Education and the Common Good
30/12/10 15:43 Filed in: Education | social justice
Stanley Fish comments on the proposed legislation in the UK that would change the way higher education is paid for and how money is allocated to different disciplines in higher education. One might wonder whether we need yet another article decrying the fate of higher education in the contemporary world. One might also wonder why this blog would once more comment on the plight of higher education in the contemporary world. We know my position, right? And we know what’s at stake, right? Then let people make their decisions.
While some truth attends to the idea that a lot has already been said -- maybe even too much -- I think Fish points out something inadvertently and, seemingly, without realizing it, but something that proves very important to the conversation. Fish writes
“Higher education is no longer conceived of as a public good — as a good the effects of which permeate society — but is rather a private benefit, and as such it should be supported by those who enjoy the benefit. “It is reasonable to ask those who gain private benefits from higher education to help fund it rather than rely . . . on public funds collected through taxation from people who have not participated in higher education themselves.” No one who has not been to a university has any stake in the health or survival of the system.”
Higher education is no longer seen as a public good. Another way of saying this is that higher education is no longer seen as a common good. In fact, the very notion of common good has lost any real meaning in the contemporary world. Money constitutes the only common good, and that because it comprises something common between every one’s private good.
The common good, however, cannot be understood simply as the sum of every private good in society. Education exemplifies this point.
Educators fear, especially those of us in the humanities and social sciences, that privatizing education will entail that certain disciplines -- those that are not seem to correspond on a one-to-one basis with money and jobs -- will disappear through lack of funding. Imagine, though, what society would be like if this scenario truly resulted. The world would be without studies in literature, in philosophy, in psychology, or in political science.
So what, someone might ask, what good do those do us anyway? Or, maybe, someone will respond, no, philosophy doesn’t depend on being educated in philosophy.
Yet, we generally judge those societies without literature and without philosophy to be less valuable than those with literature and philosophy. Literature, philosophy, and political science, among other fields of knowledge, constitute real common goods -- goods that people share, that cannot be privatized, and that make society better just from being part of the culture. A society without them -- a people without them -- are impoverished and less human.
The real question, then, in the debates over higher education is a question about the common good -- whether there is any such common good, and what responsibility we as a society have to support that common good -- even if it produces no utilitarian results for us.
While some truth attends to the idea that a lot has already been said -- maybe even too much -- I think Fish points out something inadvertently and, seemingly, without realizing it, but something that proves very important to the conversation. Fish writes
“Higher education is no longer conceived of as a public good — as a good the effects of which permeate society — but is rather a private benefit, and as such it should be supported by those who enjoy the benefit. “It is reasonable to ask those who gain private benefits from higher education to help fund it rather than rely . . . on public funds collected through taxation from people who have not participated in higher education themselves.” No one who has not been to a university has any stake in the health or survival of the system.”
Higher education is no longer seen as a public good. Another way of saying this is that higher education is no longer seen as a common good. In fact, the very notion of common good has lost any real meaning in the contemporary world. Money constitutes the only common good, and that because it comprises something common between every one’s private good.
The common good, however, cannot be understood simply as the sum of every private good in society. Education exemplifies this point.
Educators fear, especially those of us in the humanities and social sciences, that privatizing education will entail that certain disciplines -- those that are not seem to correspond on a one-to-one basis with money and jobs -- will disappear through lack of funding. Imagine, though, what society would be like if this scenario truly resulted. The world would be without studies in literature, in philosophy, in psychology, or in political science.
So what, someone might ask, what good do those do us anyway? Or, maybe, someone will respond, no, philosophy doesn’t depend on being educated in philosophy.
Yet, we generally judge those societies without literature and without philosophy to be less valuable than those with literature and philosophy. Literature, philosophy, and political science, among other fields of knowledge, constitute real common goods -- goods that people share, that cannot be privatized, and that make society better just from being part of the culture. A society without them -- a people without them -- are impoverished and less human.
The real question, then, in the debates over higher education is a question about the common good -- whether there is any such common good, and what responsibility we as a society have to support that common good -- even if it produces no utilitarian results for us.
Comments
Dystopia Now
27/12/10 15:02 Filed in: social justice | Popular Culture
Christ Hedges paints a powerful and depressing picture. He argues that we are moving from the Huxley depicted dystopia of inane pleasure to the Orwellian dystopia of pure terror. Is he right? I hope not.
Clearly, though, we have been living in a Huxley-like Brave New World for several decades now. Alcohol serves as our soma, and, for many people, marijuana also serves. We argue about when, where, and how much we can ingest, ignoring other important rights that we might claim -- like the right to work at a living wage that can support our children in school and provide us a comfortable retirement. We buy into the system by constantly buying, due to the credit that we amassed over the last decades. As soon as we enter college, we are bombarded with offers of credit, credit in the form of low-interest loans to pay for our education and credit cards to purchase our pizza and beer for the weekends. Our lives often center around getting to the weekend because work is so painful.
Yet, we never question this. Oh, we are told to find work we love: “do what you love, and the money will follow.” How many of us have that luxury? And if we happen to fall out of work, well, it was because we didn’t work hard enough.
What do we do now? That is the question, really, that Hedges is asking. We can continue to move into the Orwellian hell that every high schooler learns about, or we can unite and stand up against the corporate culture.
