-violent options do WE have open to US in these conflicts?
The PLO was the first organization to try and govern, protect and defend the nationless people of Palestine. They were created as the Palestinian authority by the Arab League in 1967. The PLO was considered a terrorist organization by many western states, though recognized by many non-western states. They won international recognition in the UN and observer status in 1974. They were not recognized by the US as a legitimate authority until 1991, when they agreed to recognize Israel as a state.
Hizbollah was a similar organization, aided by Syria and Iran, to fight Israel from Lebanon. They formed as a force against Israel and Western interests in 1982, when the PLO left Lebanon.
The PLO and Hizbollah, were not only targeted by the US as terrorists, but also, sardonically, by Arab states themselves, who would support the groups one day, and act as enemies the next.
The whole recipe of ME international relations is literally blowing up in the faces of Arab and Western States alike. The ME is on a downward spiral of destabilization, as foundations for Arab interests are eroded (exactly the effect neo-cons proffered in their policy papers); and the US is exposed to more threats and anit-American sentiments around the globe. The US is also suffering from a plague of domestic fear and international isolationism as the unjust nature of our ME policies become transparent to the world. This is exacerbated by our blind loyalty to Israeli leaders.
Keep in mind, there were/are many tit for tat bombings/killings in the Palestinian/Israeli battle, but who has tried to work out a deal that benefits the Palestinians? They had their land/homes taken away with the inception of Israel as a nation, and, in the cases of villages close to roads important to transport to Israel, had their villages burned to the ground. The Palestinians did not have an Army, and their allies were systematically eroded by Western influences, and they had nowhere to address their grievances. A recipe for terrorism.
Let me just insert here that injustices done to the Jewish people during WWII do not justify injustices done to Palestinians. These are two separate issues.
In my view the way to address this ongoing saga is from the root: acknowledging that the creation of Israel was an injustice to the Palestinians, and instituting the land for peace option. Acknowledging the initial injustice create an opening for Palestinian leaders to empathize with the Israeli plight. I think the original partition map must go, and new territories negotiated with congruous borders, not pieces of one State among the other in an illogical pattern. This against the 'peace for peace' option advanced by neo-conservative leaders, who would like to see Israel as such a military threat to its enemies, that they dare not threaten it (including a right to pre-emptive strike as a means of instilling dominance/fear.)
Moving to another terrorist group: Al Queda, according to my political geography teacher was fueled by the US's tactical use of Osama Bin Laden as an 'ally'. I didn't know, until this geography class, that the US employed Bin Laden against Russian forces when Russia invaded Afghanistan. As the history was told to me, upon Bin Laden's return, the US had set up military complexes around the oil fields of Kuwait (as a result of the first gulf war), a threatening move according to Bin Laden. This, according to Ms. Chattergee was the impetus for Bin Laden to rail against America and form Al Queda...NOT as US propaganda said over and over again, because Al Queda hates US freedoms. This agrees with Bin Laden's initial statement, that his attacks on the US were due to extreme resistance to US foreign policy.
This reminds me of another snippet from Holland's book, America and Egypt, about Goha's nail. The goes that a person Goha sold his home to a friend, under one condition: Goha would retain ownership on one nail in the house. Under the agreement Goha frequented the house day and night inspecting the nail, until he eventually married the owners daughter and got his house back. According to Holland, this typifies the fear ME leaders have of the West. The nail = oil, and states in the ME fear US and Western interests taking the whole of their states off the jumping board of oil interests. This is a fear acted upon by Bin Laden.
The question US citizens should have is, "Is the fear well founded?"
Are these terrorist organizations reacting to a real threat? How, exactly are we threatening the people and nations in the ME? What non-violent options do terrorist organization representing Palestine have open to them? What non-violent options do WE have open to US in these conflicts?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 4 The Eastern Question
International relations in the Middle East have forged a sort of quadruple edged dagger. A dagger that is persistently stuck in the side of world politics.
The US tries to lasso ME power through local puppets, creating political instability and resistance, and ME leaders routinely suck on the tit of US power and material promises for short term gain, losing the ability for long term, organic growth, and lasting true power for their region. Political structures have been so manipulated over the years, it would take genius political minds and revolutionary determination to move toward sustainable politics for states like Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the Palestinians and Israel.