Alasdair MacIntyre, of whom I’ve written before, predicted in 1981 that we were headed for a new dark ages ruled by the corporate and state bureaucrats. He declared we needed a new Benedict to lead us to a new way of life in the coming dark ages. If Hedges is right, then we still need that new Benedict.
Unlike the peoples of late antiquity, we have had warning upon warning in the form of dystopian novels and philosophers like MacIntyre. Yet, I wonder if we’ve listened at all to these prophets.
I am hoping in 2011, we do so more.
Clearly, though, we have been living in a Huxley-like Brave New World for several decades now. Alcohol serves as our soma, and, for many people, marijuana also serves. We argue about when, where, and how much we can ingest, ignoring other important rights that we might claim -- like the right to work at a living wage that can support our children in school and provide us a comfortable retirement. We buy into the system by constantly buying, due to the credit that we amassed over the last decades. As soon as we enter college, we are bombarded with offers of credit, credit in the form of low-interest loans to pay for our education and credit cards to purchase our pizza and beer for the weekends. Our lives often center around getting to the weekend because work is so painful.
Yet, we never question this. Oh, we are told to find work we love: “do what you love, and the money will follow.” How many of us have that luxury? And if we happen to fall out of work, well, it was because we didn’t work hard enough.
What do we do now? That is the question, really, that Hedges is asking. We can continue to move into the Orwellian hell that every high schooler learns about, or we can unite and stand up against the corporate culture.
Alasdair MacIntyre, of whom I’ve written before, predicted in 1981 that we were headed for a new dark ages ruled by the corporate and state bureaucrats. He declared we needed a new Benedict to lead us to a new way of life in the coming dark ages. If Hedges is right, then we still need that new Benedict.
Unlike the peoples of late antiquity, we have had warning upon warning in the form of dystopian novels and philosophers like MacIntyre. Yet, I wonder if we’ve listened at all to these prophets.
I am hoping in 2011, we do so more.
Conservative and Liberals in the Academy
23/12/10 17:04 Filed in: Education | social justice
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/were-all-conservatives-now/
Stanley Fish, in an article about higher education, claims that the people on the left and the right want the same thing in education: an education that leads to enlightenment. When liberals decry the corporate take-over of higher education through the reduction of taxes that support higher education or the move to privatize education and conservatives condemn predominant liberal-slant of higher education programs, they both reference the same ideal of the university. This ideal, for Fish, is that of university which seeks to “expand its knowledge . . . to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment.”
I find Fish’s take questionable. I have not been around as long as Fish, and hope someday that I will be, but I’ve been to a number of higher institutions. None of them have been particularly left-leaning. The programs which would tend to be left-leaning, the women’s studies programs or the African-American programs, are generally underfunded, do not offer majors, and are staffed by professors in other departments. Maybe my experience is selective, and I hope so. We need more diversity in higher education, not less.
Which brings me to the heart of my disagreement with Fish’s take. A system which turns to private dollars for education cannot support the ultimate goal of expanding knowledge, of ridding the current fields of knowledge of their errors, or of increasing enlightenment. Isn’t it time to stop and wonder why the increase in relativism in higher education coincides with the increased privatization and corporate manipulation of higher education. Relativism belongs, not only to the left, but as much if not more to the right. Relativism removes the possibility of establishing firm moral grounds and opens the door to corporate interests to influence research and teaching.
I’m not rejecting Fish’s take altogether. I’m simply suggesting the story he offers is too simplistic and the parallels he draws between the left and the right with respect to higher education need more careful thought. Only a higher education funded by public -- not private -- dollars can really answer the important questions here, and that seems to be the main difference between the conservative the liberal takes on these basic issues.
Stanley Fish, in an article about higher education, claims that the people on the left and the right want the same thing in education: an education that leads to enlightenment. When liberals decry the corporate take-over of higher education through the reduction of taxes that support higher education or the move to privatize education and conservatives condemn predominant liberal-slant of higher education programs, they both reference the same ideal of the university. This ideal, for Fish, is that of university which seeks to “expand its knowledge . . . to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment.”
I find Fish’s take questionable. I have not been around as long as Fish, and hope someday that I will be, but I’ve been to a number of higher institutions. None of them have been particularly left-leaning. The programs which would tend to be left-leaning, the women’s studies programs or the African-American programs, are generally underfunded, do not offer majors, and are staffed by professors in other departments. Maybe my experience is selective, and I hope so. We need more diversity in higher education, not less.
Which brings me to the heart of my disagreement with Fish’s take. A system which turns to private dollars for education cannot support the ultimate goal of expanding knowledge, of ridding the current fields of knowledge of their errors, or of increasing enlightenment. Isn’t it time to stop and wonder why the increase in relativism in higher education coincides with the increased privatization and corporate manipulation of higher education. Relativism belongs, not only to the left, but as much if not more to the right. Relativism removes the possibility of establishing firm moral grounds and opens the door to corporate interests to influence research and teaching.
I’m not rejecting Fish’s take altogether. I’m simply suggesting the story he offers is too simplistic and the parallels he draws between the left and the right with respect to higher education need more careful thought. Only a higher education funded by public -- not private -- dollars can really answer the important questions here, and that seems to be the main difference between the conservative the liberal takes on these basic issues.
Skills of Hand & Brain & Eye
22/12/10 14:26 Filed in: Human Nature
“The essential failure of capitalism is that the kind of society which capitalism creates is one that can never fully employ the skills of hand and brain and eye, the exercise of which is part of man’s true being” (Alasdair MacIntyre’s Engagement with Marxism, p. 6)
A recent report on NPR discussed the frustration parents have with their children playing violent video games. A recent study showed, they reported, that children who play video games have increased spatial recognition and other cognitive abilities over those who do. Supposedly, someone who plays a video game uses a different part of the brain to perceive space than do people who do not play video games. Thus, it takes those who do not play video games more time to process spatial reasoning abilities. This effect lasts for two years after someone has stopped playing the video game.
I think this finding is interesting on a number of levels.
On one level, it asks us what is the cost of improving our brains in this manner viz., playing violent video games? Also, it raises the question about whether the video games that are played must be violent?
On another level, it brings in the notion of skills versus virtues and those things “the exercise of which is part of [humanity’s] true being.” Those familiar with MacIntyre know that he later writes of skills within the context of practices. Practices are defined with respect to the internal goods that define the good and the way that a practice, as opposed to other human activities, human powers and the human conception of the good. This emphasis on practice over skills marks a qualitative change from MacIntyre’s position in the quote above: the issue is not just skills. But it remains those things which constitute part of humanity’s true being.
Which brings us to the third level: what is humanity’s true being?
This question constitutes the fundamental question of philosophy and religion. It also should be one we ask at certain times through the year: Christmas and Easter being one of those times, but also at our birthdays and anniversaries.
It comprises a question that every one ask or risk leading a worthless life.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” -- Socrates
A recent report on NPR discussed the frustration parents have with their children playing violent video games. A recent study showed, they reported, that children who play video games have increased spatial recognition and other cognitive abilities over those who do. Supposedly, someone who plays a video game uses a different part of the brain to perceive space than do people who do not play video games. Thus, it takes those who do not play video games more time to process spatial reasoning abilities. This effect lasts for two years after someone has stopped playing the video game.
I think this finding is interesting on a number of levels.
On one level, it asks us what is the cost of improving our brains in this manner viz., playing violent video games? Also, it raises the question about whether the video games that are played must be violent?
On another level, it brings in the notion of skills versus virtues and those things “the exercise of which is part of [humanity’s] true being.” Those familiar with MacIntyre know that he later writes of skills within the context of practices. Practices are defined with respect to the internal goods that define the good and the way that a practice, as opposed to other human activities, human powers and the human conception of the good. This emphasis on practice over skills marks a qualitative change from MacIntyre’s position in the quote above: the issue is not just skills. But it remains those things which constitute part of humanity’s true being.
Which brings us to the third level: what is humanity’s true being?
This question constitutes the fundamental question of philosophy and religion. It also should be one we ask at certain times through the year: Christmas and Easter being one of those times, but also at our birthdays and anniversaries.
It comprises a question that every one ask or risk leading a worthless life.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” -- Socrates
True Failure of Capitalism
21/12/10 11:51 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | social justice
“The essential failure of capitalism is that the kind of society which capitalism creates is one that can never fully employ the skills of hand and brain and eye, the exercise of which is part of man’s true being” (Alasdair MacIntyre’s Engagement with Marxism, p. 6)
I’m thinking about this quote on several levels. Today, I will focus on the issue of the essential failure of capitalism.
The claim MacIntyre makes here is a claim about the moral failure of capitalism. The inability to employ those things which are part of our true being constitutes a moral issue in the fullest sense. So MacIntyre steps away from the Marxist analysis of capitalism as simply a poor step in the progress of history to the full freedom humanity will find at the end of history. Rather, he is pointing out that capitalism does not simply fail as a failed moment of history or as a moment of history that another stage will supercede.
We should look at this claim carefully at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. We should look at this claim carefully as capitalism has triumphed recently in America with the move toward a more corporate-friendly policy in Washington and across the world. We should look at this claim carefully as we stare out into the world looking for an alternative economic system.
We should look at this claim carefully as we celebrate the Christmas season -- the season of giving and of love.
I call to mind the third-fourth century saint, Nicholas of Myra, who was born of a wealthy family, but used his wealth to help others. Consider that famous story of how he three three bags of gold coins into the window of a man who could not marry off his daughters. That story embodies the truth MacIntyre points at: prostitution comprises a system in which the individuals involved cannot employ those things that make us most human. We can argue about whether marriage, especially arranged marriages at the end of the classic period, allowed such fruition for women. The point, however, is that Christian love and humanism require us to use our goods to support the flourishing, not only of ourselves -- which is centrally important -- but of those in our community who are most in need.
Capitalism can never allow that, mainly because capitalism cannot allow humanity to flourish. Oh, individuals can flourish, but a truly good city is one in which each member flourishes.
I’m thinking about this quote on several levels. Today, I will focus on the issue of the essential failure of capitalism.
The claim MacIntyre makes here is a claim about the moral failure of capitalism. The inability to employ those things which are part of our true being constitutes a moral issue in the fullest sense. So MacIntyre steps away from the Marxist analysis of capitalism as simply a poor step in the progress of history to the full freedom humanity will find at the end of history. Rather, he is pointing out that capitalism does not simply fail as a failed moment of history or as a moment of history that another stage will supercede.