I will insert here an interesting academic list used by some to describe the political 'rules of the game' for Middle East international relations. It is called the Eastern Question (taken from Matthew Hollands book, America and Egypt: From Roosevelt to Eisenhower).
1. "Alliances and relationships change with every new situation or issue in a series of bewildering tactical moves."
2. ME play major powers to their own political advantage
3. Local problems become entangled in international problems
4. Local moves are made to elicit or reject internat'l support
5. Major powers get involved in the ME for their own advantage, and get entangled in local problems
6. No power, local or internat'l can maintain hegemony over the ME
7. Local and internat'l leaders use 8 main tactics and actions in the ME
a. the 'quick grab'
b. stubborn refusal to accept changes in the status quo
c. refusal to compromise on minor points
d. belief in endless tactical manuevering
e. "diplomatic counterpunching"
f. the habit of using third party negotiators
g. little distinction between tactic and strategy
h. obsession with zero-sum game
US neo-conservative politics have fallen into the traps of this game, and come out with a historical plague of terrorism on the west. The overarching blunder they have made is quick grabs for hegemony in the region; and the consequence has been dire for us and the rest of the world, a fire of terrorism.
All of this leaving Palestinians with no solid, practical ally, and a gaggle of enemies, including erratic Arab states, who may seem like allies one day, and then clam up support the next, for carrots from the West.
The US tries to lasso ME power through local puppets, creating political instability and resistance, and ME leaders routinely suck on the tit of US power and material promises for short term gain, losing the ability for long term, organic growth, and lasting true power for their region. Political structures have been so manipulated over the years, it would take genius political minds and revolutionary determination to move toward sustainable politics for states like Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the Palestinians and Israel.
I will insert here an interesting academic list used by some to describe the political 'rules of the game' for Middle East international relations. It is called the Eastern Question (taken from Matthew Hollands book, America and Egypt: From Roosevelt to Eisenhower).
1. "Alliances and relationships change with every new situation or issue in a series of bewildering tactical moves."
2. ME play major powers to their own political advantage
3. Local problems become entangled in international problems
4. Local moves are made to elicit or reject internat'l support
5. Major powers get involved in the ME for their own advantage, and get entangled in local problems
6. No power, local or internat'l can maintain hegemony over the ME
7. Local and internat'l leaders use 8 main tactics and actions in the ME
a. the 'quick grab'
b. stubborn refusal to accept changes in the status quo
c. refusal to compromise on minor points
d. belief in endless tactical manuevering
e. "diplomatic counterpunching"
f. the habit of using third party negotiators
g. little distinction between tactic and strategy
h. obsession with zero-sum game
US neo-conservative politics have fallen into the traps of this game, and come out with a historical plague of terrorism on the west. The overarching blunder they have made is quick grabs for hegemony in the region; and the consequence has been dire for us and the rest of the world, a fire of terrorism.
All of this leaving Palestinians with no solid, practical ally, and a gaggle of enemies, including erratic Arab states, who may seem like allies one day, and then clam up support the next, for carrots from the West.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 3 cont.
Well, I just don't have time to go and do research for this blog. My thoughts and conclusions come from previous research I did on Lebanon and the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. I do not have those papers readily handy to pick through, nor can I find substantial evidence to support my conclusions online. Most sources seem to either be too shallow of a pool of info or religiously or politically biased.
Anyway, to get this promised portion over with. Egypt has been one of the strongest players in the Middle East, and was and is one of Palestine's biggest supporters. However, in the 1980's their alliance changed significantly toward the West with the promise of aid for infrastructure development. This is the same story with most Arab nations that have switched back and forth between fighting for Palestinian rights and budging toward Israel, including Syria and Iraq.
So, let me balance the picture out a little bit by saying that it is not just the West's want for control of Middle East oil, or power, but the ME's want for American-like economies/infrastructures and US ally-ship in general for their own political purposes that has been driving this maddening back and forth between support for Palestine and effective indifference.
Neo-conservative policies outline US's position of destabilizing the Middle East for the interests of US domination (which include having Israel as a home base for Middle East aggression). But even before that, the existence of the British policy, from the beginning of the 20th century, promising the creation of a Jewish homeland, are driven by religious fervor, and the specter of the Biblical Jewish state has haunted international relations since.
The US recently partnered with Saudi Arabia for sharing and building scientific research. This kind of nation building (or just mere allowance of ME states to develop!) could have and can be used with the rest of the Middle East for good relations, international stability, and building up of valuable ME contributions to the rest of the world.
Obama has showed signs of changing our blind devotion toward Israel, and moving away from neo-conservative dreams of hegemonic control of the region, but he has also showed signs of buckling under pressures of the Israeli lobby.
The question remains, who supports justice for Palestine, and how has persistent injustice in the Middle East led to the growth of terrorist threats to the US and the rest of the world?
Anyway, to get this promised portion over with. Egypt has been one of the strongest players in the Middle East, and was and is one of Palestine's biggest supporters. However, in the 1980's their alliance changed significantly toward the West with the promise of aid for infrastructure development. This is the same story with most Arab nations that have switched back and forth between fighting for Palestinian rights and budging toward Israel, including Syria and Iraq.
So, let me balance the picture out a little bit by saying that it is not just the West's want for control of Middle East oil, or power, but the ME's want for American-like economies/infrastructures and US ally-ship in general for their own political purposes that has been driving this maddening back and forth between support for Palestine and effective indifference.
Neo-conservative policies outline US's position of destabilizing the Middle East for the interests of US domination (which include having Israel as a home base for Middle East aggression). But even before that, the existence of the British policy, from the beginning of the 20th century, promising the creation of a Jewish homeland, are driven by religious fervor, and the specter of the Biblical Jewish state has haunted international relations since.
The US recently partnered with Saudi Arabia for sharing and building scientific research. This kind of nation building (or just mere allowance of ME states to develop!) could have and can be used with the rest of the Middle East for good relations, international stability, and building up of valuable ME contributions to the rest of the world.
Obama has showed signs of changing our blind devotion toward Israel, and moving away from neo-conservative dreams of hegemonic control of the region, but he has also showed signs of buckling under pressures of the Israeli lobby.
The question remains, who supports justice for Palestine, and how has persistent injustice in the Middle East led to the growth of terrorist threats to the US and the rest of the world?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 3
There have been numerous attempts by nations in the Middle East to come to the aid of the Palestinians and in almost all cases were deflected by US diplomacy. Now, almost all Arab countries have had some hand in funding or creating 'terrorist' organizations that covertly work on behalf of the Palestinians and other rankled Arab interests.
Unfortunately, I do not have time today to flesh out this blog...long day...but will continue, continue, continue...
Unfortunately, I do not have time today to flesh out this blog...long day...but will continue, continue, continue...
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Middle East Justice part 2
So, no, the creation of Israel was not just to the Palestinians. Arab nations fought against the move, and Israel claimed even more land after the war. This is really interesting because new international laws after WWII prohibits countries from acquiring territories after a war, but that is just what Israel did. Actually a lot of the claims Israel has made about territory have not been accepted in the wider international community, but no one seems to take action against Israel, in fact, the world seems mystically beholden to Israel's whims...and I have to conclude that this seems to be based on two factors:
1. Religious bias. Christian nations seem to favor Israel no matter what. Which is really weird because Christianity is based on Jesus being the son of the greatest power, and Jewish people do not believe that Jesus is that son. They believe they are the chosen people, not Christians. So, is this bias for Israel some attempt to gain favor with the favored people? Anyhow, it is very confusing to me.
2. The US and its other allies want to have some foothold in the Middle East. The US has systematically blocked Arab nations from forming an Arab Nation. Think about it, this is where civilization was said to start, where mathematics was born, the countries have had the financial and political power of oil. There is financial and intellectual power here, with a rich culture behind it. There is nothing this area lacks to be a power in the world except for political stability, and the US seems to be set against that happening.
Keep in mind, my focus here is Palestine. Palestine, though promised statehood, has no state and has been steadily losing land promised to it in the partition since Israels inception. Arab nations wanted to fight for Palestine, but US and allied interests prevented that. That leaves Palestine with one big enemy and no practical allies. A people without a way to address their grievances. This ability to address grievances is something American thought holds dear to a just way of life, but we do not afford it to Palestine. Consequentially, people without a way to address grievances often resort to violence.