We should look at this claim carefully at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. We should look at this claim carefully as capitalism has triumphed recently in America with the move toward a more corporate-friendly policy in Washington and across the world. We should look at this claim carefully as we stare out into the world looking for an alternative economic system.
We should look at this claim carefully as we celebrate the Christmas season -- the season of giving and of love.
I call to mind the third-fourth century saint, Nicholas of Myra, who was born of a wealthy family, but used his wealth to help others. Consider that famous story of how he three three bags of gold coins into the window of a man who could not marry off his daughters. That story embodies the truth MacIntyre points at: prostitution comprises a system in which the individuals involved cannot employ those things that make us most human. We can argue about whether marriage, especially arranged marriages at the end of the classic period, allowed such fruition for women. The point, however, is that Christian love and humanism require us to use our goods to support the flourishing, not only of ourselves -- which is centrally important -- but of those in our community who are most in need.
Capitalism can never allow that, mainly because capitalism cannot allow humanity to flourish. Oh, individuals can flourish, but a truly good city is one in which each member flourishes.
Lazy, Crazy, and Me
20/12/10 16:42 Filed in: social justice
http://www.truth-out.org/why-lazy-jobless-myth-persists66059
It’s an unfortunate circumstance: millions of people are out of work, 99.9% of them through no fault of their own. As a matter of fact, without unemployment, capitalism would not be able to survive as it does. Some people must be out of work so that wages remain low. Many others have been cut because (1) their job has moved out of country for lower wages, (2) they were cut so that the bottom line could remain high, or (3) the business they worked for tanked because the economy tanked.
Instead of recognizing the truth of unemployment, however, that people fall into unfortunate circumstances often caused by others to protect their bottom line, we make up myths about the unemployed, most particularly that the unemployed are either lazy, crazy, or both. These myths, as the article linked above says, protect our self image and work as defense mechanisms in frightening times like the ones in which we live.
What’s crazy is that we as a people, as a country, continue to buy into the same lies and policy decisions year after year, election cycle after election cycle. Crazy is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.
Let’s wake up and do something different, something that will protect people and that will allow each and every person to achieve full integral development.
It’s an unfortunate circumstance: millions of people are out of work, 99.9% of them through no fault of their own. As a matter of fact, without unemployment, capitalism would not be able to survive as it does. Some people must be out of work so that wages remain low. Many others have been cut because (1) their job has moved out of country for lower wages, (2) they were cut so that the bottom line could remain high, or (3) the business they worked for tanked because the economy tanked.
Instead of recognizing the truth of unemployment, however, that people fall into unfortunate circumstances often caused by others to protect their bottom line, we make up myths about the unemployed, most particularly that the unemployed are either lazy, crazy, or both. These myths, as the article linked above says, protect our self image and work as defense mechanisms in frightening times like the ones in which we live.
What’s crazy is that we as a people, as a country, continue to buy into the same lies and policy decisions year after year, election cycle after election cycle. Crazy is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.
Let’s wake up and do something different, something that will protect people and that will allow each and every person to achieve full integral development.
War and Spending
19/12/10 12:08 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/17/house-overwhelmingly-approves-new-725-billion-military-spending-bill/
In more government news, congress passed the largest military budget in history, totaling $725 billion!
The hubris in passing such a bill with such a large majority of congress voting for it calls to mind the saying that “a government’s budget is an ethical statement because it shows the priorities.” How many of these people voted for tax breaks for the rich and threatened to withhold voting to extend unemployment benefits?
How can we justify this expenditure when we are cutting the social security tax by 2%? The military faces no threat of being underfunded whereas we know that social security will run out of funds by 2047 or before.
Much more can be said about this bill, but I think it is enough to keep in mind that this is the Christmas season -- the season of peace -- and that we clearly know the priorities of the US government.
Which means we know the priorities of the citizens of the United States.
In more government news, congress passed the largest military budget in history, totaling $725 billion!
The hubris in passing such a bill with such a large majority of congress voting for it calls to mind the saying that “a government’s budget is an ethical statement because it shows the priorities.” How many of these people voted for tax breaks for the rich and threatened to withhold voting to extend unemployment benefits?
How can we justify this expenditure when we are cutting the social security tax by 2%? The military faces no threat of being underfunded whereas we know that social security will run out of funds by 2047 or before.
Much more can be said about this bill, but I think it is enough to keep in mind that this is the Christmas season -- the season of peace -- and that we clearly know the priorities of the US government.
Which means we know the priorities of the citizens of the United States.
Anti-Dawkins by Dover
17/12/10 14:18 Filed in: Human Nature
I just read an article by Gabrielle Dover called “Anti-Dawkins” which both points out the fallacies of Dawkins’ selfish-gene theory and proposes an alternative to the selfish-gene theory. The argument and the new proposal rest on something biologists have known for some time: genes interact with each other. The fact that they interact with each other tells against the idea that a gene acts selfishly only to reproduce itself. It cannot do this when interacting with other genes, and genes never act in isolation. Second, we can see, so Dover argues, that through modularity, the ways genes interact gene within individual genotypes -- within individual organisms. These changes can be neutral with respect to reproductivity. Yet, if passed on through a population they might later on become important in responding to new environmental stimuli. So a once-neutral trait might be become an exaptation in a new environment. Ian Tattersall suggests that language is such an exaptation.
Part of our problem as a culture, as Dover nicely points out, and as has been pointed out before by the likes of Mary Midgley and Stephen Jay Gould, among others, is that we believe that each gene selects for one particular trait. We would do well to rid ourselves of this false belief which acts, in the case of Dawkins’ selfish gene, on which evolutionary psychology rests, as an ideology.
Part of our problem as a culture, as Dover nicely points out, and as has been pointed out before by the likes of Mary Midgley and Stephen Jay Gould, among others, is that we believe that each gene selects for one particular trait. We would do well to rid ourselves of this false belief which acts, in the case of Dawkins’ selfish gene, on which evolutionary psychology rests, as an ideology.
Recovery AND Recession
17/12/10 12:41 Filed in: social justice
“Profits owe their V-shape in great part to employment’s L-shape.”
People ask me if the rich getting richer really mean that the middle class and the poor get poorer. Don’t we just increase economic growth, and those at the top are winners because they knew when to invest and had the money to invest?
The answer is quite simply no. We do not have an ability to create wealth out of nothing or to increase wealth on an infinite time line. If there are winners, it often means there are losers. This win-lose situation does not necessarily mean that the winners intend to harm the losers -- it might just be the system. Yet, in this financial market, over the last 40 years, we’ve seen time and time again evidence of the rich pushing programs that support tax breaks for themselves and prevented legislation to improve wages. Their claims that tax breaks to the rich produces jobs has been shown not to be true over and over in the last 40 years. This strikes me as intentional infelicity.
We can have economic recovery and we can live at a moderately well-off level if we set up our system to produce those goals. We can wipe out most poverty and certainly end hunger throughout the United States and the world. But those goals require an intention to make it happen and a will as well. Will means that we -- every one of us -- rise up and demand that tax codes and government policy stop favoring the rich at the expense of the poor.
The quote above is from http://www.truth-out.org/the-greatest-recovery-part-i66040?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TRUTHOUT+%28t+r+u+t+h+o+u+t+|+News+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
People ask me if the rich getting richer really mean that the middle class and the poor get poorer. Don’t we just increase economic growth, and those at the top are winners because they knew when to invest and had the money to invest?
The answer is quite simply no. We do not have an ability to create wealth out of nothing or to increase wealth on an infinite time line. If there are winners, it often means there are losers. This win-lose situation does not necessarily mean that the winners intend to harm the losers -- it might just be the system. Yet, in this financial market, over the last 40 years, we’ve seen time and time again evidence of the rich pushing programs that support tax breaks for themselves and prevented legislation to improve wages. Their claims that tax breaks to the rich produces jobs has been shown not to be true over and over in the last 40 years. This strikes me as intentional infelicity.
We can have economic recovery and we can live at a moderately well-off level if we set up our system to produce those goals. We can wipe out most poverty and certainly end hunger throughout the United States and the world. But those goals require an intention to make it happen and a will as well. Will means that we -- every one of us -- rise up and demand that tax codes and government policy stop favoring the rich at the expense of the poor.
The quote above is from http://www.truth-out.org/the-greatest-recovery-part-i66040?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TRUTHOUT+%28t+r+u+t+h+o+u+t+|+News+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
American Indigenous Tribes Are Nations
17/12/10 12:26 Filed in: social justice
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101217/AGENCY04/12170304/
In at least one step he’s gotten right in the last weeks of this turbulent year, President Obama has signed the United Nations treaty that recognizes indigenous peoples are independent nations. This means that the 565 recognized indigenous tribal groups in North Americans -- Native Americans, if you will, are sovereign nations. With good will and honesty, this move means that these Nations should be consulted on future decisions concerning their lands and practices.
This move is a great step forward in recognizing the dignity of people who had developed many wonderful cultures and practices before Europeans brought disease and war to the Americas that wiped out 90% of millions of first nation peoples. It’s way past time for Americans to fess up to the horrors they’ve committed throughout history against the Native Americans and have continued to commit. For example, the U.S. Government wants to open new uranium mines in North and South Dakota when they have failed to close off ones that they no longer use. Incidence of cancer is thousands of times higher on reservations than outside of reservations because of these open uranium mines.
Perhaps this recognition of national sovereignty signifies a move forward on the right path that will continue into the future.
In at least one step he’s gotten right in the last weeks of this turbulent year, President Obama has signed the United Nations treaty that recognizes indigenous peoples are independent nations. This means that the 565 recognized indigenous tribal groups in North Americans -- Native Americans, if you will, are sovereign nations. With good will and honesty, this move means that these Nations should be consulted on future decisions concerning their lands and practices.
This move is a great step forward in recognizing the dignity of people who had developed many wonderful cultures and practices before Europeans brought disease and war to the Americas that wiped out 90% of millions of first nation peoples. It’s way past time for Americans to fess up to the horrors they’ve committed throughout history against the Native Americans and have continued to commit. For example, the U.S. Government wants to open new uranium mines in North and South Dakota when they have failed to close off ones that they no longer use. Incidence of cancer is thousands of times higher on reservations than outside of reservations because of these open uranium mines.
Perhaps this recognition of national sovereignty signifies a move forward on the right path that will continue into the future.