So, what is this Arab Nation? and what did we do to stop it?
I'll leave today with these general thoughts and provide some historical evidence tomorrow. Small bites are better for this touchy subject.
1. Religious bias. Christian nations seem to favor Israel no matter what. Which is really weird because Christianity is based on Jesus being the son of the greatest power, and Jewish people do not believe that Jesus is that son. They believe they are the chosen people, not Christians. So, is this bias for Israel some attempt to gain favor with the favored people? Anyhow, it is very confusing to me.
2. The US and its other allies want to have some foothold in the Middle East. The US has systematically blocked Arab nations from forming an Arab Nation. Think about it, this is where civilization was said to start, where mathematics was born, the countries have had the financial and political power of oil. There is financial and intellectual power here, with a rich culture behind it. There is nothing this area lacks to be a power in the world except for political stability, and the US seems to be set against that happening.
Keep in mind, my focus here is Palestine. Palestine, though promised statehood, has no state and has been steadily losing land promised to it in the partition since Israels inception. Arab nations wanted to fight for Palestine, but US and allied interests prevented that. That leaves Palestine with one big enemy and no practical allies. A people without a way to address their grievances. This ability to address grievances is something American thought holds dear to a just way of life, but we do not afford it to Palestine. Consequentially, people without a way to address grievances often resort to violence.
So, what is this Arab Nation? and what did we do to stop it?
I'll leave today with these general thoughts and provide some historical evidence tomorrow. Small bites are better for this touchy subject.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Back to Middle East Justice
I wanted to continue with this thread after such a forceful post on Saturday. I will be focusing on the Middle East and terrorism for a the next many posts.
I don't share the religious comradery for Israel nor the hyped paranoia against Arab countries that the rest of the Western political world obviously has. The dynamics the West has with the Arab world is key to our most recent wars and the threat of terrorism around the globe. Where to start this conversation, though? Let's start very simply from the beginning. The creation of Israel. I cannot say the creation of Israel and Palestine, because Palestinians do not have a nation state to identify with (and that is part of the problem).
Why was Israel created?
1. After WWII, it became really unpopular for the dominant powers of the world to have imperial colonies, so they countries systematically set 'free' previously colonized geographic regions...one of them being Britain's Palestinian Mandate.
2. Antisemitism was rampant, before, during and after the holocaust- and not just in Germany, but around the world. Many countries refused repatriation of Jewish people and many Jewish people feared to return to previously hostile communities.
So, the international community just DECIDED to create the state of Israel. Protests of the Palestinian people were known, but no diplomatic efforts were made to resolve these seeds of terror before they magically created the new homeland for the Jewish people.
There are many states which were created this way, leaders of dominant nations in a board room with a map and ruler just carving out states without thinking about the social aspect of what they were doing. This strategy is the root of many war torn nations.
So the question I pose is, "Was the initial action of creating the state of Israel a just action toward the Palestinians?"
Let's just start there.
I don't share the religious comradery for Israel nor the hyped paranoia against Arab countries that the rest of the Western political world obviously has. The dynamics the West has with the Arab world is key to our most recent wars and the threat of terrorism around the globe. Where to start this conversation, though? Let's start very simply from the beginning. The creation of Israel. I cannot say the creation of Israel and Palestine, because Palestinians do not have a nation state to identify with (and that is part of the problem).
Why was Israel created?
1. After WWII, it became really unpopular for the dominant powers of the world to have imperial colonies, so they countries systematically set 'free' previously colonized geographic regions...one of them being Britain's Palestinian Mandate.
2. Antisemitism was rampant, before, during and after the holocaust- and not just in Germany, but around the world. Many countries refused repatriation of Jewish people and many Jewish people feared to return to previously hostile communities.
So, the international community just DECIDED to create the state of Israel. Protests of the Palestinian people were known, but no diplomatic efforts were made to resolve these seeds of terror before they magically created the new homeland for the Jewish people.
There are many states which were created this way, leaders of dominant nations in a board room with a map and ruler just carving out states without thinking about the social aspect of what they were doing. This strategy is the root of many war torn nations.
So the question I pose is, "Was the initial action of creating the state of Israel a just action toward the Palestinians?"
Let's just start there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)