More From Bernie Sanders: Break Up Banks
16/12/10 14:11 Filed in: social justice
In his personal fillibuster concerning the tax deal “compromise” worked out between Republican senators and Obama, Bernie Sanders said
“In my view, if we are serious about understanding why the middle class is collapsing, if we are serious about getting this economy moving again long term, we have to have the courage to do exactly what Teddy Roosevelt did back in the trust-busting days and break up these banks.”
He is exactly right. The correct approach in the lat bank debacle was, first, to bail out the system, and then to break up the banks -- the mega-conglomerates which control most of the money in the world. If something is too big to fail, then it is too big to let stand as is. We cannot let any one individual or corporation control our lives to such an extent that we have to sacrifice ourselves for their personal benefit, especially on this scale.
We as individuals can do two things: first, we can pressure our representatives to break up the banks, something they have been reluctant to do. Second, we, as individuals, can take our money out of the national and international banks and put our money into credit unions. Credit unions help their communities, are more likely to loan to small businesses -- which, by the way, are the main job creators -- and are more likely to give and to give higher dividends to your checking and savings accounts. This suggestion came from Michael Moore months ago, and whether you like him or not, it’s a great idea. Take control of your investments, invest in your local communities, by investing in credit unions.
“In my view, if we are serious about understanding why the middle class is collapsing, if we are serious about getting this economy moving again long term, we have to have the courage to do exactly what Teddy Roosevelt did back in the trust-busting days and break up these banks.”
He is exactly right. The correct approach in the lat bank debacle was, first, to bail out the system, and then to break up the banks -- the mega-conglomerates which control most of the money in the world. If something is too big to fail, then it is too big to let stand as is. We cannot let any one individual or corporation control our lives to such an extent that we have to sacrifice ourselves for their personal benefit, especially on this scale.
We as individuals can do two things: first, we can pressure our representatives to break up the banks, something they have been reluctant to do. Second, we, as individuals, can take our money out of the national and international banks and put our money into credit unions. Credit unions help their communities, are more likely to loan to small businesses -- which, by the way, are the main job creators -- and are more likely to give and to give higher dividends to your checking and savings accounts. This suggestion came from Michael Moore months ago, and whether you like him or not, it’s a great idea. Take control of your investments, invest in your local communities, by investing in credit unions.
Jencks on Genes, Cultures, Freedom
16/12/10 13:06 Filed in: Human Nature
Jencks, in his article, EP, Phone Home, takes on the nature versus nurture, or gene versus culture, debate and, in particular, the claims of evolutionary psychology. In particular, for Jencks, evolutionary psychology claims that human behavior can be explained by reference to “epigenetic rules” programmed in our genes some half a million years ago, when hominids first walked the steppes of Africa. Jencks main complaint against evolutionary psychology is that EP is unable to account for human freedom.
We can look at, for instance, sneezing, sex, and art. Sneezing is more biological determined than is sex, but each allow a modicum of freedom. For example, how someone sneezes or what they say when they sneeze, or, with sex, the various positions or approaches to sex that vary from culture to culture. Art, however, seems to comprise an arena in which human beings actualize maximum freedom, because good art defies rules. Jencks attacks, in particular, E. O. Wilson’s account of beauty as an expression of epigenetic rules that map out how human beings respond to certain levels of complexity and repetition in a piece of art work or in nature.
While I think that Jencks article lacks a detailed argument, surely he is on the right track here. In particular, Jencks emphasizes what other theorists have said before, especially Mary Midgley and Alasdair MacIntyre, both of whom have, in my opinion, a fairly Aristotelian approach. We cannot reduce discussions of human nature to the either/or dichotomies that have framed the debate about human nature in the West for millennia. In fact, a frank look at culture and biology show that nature and nurture cannot be the only answer to human behavior, though they provide the foundation for human freedom. Or, I should say, that nature and nurture -- genes and culture -- provide the conditions within which human beings, and other pre-linguistic rational animals -- exercise what Thomas Aquinas calls free choice.
Understanding this relationship proves essential for addressing the claims of determinists, on the one side, social constructivists, on the other, and existentialist on the third.
We can look at, for instance, sneezing, sex, and art. Sneezing is more biological determined than is sex, but each allow a modicum of freedom. For example, how someone sneezes or what they say when they sneeze, or, with sex, the various positions or approaches to sex that vary from culture to culture. Art, however, seems to comprise an arena in which human beings actualize maximum freedom, because good art defies rules. Jencks attacks, in particular, E. O. Wilson’s account of beauty as an expression of epigenetic rules that map out how human beings respond to certain levels of complexity and repetition in a piece of art work or in nature.
While I think that Jencks article lacks a detailed argument, surely he is on the right track here. In particular, Jencks emphasizes what other theorists have said before, especially Mary Midgley and Alasdair MacIntyre, both of whom have, in my opinion, a fairly Aristotelian approach. We cannot reduce discussions of human nature to the either/or dichotomies that have framed the debate about human nature in the West for millennia. In fact, a frank look at culture and biology show that nature and nurture cannot be the only answer to human behavior, though they provide the foundation for human freedom. Or, I should say, that nature and nurture -- genes and culture -- provide the conditions within which human beings, and other pre-linguistic rational animals -- exercise what Thomas Aquinas calls free choice.
Understanding this relationship proves essential for addressing the claims of determinists, on the one side, social constructivists, on the other, and existentialist on the third.
If you're smart and want it
15/12/10 10:42 Filed in: social justice
Found on a response to an article about the tax deal:
“There isn't a finite amount of money in the USA - anyone can be rich if they plan and save and work and have some brains and initiative. And if you save some of it and/or are very successful at what you do in your life, then it belongs to YOU and you should be able to do with it as you please when you die.”
First, there may not be a limited amount of money in one sense, because we can always print more. That way, of course, leads to inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. In another real sense, however, a reality that smacks us in the face everyday, wealth cannot be created without limit. Not unless we discover a replicator like in Star Trek or they finally work out cold fusion. The earth is finite, and our continuing use of the resources like it is infinite is destroying us. This belief in the infinity of wealth, though, goes back as far, at least, as John Locke who thought the whole world was like early America -- an infinity of resources. Reality has told us it is not.
Second, this response goes back to my post from yesterday. If you earn the money, then it is YOURS. Who taught you how to earn money? What society created tax codes that allowed you to keep the money you earned? Or better, failed to close tax loop holes that allowed you to keep money you earned? This belief that what I earn is mine epitomizes the individualism that plagues our country. Money -- wealth -- is created within and because of a community that provides opportunities for wealth to be created. The wealth is as much a product of the community as it is of any one or several individuals.
Thomas Aquinas understood this, when he held that the right to property was a utility right. Individuals have a right to property because it is the best way to steward that property for the community. Stewardship, however, goes against individualism.
Finally, it is simply hubris and blindness that allows anyone to believe that anyone can be rich. If that were so, we would not have over one billion people living in near-starvation or starvation conditions.
“There isn't a finite amount of money in the USA - anyone can be rich if they plan and save and work and have some brains and initiative. And if you save some of it and/or are very successful at what you do in your life, then it belongs to YOU and you should be able to do with it as you please when you die.”
First, there may not be a limited amount of money in one sense, because we can always print more. That way, of course, leads to inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. In another real sense, however, a reality that smacks us in the face everyday, wealth cannot be created without limit. Not unless we discover a replicator like in Star Trek or they finally work out cold fusion. The earth is finite, and our continuing use of the resources like it is infinite is destroying us. This belief in the infinity of wealth, though, goes back as far, at least, as John Locke who thought the whole world was like early America -- an infinity of resources. Reality has told us it is not.
Second, this response goes back to my post from yesterday. If you earn the money, then it is YOURS. Who taught you how to earn money? What society created tax codes that allowed you to keep the money you earned? Or better, failed to close tax loop holes that allowed you to keep money you earned? This belief that what I earn is mine epitomizes the individualism that plagues our country. Money -- wealth -- is created within and because of a community that provides opportunities for wealth to be created. The wealth is as much a product of the community as it is of any one or several individuals.
Thomas Aquinas understood this, when he held that the right to property was a utility right. Individuals have a right to property because it is the best way to steward that property for the community. Stewardship, however, goes against individualism.
Finally, it is simply hubris and blindness that allows anyone to believe that anyone can be rich. If that were so, we would not have over one billion people living in near-starvation or starvation conditions.
Individualism as the Root Problem
14/12/10 15:25 Filed in: social justice
From Bernie Sanders:
“Their ultimate aim is the basic repeal of almost all of the provisions that have been passed in the last 70 years to protect working people, the elderly, and children. They believe in a Darwinian-style society in which you have the survival of the fittest; that we are not a society which comes together to take care of all of us. You take care of me in need and I take care of you and your family; that we are one people. Their strategy is pretty clear. They want to ultimately destroy Social Security.”
What Bernie Sanders did, standing before the senate for over 8 hours, pointing out the problems with the legislation that the Republicans and Obama “compromised” on for taxes is remarkable. What is more remarkable is how he gets to some of the core issues plaguing our nation. One of those issues is that of individualism.
Many people in our country, not only Republicans but also Democrats, embrace an individualism that believes we are individuals responsible for our selves and that we receive nothing from anyone. It is a denial of human nature, a denial of reality. We are, as Alasdair MacIntyre argues, essentially vulnerable beings dependent on a community for the development of our independence. We are not alligators who can scramble from our mothers wombs and fend for ourselves. Even when we mature, we human beings are communal beings who rely on each other for support in our development as fully flourishing individuals.
A healthy tax system would respect this aspect of our nature and would be designed to promote the full integral development of all human beings in the commonwealth. That means, jobs with a living wage for each person, health care -- because we never know when or who will get sick or for how long, education -- not education for a job but education for being citizens who can determine our future and the future of our society, because we learn what we need for a job ON the job. This list is just a start, but it undermines any argument for a tax break for the richest of the rich.
Whatever happened to “United we stand, divided we fall”?
“Their ultimate aim is the basic repeal of almost all of the provisions that have been passed in the last 70 years to protect working people, the elderly, and children. They believe in a Darwinian-style society in which you have the survival of the fittest; that we are not a society which comes together to take care of all of us. You take care of me in need and I take care of you and your family; that we are one people. Their strategy is pretty clear. They want to ultimately destroy Social Security.”
What Bernie Sanders did, standing before the senate for over 8 hours, pointing out the problems with the legislation that the Republicans and Obama “compromised” on for taxes is remarkable. What is more remarkable is how he gets to some of the core issues plaguing our nation. One of those issues is that of individualism.
Many people in our country, not only Republicans but also Democrats, embrace an individualism that believes we are individuals responsible for our selves and that we receive nothing from anyone. It is a denial of human nature, a denial of reality. We are, as Alasdair MacIntyre argues, essentially vulnerable beings dependent on a community for the development of our independence. We are not alligators who can scramble from our mothers wombs and fend for ourselves. Even when we mature, we human beings are communal beings who rely on each other for support in our development as fully flourishing individuals.
A healthy tax system would respect this aspect of our nature and would be designed to promote the full integral development of all human beings in the commonwealth. That means, jobs with a living wage for each person, health care -- because we never know when or who will get sick or for how long, education -- not education for a job but education for being citizens who can determine our future and the future of our society, because we learn what we need for a job ON the job. This list is just a start, but it undermines any argument for a tax break for the richest of the rich.
Whatever happened to “United we stand, divided we fall”?
Bernie Sanders Speech on Economy
05/12/10 12:15 Filed in: social justice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY&feature=player_embedded
This video shows Senator Bernie Sanders’ speech in the Senate discussing the extension of tax cuts for the middle class and against those for the richest Americans. His speech is passionate and rational. He points out that the economic crisis and the high unemployment in the United States result from tax breaks to the wealthy and the massive amounting of wealth by the richest people in America. Well worth the watch.
This video shows Senator Bernie Sanders’ speech in the Senate discussing the extension of tax cuts for the middle class and against those for the richest Americans. His speech is passionate and rational. He points out that the economic crisis and the high unemployment in the United States result from tax breaks to the wealthy and the massive amounting of wealth by the richest people in America. Well worth the watch.
Sunday 5 December 2010
05/12/10 12:12 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | social justice
For any one, Catholic or otherwise, who thinks social justice is not as important as the well known hot-button issues, the first reading from Sunday 5 December 2010 might be kept in mind. It is Isaiah 11: 1-10
1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. 9 They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. 10 In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious.
St. Nicholas, Tax Cuts, and Unemployment Benefits
03/12/10 16:32 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
Reports today make note of the fact that the US Congress has passed a bill extending tax cuts for the middle class but not the upper class and, further, that such a bill has no chance to pass in the US Senate. The Senate and Republicans will most likely force an extension of tax cuts for everyone because, on their arguments, we should not raise taxes in a recession or economic down turn.
As we reflect this weekend on the upcoming celebration of St. Nicholas of Myra who gave to the poor, who is the patron saint of prostitutes, thieves, merchants, and children, it’s good to reflect how his own life gave perspective to the poor here. His most famous work, of course, is saving the three daughters of a poor man from prostitution by secretly giving a dowry for each. Here, we have the example of how a Christian would take out of his largesse to help the poor.
While it might be true that raising taxes during a recession is detrimental to the economy, we have to put this rule of thumb in perspective. First, much of our current economic recession results, in part, from government transferring large amounts of money from the poor to the rich, especially through tax cuts. Second, we have to realize that local, state, and national revenues are far short of what they need to be to help the marginalized, the unemployed, the children, and working poor of our country. An increase to modest levels of taxation on those making more than $250k per annum will not worsen the economy and will help governments respond to those in need, especially the unemployed and children. Children are especially vulnerable. The rich will continue to be able to send their children to private schools if their taxes are increased, whereas the poor will have even more cuts to their current school services without more revenues coming in.
At a political level, the inability of the democrats to have passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits and to extend tax cuts for the poor and middle class is a failure of nerve, a failure of principle, and a clear inadequacy to do what government has a clear responsibility for: taking care that all of its citizens have an opportunity for integral development.
Let us spend this weekend praying to St. Nicholas for the poor, the marginalized, the women who will have to turn to prostitution to feed their families, the children who will suffer from inadequate education, and for merchants -- but those who provided honest work at living wages to all and those who see only the bottom line.
As we reflect this weekend on the upcoming celebration of St. Nicholas of Myra who gave to the poor, who is the patron saint of prostitutes, thieves, merchants, and children, it’s good to reflect how his own life gave perspective to the poor here. His most famous work, of course, is saving the three daughters of a poor man from prostitution by secretly giving a dowry for each. Here, we have the example of how a Christian would take out of his largesse to help the poor.
While it might be true that raising taxes during a recession is detrimental to the economy, we have to put this rule of thumb in perspective. First, much of our current economic recession results, in part, from government transferring large amounts of money from the poor to the rich, especially through tax cuts. Second, we have to realize that local, state, and national revenues are far short of what they need to be to help the marginalized, the unemployed, the children, and working poor of our country. An increase to modest levels of taxation on those making more than $250k per annum will not worsen the economy and will help governments respond to those in need, especially the unemployed and children. Children are especially vulnerable. The rich will continue to be able to send their children to private schools if their taxes are increased, whereas the poor will have even more cuts to their current school services without more revenues coming in.
At a political level, the inability of the democrats to have passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits and to extend tax cuts for the poor and middle class is a failure of nerve, a failure of principle, and a clear inadequacy to do what government has a clear responsibility for: taking care that all of its citizens have an opportunity for integral development.
Let us spend this weekend praying to St. Nicholas for the poor, the marginalized, the women who will have to turn to prostitution to feed their families, the children who will suffer from inadequate education, and for merchants -- but those who provided honest work at living wages to all and those who see only the bottom line.